This can’t be a new idea but I thought I’d share it anyhow. Looking a bit further than my example of Amazon and the stand alone product site, I thought it would be fun to explore being a source vs being the source. Back in the day when things were harder to collect, filter and find, trusted sources were a big deal. When your favourite newspaper wrote something, it had a lot of power. Now the power lies in individual numbers though those numbers make it hard to figure out what is worth listening to. But it also means that those that felt they were the only source are now finding that isn’t the case anymore. People that weren’t part of the source now have the same ability to broadcast (if not better) a message that may have been ignored in the past.
So what’s a source to do when they thought they were the source but are being relegated to just a source? If anything, share their reason d’etre by not holding on to the past but by leading. Leading of course can mean a lot of things, but also to me it means doing things that are slightly out of a comfort zone. It means being inclusive but not at the risk of trying to be all things to all people. If a source does that they dilute everything they stand for. The advantages of being a source as opposed to the other way around is that it allows for experimentation. Someone else will be covering everything else so why not test new things or look at things that others take for granted? It also means a source doesn’t have assimilate into following the conventions of what the source thought were the rules to follow.