There is currently an incredibly high level of media publicity surrounding e-commerce, which is excellent as an awareness-raising exercise among business executives. However, the nature of much of that publicity, stoked up by innumerable vested interests including media firms themselves, is proving to be perplexing to many businesspeople, including the key decision-makers who have to decide on e-commerce strategy and investment.

For many, the effect of the hype is to lead them to do little or nothing, based on experience of past management fads and their instincts about biased publicity. Unfortunately, there are elements of truth in both these worries. We therefore urgently need the media to move to a much more responsible position in reporting on e-commerce. Researchers and reporters need to be able to distinguish quickly between the various types of hype and reality, and businesspeople need to be able to apply judgement in evaluating what they read.

Take technology announcements. Simply because a technology is announced is no guarantee that it will ever actually exist or be technically or economically viable. Journalists and businesspeople must hone their ability to distinguish between pious hopes, pilot schemes and actual products.

Then, of course, there are the endless 'dot.com' announcements. It is well understood in the venture capital and dot.com industries that the mass media play a vital role in amplifying the potential stock price of any actual or prospective dot.com.

Perhaps some kind of Michelin-style quality guide system is needed for dot.com announcements, or maybe even more relevant are the methods used to tip the winners of horse races. Economically, what matters in dot.coms is the creation of new business ideas, delivery channels or more efficient markets. The over-valuation of stocks which are not likely to meet these criteria are probably more a matter for the news or health pages than the business pages. A tipping system would cover:

Horse (the uniqueness or economic contribution of the actual underlying business idea);

Rider (the dot.com entrepreneur and in particular business acumen);

Owner (the venture capitalist);

Course Conditions (assessment of the market environment/size for this type of product);

Form (for sector/type more than individual players); and

Handicap (other negative factors)

Then there are the announcements relating to new initiatives in business-to-business activity, which are in the short term at least the most significant areas of interest for business decision makers.

There needs to be a clear distinction between existing activities, proceeding totally unchanged, but with an ‘e’ prefix added; existing activities, substantially unchanged except for the minor use of internet and e-mail; old business processes, with electronic communications added; re-engineering value and supply chains; and innovative products and processes.

When it comes to value and supply chain re-engineering announcements in particular, the media need to understand precisely the timing (exactly when will all this be actually working?) and the degree of innovation (is it already largely in existence?)

To summarise, facilities of various kinds are urgently needed for reliably evaluating announcements about the new economy and e-business. Sadly the traditional media seem to have lost their way. Maybe the real solution is to set up a dot.com offering just such reliable advice?