The November/December edition of Foreign Affairs featured an interesting essay by Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen on 'The Digital Disruption', the idea that the digital revolution is making autocracy and oppressive regimes less viable around the world. Looking at this piece alongside our discussions of the power of digital marketing raises a fundamental question:
Can oppressive regimes avail themselves of the business benefits of digital marketing without pushing their governments towards transparency?
Economies like China and Russia must allow both domestic and international companies to use digital marketing tactics -- including social media -- to stay competitive. Closing these channels would be a distinct disadvantage to doing business. But the nature of these technologies also require that individuals are comfortable enough to reveal some level of personal detail on the web.
While Schmidt and Cohen focus primarily on the idea that social media connects people in ways that allow them to coordinate and digitally congregate around ideas, I would argue that the business potential of social media is equally important. You can't shut down social media if it is a primary driver of economic growth for retail and services companies. And the potential to drive massive change only exists if oppressive regimes choose to keep social media active and free of perceived government control.
No comments:
Post a Comment