Impact of New Media

Although not very fresh by its cases used (Napster), the chapter on the affects of the Internet on media economics by Doyle was rather interesting to read, as I have not seen yet many academic writings which forwardly suggest/implement that Internet is destroying the revenue streams for the media enterprises. 

This “shocking” knowledge was not new then (2002), nor is it now 8 years later. In the middle of this ongoing recession, the media in Estonia and elsewhere is more and more raising the issue of whether or not information produced by the old media should be free as the consumers are used to until now.

As stated by Ken Berry on the chapter (156), “[...] it will affect every area of the entertainment industry”, the affects being the loss of revenue for the producers and owners of the industry.

In an effort to support and yet justify the outcome of what Berry was warning people from at the year 2000, I will look at three cases, where the new media (Internet based) has altered or even extinguished the old media.

YouTube and MTV

One of the interesting lectures I have had the pleasure of attending to was called “International Media & Media Management”. At one of the seminars held, the faculty raised the question whether or not the appearance of MTV in Estonia (in 2006 entered the market as “MTV Eesti”) was a positive or a negative sight to our youth culture. At the time all of the students agreed that although shallow in its message, the channel’s entry to our media sphere should be greeted as it closeness us to the European media environment.

What the faculty said after that, is now a good example of what the new media is doing to the old channels.

MTV has over the time been trying to capture the attention and affection of the youth. In this new era of youth it is apparent, that the ways to capture the youth’s attention need methods born together with them. MTV with its old ways of promoting and distributing media would not work for their young audience, was the statement made by the faculty.

Today this is imminent, as MTV Eesti closed down at the end of year 2009 and it is clear, that they will never return. Why did this happen? Management blamed the recession and the decrease of marketing throughout the country.

I myself (and many more) would rather look at the way our children are consuming the products MTV had to offer. My 16 year old brother has never seen a music video (at least knowingly waited for it) through the television. He consumes his music through YouTube, having his favourite songs generated to playlists and then listening them when wanting to. The value of YouTube raises more when the freshness and interactivity are brought in. YouTube has a great system of generating recommended content based on the current playlists my brother has and also the site is constantly filled with fresh updates on new music and its remixes.

With the PC being linked to my brother’s TV set, there is now no reason my brother to want to watch MTV again.

So the classical way of collecting revenue (doing business) for MTV is over. And maybe the time for MTV is over all together. 

DVD’s and Torrenting

By the wide acquaintances I have with many teenagers I interact through the youth-work I do occasionally, I have reached to a conclusion that the most wide-spread type of illegal copyright material (“pirated”) the kids have on their computers, are movies. 

The reasons behind that are clear because of two reasons. Firstly – the increase of connection speeds to home users have left only movies to be inconvenient to “buffer-view” over the internet. Texts, music, video-clips – these types of copyright material are easily streamed over the internet, therefore not putting the threat of breaking the law on children. 

The other reason, why children pirate movies, is that the speed of premieres reaching Estonia is relatively low. It has improved over the years but it hasn’t still reached the excellence. When a kid browses through the internet and sees suddenly a trailer of eg. “Star Trek” – loaded with his favourite actors and colourful CGI, the urge to see that movie raises immediately. Now the first place the kid accumulates info about that movie is the home-page of the local cinema. Sadly – almost all of the times, when a trailer is published over the internet, the actual premiere date will be half a year (or maybe a year) later. Now when the kid sees that date on the cinema’s homepage, the curiosity to still see the movie will force him to search though the rest of the internet, effectively using the Torrent search engines. And almost all of the times, a sort of screener (watermarked DVD) can be found on these types of sources.

For some time, the third reason why the movie companies lost revenue in Estonia, was the monopoly of the market-leader (only modern movie-theatre in Estonia), which raised the movie tickets to levels not comparable to the living standard of the nation. With the increase of competition however this is not the case anymore.

So what is the outcome of Torrenting for the movie industry? Of course the children do not visit the cinemas as much as they should or would by the hopes of eg. Sony. This lowers the return rate of the large investment the companies make by producing films. 

The solution can come from two ways. The time-line between a premiere marketing campaign and the premiere itself should be as short as possible. Nobody wants to get info on something that “comes next summer”. It angers the consumers and forces them to use illegal channels to satisfy their curiosity.

The other thing which Hollywood is more and more affectively using is amplifying the movie theatre experience. This includes 3D movies, IMAX cinemas and elaborate sound systems. This will create the “concert-phenomenon” for the audience as it is possible for a person interested in to simply download the movie, but rather she or he attends the cinema to see it. 

The extension of this type of thinking is the introduction of BluRay movies, which offer the amount of data/quality that is ill to publish over the internet (at least today).

In conclusion

It is apparent that the new media is changing the ways traditional media collects their revenue. Enterprises active in the industry must more and more prove and work in effort to collect profit from the consumers.

It seems most easily done for the movie industry as the movies are seen by many as an act and nobody pirates an opera or a drama on Broadway.

However I see no justification for the music and news industry to use the revenue model that worked for them the last century. In a situation where anybody can be an artist using his or her home office to produce it, I see no point in studio time and marketing campaigns or CD productions. 

Recording Industry should rather transform to an user-oriented platform where they help deliver the music most suitable for the listener. Revenues should and could be gained rather by live concerts, integrated marketing (Britney: “Drink Pepsi!”), fan-merchandize and music publishing (iTunes). But it should not be forgotten, that as in economics – the raise of competition (in this case artists) always lowers the prices (in this case profit per artist/song etc).

My Experience with New Media

To start with, the connections I have with media (the new and traditional ones) is quite high for me, as I have a bachelor degree in journalism and public relations studies and also I have worked in a multitude of organizations active in the media sphere (newspapers, magazines, communication offices).

As my bachelor thesis focused on the newspaper-based advertisements and their changes during the on-going recession, my master thesis will focus on the expected and proven outcomes of using social media in a company’s communication strategies. Basically I want to research how Estonian firms use social media (web 2.0 applications) in the interest of their communicative goals and what are the benefits that the communication offices see in doing that – and – are there really any?

What I hope to achieve through this course and more over my studies in the New Media fields is the support of an academic knowledge to what I already know. That is – we should use more and more new media to spread our message, we should do this in a partnership with the consumer, more correctly the collaborator and yet, we can and have to do this being the sole leader of the message (intended outcome of our message is always planned, and can and must be reached by the communicator). I know that this belief has great opposition by the traditional understanding (nothing can’t be controlled, once published on the web), but when a communicator accepts that belief, then he or she should disappear from the internet all together, as the web will definitely turn hostile towards his or her goal in one point or another. The skills and knowledge of dealing that hostility is where I want to excess.

The reading material was quite interesting for me to read, as basically 1 year of my bachelor studies was focused on how to use media research methods and why to use them, and yes – the internet was exactly seen as a sort of add-on media to the traditional channels. I agree on the term that media studies as one knew it are over. There is no point of researching a newspaper when more than half of the auditorium “consumes” it through web.

And this is the prelude to my cemented belief that there is no point of media-studies what so ever anymore. I know I’m being harsh, but there cannot be really any time-related or knowledge-related value in researching for example some blogs or Twitter accounts.

I believe that media research will be more and more overtaken by empirical studies of our interceptions (how to we see and use the web) and cognitive studies (what colors to use on what words etc.). This is of course more elaborate but for the sake of not commenting on things I haven’t really academically studied (yet), I’ll finish my comments for now.

Reading

David Gauntlett 'Media Studies 2.0'. http://www.theory.org.uk/mediastudies2.htm

Wikinomics

Wikinomics to me was an interesting book to read, because I had not heard of the term before, although I had thought of such a business model. Before I get started with the book review and thoughts on it, I'd like to stress out, that I am not a great fan of WikiPedia (in this review also referred to as WP) and using it as a great example for collaboration. It is true, that I (and I guess the majority of internet users) use WikiPedia on a daily basis, but taking WikiPedia's operating system to be a business model (or role-model for everything) raises many negative outcomes to my mind. The majority of those negative outcomes consists of (in my mind "facts") situations, where peers are not equal in terms of knowledge, there is no common goal between them and there is a lack of motivation (therefore outcome quality) because of no monetary or social (e.g. fame) for efforts made with a project using WP model. Getting ahead of myself, I revalued my convictions on the subject as Wicinomics made it clear(er) to me, that the old business models cannot be viable soon any more.

The Perfect Storm to me was not a surprising chapter as I and I guess all of the students in IT-studies see the web as the number one (and maybe the only) social ground today and tomorrow. Therefore I wouldn't call the concept of web as a new realm (internet as the sole ground for communication and business etc.) but rather an inevitability that has happened. The most important notion however is (and I agree) that the people (the youth) who have grown up collaborating over the web, wont simply dump that habit when entering the work-force, but rather insists on taking the elements of on-line collaboration to the workplace (and ways of working).

The Peer Pioneers as expected placed a strong favouritism on WikiPedia and Linux. The fact the IBM adopted Linux as their main operating system years ago, was not new to me, but it was interesting to read, what the company thought and experienced on the subject while the switch was made and lived through. I have to agree with the authors, that in the case of WikiPedia, it is simply astonishing how fast knowledge on a fresh topic can be created, argued over and therefore optimized to be more truthful. I myself used WikiPedia to follow through Georgia-Russia war, which in Estonia's media sphere was too pro-Georgia and anti-Russia (as always). The statement at the end of the chapter (Peer production is here to stay) is a bold, but true one, as we can see how in the last ten years or so there has been a shift from enjoying the salary to enjoying the work. And when you enjoy your work, you do not deal with it from 9 to 5, but rather constantly (in this case, it is even somewhat wrong to call it work, rather field of interest).

Ideagoras introduced for the first time when reading Wicinomics strong examples of peer production that I had not heard before. Examples of scientist working in InnoCentive, the widespread use of freelance researchers by P&G and so forth were the ones, I had not or event thought of before. The idea of sharing copyright (more precisely patentable) information over web-based platforms is fascinating. And I think the authors made quite clear the benefits waiting for all the firms that adapt this kind of peer-to-peer sharing (decrease of R&D costs, increase of innovation).

The Prosumers was the chapter, were the authors truly revealed their Nostradamus-like capabilities. On page 134 (and before) there is a discussion what should (the year under discussion is 2006 I presume) do with user-iniatied supplements to it's hardware product iPod. At that time (and even today) a lot of techie-users upgraded their iPods firmware, only to widen the capabilities of the musicplayer. Apple on the other hand saw it as an infringement of the copyright guarding it's products. It was noted by the authors, that although Apple did not legally react to the techies dealing with things like that, they should have lauded this kind of user activity and implement it on their R&D. It is now clear that in some way Apple has done it, with the introduction of iPhone and it's App Store, which offers easy steps for anybody to create software, thus raising the products capabilities, while gaining revenue (as Apple too). It is one of the examples were former consumers are now producers and consumers altogether, and the producer part can only increase from now one, further implementing the role of a company as a provider of infrastructure, leaving the content to it's user base (Second Life, Ning.com).

The New Alexandrians focused a great deal on the Humane Genome Project, taking parallels from one of the worlds scientifically fruitful era (the era of Alexander the Great). It was repeatedly stressed that companies have only to gain from sharing information, even it the information is patentable and therefore easily to be profiteered from. The key factor fighting the latter is the inevitable situation - the more participants working on a common goal the more positive outcome is there for everybody. One could say that "too many cooks spoil the broth" but if the making of the product (broth) is structuralised, equal amongst the makers and common-goaled, then the difficulties relating to peer-productions are overcome by the fastness and overall acceptability of the outcome.

Platforms for Participation introduced a wide set of different user-managed platforms that are available to us today. To take an example - I use different social platforms (social networks) to communicate with my friends, I use different collaboration platforms (web-based office utilities) to co-work with my co-students and  I use different publication platforms to distribute my thoughts on things and to lead communities I am a leader to. The authors focused on this subject to the rhetorical battle between conventional wisdom vs. innovative economy, when it comes to being opened in terms of IP (e.g. free software). I think they hit the nails head with that comparison, as it is a widespread fear, that when you distribute your IP using open-source (nonmarket) principles, you only loose and gain nothing. But as described on Wicinomics, you do gain, by expanding the workforce (world wide peer production) without monetary increases, re-accelerate your company's R&D outcome and gain information from your customers (prosumers) to better evolve your product.


The Global Plant Floor focused a great deal on possibilities of peer production, now talking industrially. The example of Lifan was quite troubling to be, as Lifan is a company, who gain success by copying Japanese motor-cycles Yamaha, Suzuki etc.So is it ethical to praise a company, who's success is based on stealing? Of course we know Lifan is successful. But it isn't very hard to be a "revenue-star" in an economy like China, where labor is cheap and governmental control over companies (pollution, labor-politics) is low. Boeing situation isn't a better example - building air-planes like LEGOs is innovative at start, but we do not comprehend yet, what it will do to the companies success in the long terms. I do fear, that Boeing's Japanese suppliers will soon start to develop their own airplanes, again copying main schemes from Boeing, who is being innovative open. I as a customer would be please - more competition is better. But as a investor? I simply wouldn't invest in Boeing.

The Wiki Workplace had a terrific example with Geek Squad. When reading the text, I simply imagined the great company and how great would I feel working there. Geek Squad leader Stephens revelation about "forcing the use of wikis vs. bottom-to-management communication (Battlefield 2 online multiplayer game as a communication channel - GREAT :))" was inspiring to read. I myself have lived through repeatedly new "innovative communication channels" which have been forced on me, in different companies. I do believe that managers cannot decide, how their employees communicate in work-terms. Managers can only offer platforms, of which employees choose the best or most suitable for them. 

Collaborative Minds introduced to the biggest problem facing internet today: old media conglomerates trying to control the content of the web, by offering many authoritative control mechanisms against home user. I do admit piracy is a big problem, but I personally don't consume music at all. I listen to it in concerts or over radio, but that's it. In terms of movies, I go to cinemas (when younger, I did download over torrents, but not anymore, mainly because of the lack of time) and software - I really don't have much software on my PC, because I use company's or school's laptops. So forcing some sort of revenue model over the internet users is not only against innovation, as Tapscott says, but against my human rights.

Enterprise 2.0 to me is all of the above. But the main idea is that managers should embrace the ongoing new. Enterprise as a form is itself a "new-ity" - tendencies to stabilize one's environment, control it's consumers, employees are against the spirit of free market.


Review based on "Wikinomics" by Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams 2008.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The thoughts what Benjamin had about the reproduction of art were as expected by any educated man. Especially the expressed focus on the loss of aura when producing and consuming mass media.

This is the moment where I will wind up myself. I am tired of people bashing photography or and Hollywood for their production. Things were not different in renaissance or in other times. The mob had the exact same entertainment as nowadays. People getting hanged, witched stoned to death, prostitution, bar brawls etc. I think that the mass reproduction of arts has raised the human kind to another, less barbaric level, and also cultivated common understanding between us (everybody loughs at Tom Hanks). Now comes the critique - oh we are all robots, losing our individuality. After centuries of wars over the right religion, flag or language or king i think a century, or even maybe two of common sense is in order.

The authenticate art, or aura hasn't gone nowhere. You still haven't seen nothing if you haven't been to Louvre etc. But the rise of reproduced art has given the common man the ability to live while pursuing the dream to get to Louvre.

Maybe the mass media is our false necessity created by capitalist system to enduringly enslave the mankind. But I feel oh so good when listening to the beat of house music or watching pretty Hollywood actresses act the decades old plot of boymeetsgirl-fallinlove-troublesahead-but everhappyattheend.

And if its wrong, i don't want to know right.

---
Benjamin in his essay stated, that mechanical reproduction is different than man-made replicas of art pieces. He was convinced that photography was the greatest step away from man-made reproductivity. Reproduction, at its worst, harms historical authenticity, and therefore jeopardizes authorial authenticity. "Reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition", meaning that the artwork loses its aura, what it gained by time and place.

What valuates an authentic work? According to Benjamin "the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value".

Today’s ways of reproductive art also kill the idealistic function of art (or its main servitude "… “pure” art, which not only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by subject matter". This is now impossible, because art is a slave to the masses and like everything else; it needs to be labeled for better consumption.

The result of mass reproduction of art also creates the situation where art is freed from its historical dependence on rituals (cave-paintings to serve gods or to bring luck, not to decorate or entertain), forcing art to be dependent on reproductivity. "Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics."

Benjamin also expressed belief that arts today have to choose between two sides: cult versus exposability. The latter being the more popular one.

When talking about film, some of the pioneer-authors according to Benjamin stated that art form to be the highest form of all. Benjamin disagrees, and refers to films like “The Gold Rush” (one of the first “Hollywood” movies).

When criticizing film, the audience can only criticize the camera, because everything else does not reach the audience. Although the actor uses its whole body, he or she still loses the aura – because camera can’t capture that.

Benjamin describes the film (in an actor’s point of view) as an image on the actor’s mirror which now is transportable.

Since there is no aura on the film, there has to be a cultism of the actor (superstars) – what Benjamin calls the "spell of the personality".

The other great impact what modern times and the new form of art production has on us, is that before there was only a small group of writers and a large group of readers. Now everybody is a writer (who hasn’t been in the news?). "Distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character" (this can be greatly seen on blogs, social websites etc.).

One of the interesting parallels Benjamin made was that cameraman is to art what surgeon is to body, but the artist (painter) is like a magician.

"Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison-world asunder by the dynamite of the tenth of a second, so that now, in the midst of its far-flung ruins and debris, we calmly and adventurously go traveling. With the close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended." No comments needed.

The death of art and aura didn’t come overnight. Benjamin sees Dadaists as the first wave of artist who introduced the effects of mass reproduction of art to society and art itself - they intentionally destroyed aura in their works.

In the end Benjamin states the current situation of man being as follows: "… can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.” The spectator’s process of association in view of these images is indeed interrupted by their constant, sudden change". Thus there can’t be any true satisfaction of being exposed modern art.


Link to the text:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm