the haves and have-not's

Here's a chart showing the reach of a variety of innocent's digital channels. The stuff in rapid and steady growth at the minute (blue and orange lines) is the social media bits (twitter and facebook). It's all been organic growth, and it's only come about because we actually started at zero pretty early on. If we hadn't started when we did both of those lines would be a lot lower in short, and we'd be a have-not.

 

And here's a bit from an article I was reading in the New York Times a while a go about on singularity. 

And here's Google's Director of Research Peter Norvig in todays Observer, sounding a bit worried that Google might become a have-not.

 

When, and if, social media reaches tipping point there could quite easily be a divide in those that got in early and have (reach/ market share/ and lessons under their belts), and those that didn't and have-not.
 

Comments

[Asi]

almost spooky

there's a post in the oven (i don't get to it just because if i'll write another social media related post this week I'd be in a serious self-loathing mode)that talks exactly about the haves and the have-not's

Watch this space ;-)

[ted at innocent]

Will look forward to it. Have just updated this post with a Google quote from todays Observer as an aside.

You beat me to the 'make yourself useless agency', I beat you to haves and have-nots. Let's call it quits.