Every year now there’s just another report telling us that all media is down in numbers. It doesn’t matter if it’s TV, books, newspapers, music industry, or the box office but they’re is always someone complaining. There’s always someone else to blame as well. For TV it’s supposedly reality TV and the internet, newspapers blame it on specialty magazines and the internet, while the music and movie industry blame it on piracy and the internet. Anyone else notice the trend here?
For every complaint there’s the common thread of the internet destroying business as we know it. What’s so wrong about that? Is the world so scared of change that it refuses to see the obvious? The answer is yes, we’ve always been afraid to change and the coming domination of the internet is no exception. The real question is who will be the first to come up with a real business model for the internet. It may be micropayments, ad space, or simple donations but somewhere out there is at least one solution if not a thousand others.
The mass media has just gotten comfortable and would rather wallow in technological denial than evolve. We saw similar arguments with things like recordable VHS, but never anything approaching the REVOLUTION that the internet is really evolving into (or already has).
What I find funny is the fact that marketing that really conforms to this new method of communication tends to well, at least comparitively. Back in 2001, the band Wilco posted \”Yankee Hotel Foxtrot\” for download online during the brief time it had no label. It got so much buzz that, when Nonesuch Records picked it up and released it, it went to No.13 in the album charts here in the US… with absolutely NO SINGLES to promote the thing.
Business needs to realize that in order to stop the internet from taking chunks out of their business, they should stop making it something to work AGAINST, and instead work WITH it. Reverse the odds against you. It\’s plain logic… the problem is that it isn\’t cheap and it isn\’t easy… but neither is what they\’re doing now.
– Tyler \”Comment Way Too Much\” Sticka
Devil\’s advocate here: Film is a selling medium by design. Television is an advertising medium by design. The Internet is a sharing medium by design. Sharing is nice, but it doesn\’t make anyone any money.
That\’s the source of the very real fear in traditional media. If there were a clear economic model for newspapers on the Internet, then newspapers would still fear change, but not as much and not as unilaterally. As it is, even the newspapers who are trying online models are crossing their fingers and praying to God this works.
The notion that getting online and giving stuff away gives you a \”name\” which you can then parlay into cash only goes so far. Thousands of losers with blogs are trying to do what Wilco did. And Wilco\’s model only works if there\’s a music business LEFT to profit from. Which, y\’know, doesn\’t happen if everyone shares and nobody buys.
iTunes and companies like it are offering hints of hope. But it really is scary out there for the professional content provider. Indeed it won\’t be cheap or easy…
Internet is a pronoun, by the way. Capital I.
Yes, I\’m looking at you, TYLAH!
I\’ve read a few articles on the capitalization of the word \”internet,\” and my discovery has been that it\’s not a very interesting topic and not really worth my time to correct the matter, especially when the usage seems to be in such a state of flux: Wired News: It\’s just the \’internet\’ now, Chicago Manual of Style
I apologize for my lack of correctedness, but I don\’t think anyone\’s going to not know what I\’m talking about because there\’s a dot over the first letter.
T Campbell: I agree with everything you said, honestly. I\’m an optimist at heart, and perhaps my brain just wanted to jump twenty years into the future where my comments might (MIGHT) be completely plausible?
I\’m with Tyler on the lower case \”i\” for internet. That Wired article convinced me.
I didn\’t read the article, but I\’m English so by default I\’m correct.
It\’s okay, don\’t take me seriously.
Also – and I kick myself for double commenting because that\’s lame – I\’d capitalise (s, correct English language ;D) the I in Internet because it\’s not merely a form of entertainment etc., but an actual place. In my books that earns it the same position as the name of a person, or a town: James in Hull uses the Internet.
::eyes glaze over::
::goes back to drawing silly cartoons::
I would compare the internet to tv mostly.
Some websites are similiar to public TV. No commercials (ads). Mostly educational. (blogs anyone?)
Others are similiar to the major networks on TV. Ad driven. (Have you ever advertised on TV…unless you chunk down a couple of million you will get about the same results as you get with banner ads on the internet.)
Still others are similiar to pay TV like HBO. No ads. Cost you money to be entertained. (playboy.com)
It will all come around. TV will merge with the internet one day and the idea of Interactive TV will finally be realized.
just my 2 cents.
Brian