|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Would Someone Want Their Own Website Anyway?
There aren't a lot of related statistics, but according to a poll by NFO Interactive published in WIRED magazine in October 1997,
62% of those with personal sites simply what to provide information about themselves and their families, presumably to friends and other family members.
48% are using their personal sites to find others on the Internet (in other words, in the world) with similar interests.
28% just want to be "cool" (well, at least they're honest)
28% want to conduct personal business
28% want to share their ideas, philosophies, and beliefs
6% want to show their childrens' accomplishments
and, lastly, 4% want to search for a new relationship (thankfully, this is a low number).
While commenting on these figures, in an uncharacteristically non-supportive but characteristically snotty view of technology, WIRED wrote: "Sadly, most pages are simply self-aggrandizing autobiographies or digital photo albums." But just what is it that WIRED expected personal websites to be? Even if this were true, what's so wrong with it? Why is it "sad?" Why the need for the high-brow sarcasm? WIRED's own digital offerings are hardly faring much better than the best of the personal websites--if at all. I suspect that this is a reaction to a perceived threat, and perhaps WIRED and the rest of the publishing world does, indeed, have something to worry about.
As is usual with new media and technology, we tend to wrongly view the new as different than what has come before merely because it is unusual. However, personal websites are close cousins to journals, photo albums, diaries, and holiday letters. In all the important ways, they are not new at all, but merely the latest evolution of personal expression. Would WIRED have said the same about family reunions? Would their expectations for a family's personal history retold be of selfless devotion to issues other than their families, or to journalism's myth of objectivity? What's wrong with people describing themselves and telling their own stories--especially in a medium that requires the audience to consciously come to it (after all, personal websites don't just pop-up intrusively like television ads or the dreaded interstitial?)
I suspect that the entire publishing industry--especially The New York Times and even WIRED--is threatened by the thought that people might be happy to communicate with each other, to share their own ideas, stories, and beliefs. For every eyeball and minute spent interacting with the work of another person, it is one less spent with more sanctioned, published opinions. It is as if the publishing industry, or WIRED at least, believes that their voices--their perspectives and relevance--will be diminished when everyone has the opportunity to have their own voice. Of course, the media have nothing to worry about, in some senses. People will always look to reasoned, interesting, insightful opinions and analysis, but what traditional publishers do need to worry about is that when everyone has a voice, they will feel incredible pressure (and competition) that will require them to become more insightful, more relevant, and more valuable. They will no longer have a monopoly on publishing and personal websites will force them to finally offer quality reporting and information instead of merely showing up with gossip in a timely fashion.
There are already many kinds of personal websites and the lines are hazily drawn between what could be called a "professional" website and a "personal" one. These days, it has gotten increasingly difficult to separate the personal and the professional in our lives, and our websites are no different. In fact, they make a good bellwether of what we consider personal and not. This division will either get more distinct in the near future, or become irrelevant altogether. SO let's go on a bit of a tour...
www.nathan.com | experience design | thoughts | projects | inspirations | photography | me