Rupert Murdoch announces the end of free access to news sites, the UK Times, The Sun as well as the WSJ and New York Post. He believes that by his charging for access to the news, the rest will follow suit.
Online news media is dominated in New Zealand by two players. Stuff.co.nz and NZHerald.co.nz. Both have won awards for content presentation. They represent two distinct divisions in media interests in New Zealand - the Herald is an Auckland based but nationally focused paper with a big circulation and that includes online. Stuff accepts feeds from various local papers. Both are free, presently. However the online content is abridged versions of what is published in the paper.
Online advertising has going through many hoops trying to find a business model and NZ Herald has used banner advertising as well as google. Stuff does the same.
What is wrong with Murdoch's idea? It is a reaction to a huge loss. If he had changed things a year ago, that loss would not have been. So why wait?
Because the competition is continuing to give the same news, the same vital stories that we read newspapers for, they are free elsewhere. This makes selling it online difficult unless you add value.
There is considerable antipathy in the online media world for the old world dictating conditions. For this reason it is doubtful that Murdoch will lead the world by charging for content. His brands have compelling content for its audience, so adding value to it seems natural.
The UK Guardian has added new lines of business - including a dating site - and paying for the print edition as online PDFs, and an excellent online discussion community. The NY Times has interesting social networked discussions. I even have a NYT follower. I can see a summary of all my posts. I would not mind paying a periodic subscription for either of these papers - but if the subscription was a barrier to involvement, maybe not. It is what other people write that is interesting.
The NZ Herald has a similar reader response zone - full of rants that are usually partisan anger that reduces the value. Contributions usually hide behind a web non-de-plume. That also reduces their value. The blogs carry zero comment icons too often. Stuff blogs seem a little more connected with their audience possibly due to attracting a younger set and more perceived balance in discussion? (Disclaimer - I have previously worked for the company that publishes the NZ Herald).
For a news site to charge it has to deliver something other than just re-blogging the news wire services. You can read the same stories in every paper. It is a long standing cabal - journalists share the news and thus appear to have far more to offer. There are a few journalists that are really worth reading.
Part of the reason is the business strategy of devaluing online content so the newspaper sells. The other reason is the devaluation of the art of discourse. It is impolite to say much more than a paragraph these days.
The "brand" is the current focus. The newspapers maintain an identity. The online version reflects the identity of the print version as that is where the advertisers are. They relied upon printing as the cost of entry but now suddenly have a million competitors. The online version has to have more value than the print version, but "social" networks they are not. Their forums should be democratic thermometers but social mediation occurs elsewhere.
The way for newspapers to make money is ... [sealed section]...
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Maybe it runs deeper than I thought?
My previous article, below, concerns why we need professional journalists and when I tweeted this, I lost more followers than any other tweet, so it made me think.
Just because the law needs to be respected and our media organizations are firing long standing voices with the journalistic vernacular I did not mean to sound like I particularly appreciated them, nor necessarily those left behind, neither.
The broad public have noticed how their rights in relation to their governments are more democratic now that the establishment media do not rule what is published - however legal responsibilities exist. Previously, when a tabloid did something that was covered by defamation laws, there was a pile of money for redress of such terrible sins. If you commit contempt of court as a journalist, then it may be career advancing as your media body rescues your butt from her majesty's service.
But, if a blogger comments on what an outcome in a trial should be, and they have a following who spread their view, they may feel immune from contempt charges as they are publishing to a "club" or select audience. In other words, privately.
This difference between public and private is indeed a sticky one. If for example I were to tweet the winning numbers in the next national lottery, the outcome is most likely to be a number of fools who take my word for it and rush down to the local newsagent. That is a system the truth can not cheat due to the nature of time.
But if I were to simply say I thought that Jack the Ripper was guilty as charged, then Jack may end up citing my prejudice as swaying the jury leaving him free to execute a few more sex workers with few legal hassles. Not such a great outcome.
Professional journalists are becoming extincted by free alternatives. How many other professions are facing similar redundancy due to evolving efficiency? You can not object to the phasing out of the old as we rush for the new, but in some cases we must hesitate. For example, TXTSPK is all well and good but is not a reason to forgo the beauty of the English Language.
But perhaps the problem with the media is that polarisation that used to work for them now does not. In some small way, Jerry Springer brought Oprah more viewers and vice versa. Now, the audience is far more cynical. The turn off factor is far greater now that you can get TV from all sorts of different places. Not just an authoritarian filter. Not just what the Press Barons have colluded with The Powers That Be should be inflated by the breath of authority.
Just because the law needs to be respected and our media organizations are firing long standing voices with the journalistic vernacular I did not mean to sound like I particularly appreciated them, nor necessarily those left behind, neither.
The broad public have noticed how their rights in relation to their governments are more democratic now that the establishment media do not rule what is published - however legal responsibilities exist. Previously, when a tabloid did something that was covered by defamation laws, there was a pile of money for redress of such terrible sins. If you commit contempt of court as a journalist, then it may be career advancing as your media body rescues your butt from her majesty's service.
But, if a blogger comments on what an outcome in a trial should be, and they have a following who spread their view, they may feel immune from contempt charges as they are publishing to a "club" or select audience. In other words, privately.
This difference between public and private is indeed a sticky one. If for example I were to tweet the winning numbers in the next national lottery, the outcome is most likely to be a number of fools who take my word for it and rush down to the local newsagent. That is a system the truth can not cheat due to the nature of time.
But if I were to simply say I thought that Jack the Ripper was guilty as charged, then Jack may end up citing my prejudice as swaying the jury leaving him free to execute a few more sex workers with few legal hassles. Not such a great outcome.
Professional journalists are becoming extincted by free alternatives. How many other professions are facing similar redundancy due to evolving efficiency? You can not object to the phasing out of the old as we rush for the new, but in some cases we must hesitate. For example, TXTSPK is all well and good but is not a reason to forgo the beauty of the English Language.
But perhaps the problem with the media is that polarisation that used to work for them now does not. In some small way, Jerry Springer brought Oprah more viewers and vice versa. Now, the audience is far more cynical. The turn off factor is far greater now that you can get TV from all sorts of different places. Not just an authoritarian filter. Not just what the Press Barons have colluded with The Powers That Be should be inflated by the breath of authority.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Balance of Truth
The Solicitor General's Office is investigating a Facebook page that seeks to predict the outcome of a case before the courts while the trial is in progress, thus prejudicially affecting the outcome.
Bloggers have to beware and be aware that saying anything about a case before the courts may affect outcomes. The above Facebook page may prevent a conviction whether one was a good idea or not, by attacking a defense, these vigilantes make the job of the police impossible.
They may have found justification from the other "publicly perceived" case of recent times. The supposed perception (or result of polling) of the public or the gathering of people prior to fair hearing is just a lynch mob.
The Media partly exists as a means for the public dissemination of the putrid details that we can discuss without damaging the state's ability to put away the monsters and dig out the unfortunates that get caught up in the justice juggernaut.
Blogging is a freedom of communication but does not replace the primary responsibility of the journalist, except for the most committed train spotters - bloggers only really can comment, most often they are not witnesses, but perhaps at their most relevant is when eyewitness to events feed the media with an immediate point of view. If blogging were the feed for the media there is a danger of an absence of any investigative journalism.
Where does the authenticity go when it is all just republishing? No, the media is more about local news and businesses than ever before.
As the major media outlets let people go with the lack of trust that the wheels will turn and people will spend and respond to advertising and online means are explored - a never ending experiment on the web. Those with software vision like Amazon now command great Empires of the new world.
But the Media has now to play its trump card. Before it lets go too many of its very talented. Hosting better public political debate and commentary will engage a huge audience and we have all the tools to produce a genuine public discussion where all voices can have meaning.
Reporters are needed to dig up the truth. To professionally find out. Most of us are too embarrassed or shy to persist long enough to dig up the dirt on the Bernie Madoffs that would deceive us. Criminality takes more than just enforcement to conquer. Information is freedom. Democracy can not be claimed without a free active and digging media, keeping them honest.
Social Integrity is not guaranteed without it.
Bloggers have to beware and be aware that saying anything about a case before the courts may affect outcomes. The above Facebook page may prevent a conviction whether one was a good idea or not, by attacking a defense, these vigilantes make the job of the police impossible.
They may have found justification from the other "publicly perceived" case of recent times. The supposed perception (or result of polling) of the public or the gathering of people prior to fair hearing is just a lynch mob.
The Media partly exists as a means for the public dissemination of the putrid details that we can discuss without damaging the state's ability to put away the monsters and dig out the unfortunates that get caught up in the justice juggernaut.
Blogging is a freedom of communication but does not replace the primary responsibility of the journalist, except for the most committed train spotters - bloggers only really can comment, most often they are not witnesses, but perhaps at their most relevant is when eyewitness to events feed the media with an immediate point of view. If blogging were the feed for the media there is a danger of an absence of any investigative journalism.
Where does the authenticity go when it is all just republishing? No, the media is more about local news and businesses than ever before.
As the major media outlets let people go with the lack of trust that the wheels will turn and people will spend and respond to advertising and online means are explored - a never ending experiment on the web. Those with software vision like Amazon now command great Empires of the new world.
But the Media has now to play its trump card. Before it lets go too many of its very talented. Hosting better public political debate and commentary will engage a huge audience and we have all the tools to produce a genuine public discussion where all voices can have meaning.
Reporters are needed to dig up the truth. To professionally find out. Most of us are too embarrassed or shy to persist long enough to dig up the dirt on the Bernie Madoffs that would deceive us. Criminality takes more than just enforcement to conquer. Information is freedom. Democracy can not be claimed without a free active and digging media, keeping them honest.
Social Integrity is not guaranteed without it.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How to save the media
Democracy is the product of the media.
Look at Iran. The state does not support a free press. As the government clamps down democracy breaks out all over the place supported by twitter and other free communications media. We in the West may be stupid at times, but hooking humanity together with the Internet may have been the best thing we could have done to ensure lasting freedom for the individual.
The way to save the media from this implosion of free information abundance seems to be to start to value the input of the free media and that is pretty much what happens - the online blogger becomes part of the media.
But it is a slow process as the displacement of real journalists by opinionated people who do not do the leg work is NOT the media. Which is why twitter works so well, it employs the masses to do something they were already doing with their mobile phones, and in 140 chars there is a certain equality that transcends many barriers.
It is a place where unlikely subjects also thrive, philosophy is best exposed to the masses in small chunks. Poetry is possible in 140 chars.
Twitter has taken the bloggers away from competing with the media and into a new role, - that of sustaining the media with information. We know what is happening in Iran due to the fluidity of the medium that the government is unable to suppress. That is a new thing for dictators to contend with, it is technocrats who are revolting now.
Twitter has another effect. It has got us reading newspapers again. Newspapers are publishing our opinions and democracy is more tangible than ever. Does the market want this? Of course it does.
Look at Iran. The state does not support a free press. As the government clamps down democracy breaks out all over the place supported by twitter and other free communications media. We in the West may be stupid at times, but hooking humanity together with the Internet may have been the best thing we could have done to ensure lasting freedom for the individual.
The way to save the media from this implosion of free information abundance seems to be to start to value the input of the free media and that is pretty much what happens - the online blogger becomes part of the media.
But it is a slow process as the displacement of real journalists by opinionated people who do not do the leg work is NOT the media. Which is why twitter works so well, it employs the masses to do something they were already doing with their mobile phones, and in 140 chars there is a certain equality that transcends many barriers.
It is a place where unlikely subjects also thrive, philosophy is best exposed to the masses in small chunks. Poetry is possible in 140 chars.
Twitter has taken the bloggers away from competing with the media and into a new role, - that of sustaining the media with information. We know what is happening in Iran due to the fluidity of the medium that the government is unable to suppress. That is a new thing for dictators to contend with, it is technocrats who are revolting now.
Twitter has another effect. It has got us reading newspapers again. Newspapers are publishing our opinions and democracy is more tangible than ever. Does the market want this? Of course it does.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Real Journalist
The art of Journalism is under threat. In this article, it seems that the internet is to blame, that news blogs such as this little family unfairly use the news medium for free. This blog rarely quotes from news media but does link to their stories, and if all bloggers were to subscribe to a code of non-parasitic behavior, it would serve the media to some degree but I do not believe that bloggers really have that much power or relevance. If someone reads your little rant, well its great - but this is not Journalism in the true sense. It is also true that real journalism has arisen from blogs - such as the Huffington Post or TPM - both which are successful media outlets in their own right.
Who ever said that the media should not charge subscriptions to content was simply lying. Of course they should. But to have a shared wire service and claim copyright to it is disingenuous if a local paper does not also produce and submit great local coverage. Or balanced political coverage.
The rise of blogging was due in part to a failure of the media to respond to 9/11 more accurately. The media analysis of the Bush administration took too long to become objective. Weblogs were ahead of the media in speaking out without a muzzle. But ineffective in the main. The political sway of a blog is usually not that great.
Newspapers have far more political influence and effect. It is that they should be paid for, but as political transparency is a right rather than a product, it is hard to charge for it. Nobody would support tax payer subsidies for journalism, but if we citizens expect good quality news, we have to be prepared to support the efforts of the great news outlets, the ones that have embraced and evolved on the web have a far great chance of dominating the future.
Newspapers need to become online publications with full copyright protection. A more nominal annual subscription should become the norm. For growth, a free model is important also, but the news media had better be careful what they are claiming is exclusively theirs.
When news media publish online photography, youtube videos or quote bloggers they should also be paying a reasonable fee for these services. The internet lends itself to community news sites. News papers are replacing TV reportage with online video. So what is next?
Who ever said that the media should not charge subscriptions to content was simply lying. Of course they should. But to have a shared wire service and claim copyright to it is disingenuous if a local paper does not also produce and submit great local coverage. Or balanced political coverage.
The rise of blogging was due in part to a failure of the media to respond to 9/11 more accurately. The media analysis of the Bush administration took too long to become objective. Weblogs were ahead of the media in speaking out without a muzzle. But ineffective in the main. The political sway of a blog is usually not that great.
Newspapers have far more political influence and effect. It is that they should be paid for, but as political transparency is a right rather than a product, it is hard to charge for it. Nobody would support tax payer subsidies for journalism, but if we citizens expect good quality news, we have to be prepared to support the efforts of the great news outlets, the ones that have embraced and evolved on the web have a far great chance of dominating the future.
Newspapers need to become online publications with full copyright protection. A more nominal annual subscription should become the norm. For growth, a free model is important also, but the news media had better be careful what they are claiming is exclusively theirs.
When news media publish online photography, youtube videos or quote bloggers they should also be paying a reasonable fee for these services. The internet lends itself to community news sites. News papers are replacing TV reportage with online video. So what is next?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Computer Time
Its not business time. Its computer time.
Time spent staring at the screen. Computer addicts are sometimes surrounded by multiple screens, no doubt despairingly unwrapped for a me tube video expression.
Expression. The democratization of art. The dilution of the power of it.
By littering the information highway with absolute tosh, we are constantly exposed to anyones' choice of media fodder. Not just what clever reporters in their overcoats could muster with their sharp pens and hammering keys; not even what an educated person has to say, it no longer has such sway as the grey breath of Ms, Mrs and Mr Average (listed in order of importance).
The next pink hairdye wash is going to tickle you with inanity. The next smart alec who can grab your attention. The next viral gimmick that generates instant audiences of millions has democratised fame, its advantage. Suddenly as we all become the reflections of our selves we feel our horizons are being expanded.
Nothing that a good brisk walk in the Himalayas would not fix. Especially this miasma of media chuck sized, boiled down snippets of instinct we somehow should show our democratic will by counting our viewer statistic and there you have it - in a marketable package - fame for the common man. Big brother for everyone. Our private lands have become open to the minds of strangers and our mental horizons out-pace our social or ultimately business connection in the virtual world, our senses are bombarded by instinct activating messages to give you that thrill and excitement you so crave, along with that "sticky" medium. Chat.
That other humans are the ultimate addiction is now apparent. That what we sense, a social bond, is now able to follow paths of instinctive desire has meant an extraordinary pattern of intellectual leverage is now possible. These computer games prove that there is more to social contact than our bodies pressing together in a collaboration that thrills with its inherent sin. That sensation is also sold and delivered. Another instinct served.
So why not food. Try eating an electron, or the image from your 32 inch flat screen monitor. Not that tasty. The stimulation of other senses (the scratch'n'sniff product line) online is more Matrix like than Orwellian. 1984 was well dated. My daughter was born that year. For me it is the start of the new future, and thus the death of the old. 1984 thus stands as the spiritual division of the millenium. No doubt some contorted calendar variances will be discovered to account for that difference. News fills the gaps we leave for it to fill the media with its fodder, information. It does not matter so much if it is relevant, or even reverent. It happened, so lets trust that people out there will be interested.
Most markets work upon expectation. Working against that is the task of the speculator. Second guessing everyone, they only really pay when most of the rest of us are doing extremely well, thank-you. The most conservative investors control huge rivers not just of capital as money, but more of capital as debt. The world's balance sheet could be more properly called an Imbalance sheet.
Maybe it is time to question the inherent nationalism and racism that independently traded currency enables. Maybe interest rates are in fact a good thing. Perhaps, instead of a theory about economic mathematics, we could just plan to do what we want to see happen - in a budget - rather than always cutting back to what we must afford and thus eliminating qualitative improvements while supporting a commercial imperative like "market research say make more SUVs!" when clearly, the US economy and the world could never really sustain them; but the point here is that by providing economic logic that supports doing something that is not the result of intelligent assessment but the brute force of market conditions we are selecting things like extensive unemployment, violence and war, false social morality disguised as Christianity - are these things valuable? Economists are like med-evil surgeons, with a "we will hack off your limbs until you feel better" approach to human existence. Economists have a religion that requires you to fit into the social hierachy of a tax bracket. If you did not, you would be treated like a heretic.
Social order means the protection of wealth by any means possible, and that is an economy in its own right. And so is catering for the security guards. Social independence is not an option, unless you win the lottery and then society may develop lower meaning for you. If you make a fortune in business, then it must make you feel worthy to give it all away. Going to work every day to save the lives of people who live somewhere else is morality. Killing people because "we will never see eye to eye" is simply a lie.
What convinces recruits to sign up for war? What convinces people to engage in virtual war? Are these two things at all similar?
If repeating our experiences is what enjoyment is about, then it seems a little odd that a game should in fact teach us anything. It teaches us the human value of cooperation. We do not learn it from television.
It has occurred to many that a great big computer game with political consequences would be a way to replace physical war. What is to stop a bomb going off anyway?
Human instinct. The game would be more important than anything. There is no point in death when you are ahead in points. Or have to catch up. The game would be protected and enshrined as the source of the world's common currency.
Time spent staring at the screen. Computer addicts are sometimes surrounded by multiple screens, no doubt despairingly unwrapped for a me tube video expression.
Expression. The democratization of art. The dilution of the power of it.
By littering the information highway with absolute tosh, we are constantly exposed to anyones' choice of media fodder. Not just what clever reporters in their overcoats could muster with their sharp pens and hammering keys; not even what an educated person has to say, it no longer has such sway as the grey breath of Ms, Mrs and Mr Average (listed in order of importance).
The next pink hairdye wash is going to tickle you with inanity. The next smart alec who can grab your attention. The next viral gimmick that generates instant audiences of millions has democratised fame, its advantage. Suddenly as we all become the reflections of our selves we feel our horizons are being expanded.
Nothing that a good brisk walk in the Himalayas would not fix. Especially this miasma of media chuck sized, boiled down snippets of instinct we somehow should show our democratic will by counting our viewer statistic and there you have it - in a marketable package - fame for the common man. Big brother for everyone. Our private lands have become open to the minds of strangers and our mental horizons out-pace our social or ultimately business connection in the virtual world, our senses are bombarded by instinct activating messages to give you that thrill and excitement you so crave, along with that "sticky" medium. Chat.
That other humans are the ultimate addiction is now apparent. That what we sense, a social bond, is now able to follow paths of instinctive desire has meant an extraordinary pattern of intellectual leverage is now possible. These computer games prove that there is more to social contact than our bodies pressing together in a collaboration that thrills with its inherent sin. That sensation is also sold and delivered. Another instinct served.
So why not food. Try eating an electron, or the image from your 32 inch flat screen monitor. Not that tasty. The stimulation of other senses (the scratch'n'sniff product line) online is more Matrix like than Orwellian. 1984 was well dated. My daughter was born that year. For me it is the start of the new future, and thus the death of the old. 1984 thus stands as the spiritual division of the millenium. No doubt some contorted calendar variances will be discovered to account for that difference. News fills the gaps we leave for it to fill the media with its fodder, information. It does not matter so much if it is relevant, or even reverent. It happened, so lets trust that people out there will be interested.
Most markets work upon expectation. Working against that is the task of the speculator. Second guessing everyone, they only really pay when most of the rest of us are doing extremely well, thank-you. The most conservative investors control huge rivers not just of capital as money, but more of capital as debt. The world's balance sheet could be more properly called an Imbalance sheet.
Maybe it is time to question the inherent nationalism and racism that independently traded currency enables. Maybe interest rates are in fact a good thing. Perhaps, instead of a theory about economic mathematics, we could just plan to do what we want to see happen - in a budget - rather than always cutting back to what we must afford and thus eliminating qualitative improvements while supporting a commercial imperative like "market research say make more SUVs!" when clearly, the US economy and the world could never really sustain them; but the point here is that by providing economic logic that supports doing something that is not the result of intelligent assessment but the brute force of market conditions we are selecting things like extensive unemployment, violence and war, false social morality disguised as Christianity - are these things valuable? Economists are like med-evil surgeons, with a "we will hack off your limbs until you feel better" approach to human existence. Economists have a religion that requires you to fit into the social hierachy of a tax bracket. If you did not, you would be treated like a heretic.
Social order means the protection of wealth by any means possible, and that is an economy in its own right. And so is catering for the security guards. Social independence is not an option, unless you win the lottery and then society may develop lower meaning for you. If you make a fortune in business, then it must make you feel worthy to give it all away. Going to work every day to save the lives of people who live somewhere else is morality. Killing people because "we will never see eye to eye" is simply a lie.
What convinces recruits to sign up for war? What convinces people to engage in virtual war? Are these two things at all similar?
If repeating our experiences is what enjoyment is about, then it seems a little odd that a game should in fact teach us anything. It teaches us the human value of cooperation. We do not learn it from television.
It has occurred to many that a great big computer game with political consequences would be a way to replace physical war. What is to stop a bomb going off anyway?
Human instinct. The game would be more important than anything. There is no point in death when you are ahead in points. Or have to catch up. The game would be protected and enshrined as the source of the world's common currency.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Falseness in Advertising
Ever see an ad that says "Kiwi Mum makes it big"? Or does the one you see say "Japanese Mother shows wise investment path" or "American Mom gets the big bucks"? All these lead to the same site. I only see the Kiwi version, being from New Zealand but after seeing Kiwi Bloke and Kiwi Grandma also making it big, I realise these ingenious little ads are computer generated. Look up the IP address and blammo. You got yourself a "personalised ad". But you have not. You just have a bunch of labels that are approximate guesses at your demographic based on something you already know about yourself. Where you are.
Being told things that identify your demographic is deceptive. Sure they may be making google money and they may even be true in a generalised sense - yes - it is true - a Kiwi mum has made it big - somewhere. It does not mean that the advertising is going to lead the interested to the same pile of dosh, does it.
The great thing about disingenuous advertising is that it helps pay people who have nothing to offer. Ponzi/Pyramid schemes get shut down but time wasters? "Find out who has a crush on you" sounds harmless enough, until you get sucked into paying for the text message saying something like "It is someone you know, better than you think!" for $3.49
The explosion of "new media" - conversational software like Twitter - is partly due to the totally variant and interesting voice of random individuals. It is a delightful modernist exercise. It so often publishes our inner voice. It's public nature mimics the walls of denial we throw about ourselves called "privacy". Twitter shows this to be a construct. We have built walls about ourselves to prevent the intrusion of the generic. The advert that attempts to sucker us into a scam.
Free web tools that do so much more than the gimmicky rip offs that ramp up the mobile bills for the 20 something set are becoming the default method of communicative socialising. This is not due to their efficiency but the degree of broadcast spread potential. Anyone can be "famous".
But the same old ads get churned up because only the mobile companies have masses of cash. This is the next bubble. Generational wealth transfer by provision of the useless to the mindless. The problem is not that google makes money from running these ads - it is that it loses relevance as people learn to ignore them.
Advertising is about to evolve hugely. We have not yet found the answer to prevent the death of the medium. It seems to want to convince us that it is annoying and irrelevant. Google should provide an editor to provide some value to their ads.
Television commercials in France are sometimes works of art. The return of art to the medium of advertising means great writing, great imagery and a really good product behind the advert.
The boom in social networking is due to a postmodern need for authenticity combined with the modernist need for historical relevance and place. If celebrities use the service and I make friends with them, then the idea or promise of it is the value imparted. It is an illusion - but entertainment is a product.
You do not need to pay $3.49 for a text message joke or chat room access. Advertising fake products can not survive in this connected world.
Being told things that identify your demographic is deceptive. Sure they may be making google money and they may even be true in a generalised sense - yes - it is true - a Kiwi mum has made it big - somewhere. It does not mean that the advertising is going to lead the interested to the same pile of dosh, does it.
The great thing about disingenuous advertising is that it helps pay people who have nothing to offer. Ponzi/Pyramid schemes get shut down but time wasters? "Find out who has a crush on you" sounds harmless enough, until you get sucked into paying for the text message saying something like "It is someone you know, better than you think!" for $3.49
The explosion of "new media" - conversational software like Twitter - is partly due to the totally variant and interesting voice of random individuals. It is a delightful modernist exercise. It so often publishes our inner voice. It's public nature mimics the walls of denial we throw about ourselves called "privacy". Twitter shows this to be a construct. We have built walls about ourselves to prevent the intrusion of the generic. The advert that attempts to sucker us into a scam.
Free web tools that do so much more than the gimmicky rip offs that ramp up the mobile bills for the 20 something set are becoming the default method of communicative socialising. This is not due to their efficiency but the degree of broadcast spread potential. Anyone can be "famous".
But the same old ads get churned up because only the mobile companies have masses of cash. This is the next bubble. Generational wealth transfer by provision of the useless to the mindless. The problem is not that google makes money from running these ads - it is that it loses relevance as people learn to ignore them.
Advertising is about to evolve hugely. We have not yet found the answer to prevent the death of the medium. It seems to want to convince us that it is annoying and irrelevant. Google should provide an editor to provide some value to their ads.
Television commercials in France are sometimes works of art. The return of art to the medium of advertising means great writing, great imagery and a really good product behind the advert.
The boom in social networking is due to a postmodern need for authenticity combined with the modernist need for historical relevance and place. If celebrities use the service and I make friends with them, then the idea or promise of it is the value imparted. It is an illusion - but entertainment is a product.
You do not need to pay $3.49 for a text message joke or chat room access. Advertising fake products can not survive in this connected world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)