The problem with "being everywhere"

Being everywhere is often mistaken for being relevant. In reality, omnipresence usually signals a lack of direction.

Cultural projects and organizations adopt new platforms, formats, and channels in response to pressure — not strategy. Each addition feels necessary, but together they fragment attention and weaken coherence.

Presence multiplies. Meaning dissipates.

When a project tries to speak to everyone, it stops speaking clearly to anyone.

Different platforms demand different rhythms, languages, and behaviors. Without a central system, adapting to all of them forces the project to constantly reshape itself. Over time, the original intent becomes unrecognizable.

This is not expansion. It is dispersion.

Being everywhere also creates operational strain. Teams spend more time maintaining presence than developing substance. Decisions are driven by algorithms rather than criteria.

A strategic presence is selective. It prioritizes depth over reach. It chooses platforms that reinforce structure instead of undermining it. It understands absence as a form of clarity.

Not every space deserves occupation. Not every channel deserves content.

Infrastructure allows projects to be present without being scattered. It creates a center from which communication can extend — without collapsing. Being everywhere is easy. Being coherent is harder. But only one of the two is sustainable.