afew:

What's my point? That pretending to be big and significant, though doubtless necessary, is far from sufficient.

So I said don't do what nef did? As for twenty years time, you don't know, I don't know, no one does.

I'm simply trying to put a bit of realism and balance into this subthread. But since that apparently ain't cool, I'll drop out.

Media weight (overnight celebrity apart) comes from track record. Networks can gain media weight faster than hierarchical organizations because each member of a new network brings in their own track record of connections and achievements. That can create a new 'personality' for a branded network much faster than a hierarchical organization can change its perceived 'personality'.

Top-down organizations tend to be represented by their chief officers (who can you name but Branson out of his entire empire?). With networked organizations there tend to be many (distributed) representatives. This means that it fairly easy to stress different aspects of the personality of the group (Think John, Paul, George and Ringo).

From a media perspective, there are more stories to follow. More stories mean more weight. (after a critical point).

What we (ET) haven't learned yet to do is to better exploit our own networks to get that media weight.

I agree with your main thrust. Though it may not be clear from these meanderings ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken