Skip to content

Public property

I really liked the poetry of a news/publishing company owned by its members/subscribers, but it isn’t going to happen.

Put simply, the legal hoops such a company would face, from restrictions on its ability to finance itself to limits on the numbers of members, mean that creating such a creature would be an unwieldy, time-consuming, and very expensive task. Why bother, when a company limited by shares is so much simpler.

Of course, I may revisit the theme at a later date, as the idea of a cooperative structure (whether for freelancing contributor/owners, or for subscribers, or a combination of both) still appeals to me. But not today.

“Social” is over used. Just as a decade ago, the prefix “e-” was shoved in front of every product, everything is now social. Social media. Social marketing. But social is often a mile wide and an inch deep, as the distinction between “facebook” and “real” friends illustrates.

Social media advocates (too many of whom call themselves ‘guru’ or ‘ninja’) talk a lot about “ownership”. Build a community, and the crowds will come if they have a sense of ownership.

I have a simpler question. Instead of metaphor, why not create real ownership?

Image via Morguefile.com