Posted: December 14, 2010 | Author: timdyson | Filed under: media, New TV Channel, News, newspapers, TV | Tags: news, role of media, role of social media |
It used to be that we craved perspective and information from the media, largely because this was our only option (well apart from going to the pub with our loud mouthed friends I guess). Anyway, it’s clear that the media got really good at influencing our behavior, likes and dislikes. It’s also clear that it got awfully complacent. So when social media arrived it kind of ignored it. Journalists often decried bloggers as amateurs. How right they were. If they’d thought about it a bit longer maybe they’d have realized that being an amateur can have its advantages. The media was also slow to appreciate that people don’t care who gives them their news, their insight and perspective. They just care that it is accurate and that it engages them. We were loyal to media channels because our only choice was another media channel. Given a completely different choice, many of us took it. This isn’t to say the media is irrelevant and should become an historical footnote. The media is potentially more relevant than ever. Our world is becoming more and more complex and the expectations of the population ever more sophisticated. We want to know, to be entertained and to be educated right now and in a way that we want. We want live video and close up photos of the most obscure moments, not just the moments when presidents are shot. We want to share our thoughts and hear the thoughts of others on what is happening. We also want to act on the decisions this content may provoke. All this and more is possible through the media, yet for some reason the media still chooses to limit the ways we participate in their process and they our lives. So we turn to Facebook, Twitter and other social networks to learn, laugh and get stuff done. As a result, the newspapers lie unread at the end of the driveway, the magazines in the dentist office curl at the edges and the TV stays turned off. It’s not too late for the media but the media has to adapt to the new world. It has to accept that it has competition for our attention. Until it does, editorial teams will get smaller and magazines thinner. Blame will of course be put on advertisers but we all know that advertisers are the effect and not the cause. Come on media, get social, get engaged and show us what you’re made of. And stop being so precious about the ‘role’ of the media. Yes, you have a role but that role is to get us engaged, laughing, crying and doing not just listening to one point of view.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: June 3, 2010 | Author: timdyson | Filed under: advertising, Apple, Blogging, media, Murdoch, NBC, New TV Channel, News, News Corp, newspapers, Social meda, Steve Jobs, WSJ | Tags: Paying for media |
We all consume media on a daily basis. We love the stuff but we are paying less and less for it as our parents die and we all get our content online. And as we all know, news online is almost all FREE. Free isn’t a business model that really works for media. Good journalism is expensive and tough to support through online advertising. Rupert Murdoch has responded aggressively to this by putting a charge on many sites such as WSJ.com. This hasn’t worked too well in part because you can still get to the content through a Google search for free. He’s threatening to change all that though for the simple reason that they are struggling to make the economics work even with an online subscription model in place.
I have a suggestion for Mr Murdoch and other media moguls. In the same way that we pay a cable fee in this country and even a TV license in the UK, why not charge a monthly media fee that would enable you to access all the media without having multiple subscriptions. You’d need an aggregator such as Apple’s iTunes to get in to the mix but I’m pretty convinced that in the same way as people will pay $10 a month for satellite radio, they’d pay $10 a month to access the top 100 publications in the US. Now there’d be a challenge figuring out which magazine or newspaper got what out of that $10 each month but I’m pretty sure it could be worked out. It would also enable one player to take over the challenge of managing the online advertising for a host of publications, instead of having a fragmented model as they do today. It would also mean as a user that you would only need one login. I’d almost pay $10 a month just for that as I keep forgetting what username and password I have for various online titles.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Posted: May 2, 2008 | Author: timdyson | Filed under: Apple, New TV Channel, YouTube |
Years ago I sat in while a journalist interviewed Bill Gates. A PC was on the desk with Windows running. In most of the windows there were Microsoft applications but in one there was a TV show. I was spell bound. It was like I was watching TV for the first time. My awe struck state came crashing to earth moments later when Bill said: “We’ve finally been able to turn a $3000 machine into a $200 TV set.” His point was clear. Who really needed to have a window on their computer that could show TV channels when in most homes there was already a device that did it much better at a much lower price.
This of course was before the Internet took off and people decided they liked to spend a good portion of their previously allocated TV time surfing the Internet. Web based TV has been very slow in coming but thanks to YouTube efforts to bridge the gap between web surfer and TV watcher seem to be gaining pace. Enter the latest version of Apple TV which, along with all your iTunes and iPhoto content, has a YouTube option that allows you to search and select your favorite content. In effect this turns YouTube into another channel on your TV. Right now most of the content on YouTube is pretty grainy making it a poor relation in the channel stakes. My guess is that this will change. But it also occurs to me that if Apple can effectively turn YouTube into a TV channel, couldn’t they also become a natural home for a host of other channels? I’m pretty sure someone could come up with an Internet alternative TV network. One that uses the functionality of the web as well as its obvious distribution benefits. How long before there is an Apple TV Guide?
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.