Our Networks, Ourselves
Two years ago, a student I work with told me something terrifying. A recruiter at a job fair had told her she’d never get a job without a MySpace page. She wanted to know how I got a job without a MySpace page. I told her the truth: connections. I knew the person that hired me. I’d worked with him before.
“So, you networked,” she said.
“Um… yeah, I guess.”
She explained that this is what MySpace was for: networking, meeting people and getting jobs. I guess I didn’t get it then, and I still don’t. I don’t get the “networking” value of social networking sites. Social networking sites have given me something valuable: a replacement for my outdated address book, where the entries update themselves and I can always find who I’m looking for. They haven’t connected me with my dream job, or my future soul mate, or even any new friends, so why are they such a big deal?
People with titles like “ethnographic sociological researcher” are trying their best to figure it out, but most of us are out of the loop and behind the times. For example, Danah Boyd just published an essay on class issues in social networking Web sites. In her essay, she gives the history, and shows how it set up the class struggle. In 2003-2004, MySpace went from being a 20-30-something site to a teen site that helped bands promote themselves. In 2004, Facebook started at Harvard University. She doesn’t really touch on the why though. Why are Facebook and MySpace so popular? Before them, Friendster and other social networking sites could show you who you knew, and who they know so you can connect with new people (that’s what networking is, right?). But MySpace and Facebook took off because they had plenty of space for the users to talk about themselves. The theory is that you can list your favorite hobbies, or movies, or books on your profile and make friends with people with the same interests. It doesn’t work that way in practice though. Most people just write about themselves. These sites are called “Social Networking Sites,” but very little social networking really goes around. I can list my friends and you can list yours, and if we have friends in common, it will tell us.
But how is that really changing anything? Are we meeting new people? Are we finding people with similar interests? We can find them, but then we aren’t really making the effort to get to know them. And aren’t these things we could do before the Internet? Meeting people is pretty much the same. You have to make the effort. But now, we can make the effort in a passive way, and a much more creative way. We aren’t exactly tied to the physical and “real-life” attributes of ourselves, and can craft a persona better equipped to “social network” on the Internet.
I don’t know if this is true for everyone, but I’m not exactly the same person on the Internet that I am in real life. It’s not like I’m really a middle-aged man from Indiana in real life, but I’m less polished in person than I am on the Web. I’m sure everyone fibs a little bit, even those who say they aren’t fibbing. The Internet affords one luxury of communication you don’t have in person: time. I have time to cleverly concoct and assemble my lists of likes and dislikes for my social networking profile. It’s like writing your résumé, only it’s not to compete for a job, it’s to compete in the hierarchy of hip. You get to work on it for months, but your interview might only last 10 minutes. Even though I’m not any smarter, I can sound smarter on the Internet.
But it’s not all for the better. If people were trying to network with me based on my interests, though, they might be out of luck. Sure, my Facebook profile may list my favorite movie, but you know what? I lied. My favorite movie is “Caddyshack”; the profile says it’s “The Royal Tenenbaums.” “Tenenbaums” is one of my favorite movies, so it’s not an entire untruth, but it changes my entire online persona. Stoned frat boys like “Caddyshack,” but cool people like “Tenenbaums.” Did I do this consciously? Kind of. I thought of the movie that would give me something in common with the people I know. I didn’t pick the movie because it would help me get a job, or help me meet new people. I didn’t pick the movie that would help me “network.” I picked the movie that would prove I already knew the people I was supposed to know. And I picked the movie that would make me look cool.
But was it the Internet that influenced the decision to fib? Kind of. If I was at a dinner party with my hip, educated friends, I probably wouldn’t admit to be the type of philistine that enjoyed the story of golfers and an overzealous gopher. At a sports bar with my college-football-watching friends, I wouldn’t admit to being the hip poseur that likes “The Royal Tenenbaums.” Everybody fibs. Everybody bends the truth to their advantage, whether it’s in your job interview or your résumé or your MySpace. On your résumé though, it’s to get a better job, on your social networking profile, it’s just to be cool. It’s like that saying; On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re not cool. On the Internet, you can cover up all your insecurities. In Boyd’s research, she found that popularity of these sites peaked with teenagers. Isn’t this when you’re feeling the most insecure about yourself? Isn’t it nice to be able to go on the Web and make yourself cool?
And that’s the draw. That’s the attraction. You can talk endlessly about yourself, and make yourself so cool. And that’s also exactly why these sites aren’t promoting networking — social or employment or otherwise. People are all too busy making themselves look cool, and showing their intelligent and fascinating interests and hobbies, great photos of themselves where they look thin and pretty, and listing how many friends they have. The features that made MySpace and Facebook popular (photo sharing, detailed personal profile pages, etc.) are the exact things that are preventing people from meeting anybody new, from actually “networking.”
So really, the social networking site is the new Narcissus’ pond. I see how it can be so addictive to some people like plastic surgery and makeup and fashion are addictive. It’s just not for me, I guess. I’m content to wait it out, and meet people the old-fashioned way, network the old-fashioned way and even get a job the old-fashioned way. For everyone’s sake, let’s try not to drown ourselves.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Web Politics
I think I get an email a day from Barack Obama, or his people, or his e-mail minion David Plouffe (when you Google search Mr. Plouffe you get the phrase "one of the most experienced and successful strategists in the Democratic party." Apparently, his strategy now is to e-mail me all the time and blog. Mr. Plouffe's blog is just one of the many ways politicians are trying to use the web to attract young, democratic voters. Good luck to them, because it didn't really work last time. I just re-read Stephen Elliott's book "Looking Forward To It," a Hunter-S.-Thompson-esque romp through the 2004 democratic primaries. It includes such salacious tales as being on a bus with Howard Dean and eating buffets with second-rate media correspondents. Its point, however, is that no matter what weird, wacky things you do, you will not win an election on new voters. Period.
It isn't stopping the candidates from trying though. Yesterday, the kind-of-political (and well-named) site BarelyPolitical.com (possibly not safe to open at work) crashed due to traffic for the "Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl" video. Their clothes stay on, and they sing-debate. Of course, it's also on YouTube.
Since I started typing this entry (a whole six minutes ago) I've been trying to think of a word to describe YouTube. It's weird. Where else can you go to watch :30 second clips of dogs on skateboards and teenage girls talking? (Well, I guess you could go to Google Videos.) But, right now on YouTube, you can watch a lot of videos about politics. You can watch more than 26,700 by searching for "Obama." And next Monday, you can watch a debate. Specifically, the CNN-YouTube debate coming to you live from Charleston, S.C. And there's CitizenTube, the YouTube political vlog.
Here's the issue Elliott proved in his book. Yes, you can draw potential voters in with your snazzy bells and whistles aimed at them. You can get them to donate money. You can get them to buy a t-shirt with your candidate's face on it. But in this bells-and-whistles society, that doesn't always translate into getting them to actually drive to some weird municipal building with total strangers and actually vote for you. Maybe this election will be different. Maybe this will be the turning point. The presidential elections are only 219 years old, which is practical infantcy as far as governments go, so maybe we can enter our rebellious teenage years and people 18-24 will actually vote.
The "Obama Girl" video has more than 2 million views on YouTube. In South Carolina, where this CNN-YouTube debate will be held, there are about 2.5 million registered voters, and only 45% of them voted in the last election. Does this mean viewership of the "Obama Girl" video could sway the electoral votes of a whole state? By the numbers, sure, but in practice, probably not. Definitely not. No way. In the 2004 election, 64% of eligible voters nationwide voted (way to bring down the average, S.C.). While I'm sure getting the other 36% to vote for you in the next election would definitely sway things your way, getting the 64% of people that actually have a proven track record of voting might be a better gamble.
So who has a proven track record of voting? Old people. Citizens age 65 and up have a 79% turnout rate! People 45 and up have a 70% turnout rate. Your voter turnout rate also increases the more education you have. Of course, you also have to consider who old, overeducated people vote for: republicans.
While I guess bombarding YouTube and e-mail boxes and other hip new media with your candidate can't hurt you, time will tell if it can actually help you.
It isn't stopping the candidates from trying though. Yesterday, the kind-of-political (and well-named) site BarelyPolitical.com (possibly not safe to open at work) crashed due to traffic for the "Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl" video. Their clothes stay on, and they sing-debate. Of course, it's also on YouTube.
Since I started typing this entry (a whole six minutes ago) I've been trying to think of a word to describe YouTube. It's weird. Where else can you go to watch :30 second clips of dogs on skateboards and teenage girls talking? (Well, I guess you could go to Google Videos.) But, right now on YouTube, you can watch a lot of videos about politics. You can watch more than 26,700 by searching for "Obama." And next Monday, you can watch a debate. Specifically, the CNN-YouTube debate coming to you live from Charleston, S.C. And there's CitizenTube, the YouTube political vlog.
Here's the issue Elliott proved in his book. Yes, you can draw potential voters in with your snazzy bells and whistles aimed at them. You can get them to donate money. You can get them to buy a t-shirt with your candidate's face on it. But in this bells-and-whistles society, that doesn't always translate into getting them to actually drive to some weird municipal building with total strangers and actually vote for you. Maybe this election will be different. Maybe this will be the turning point. The presidential elections are only 219 years old, which is practical infantcy as far as governments go, so maybe we can enter our rebellious teenage years and people 18-24 will actually vote.
The "Obama Girl" video has more than 2 million views on YouTube. In South Carolina, where this CNN-YouTube debate will be held, there are about 2.5 million registered voters, and only 45% of them voted in the last election. Does this mean viewership of the "Obama Girl" video could sway the electoral votes of a whole state? By the numbers, sure, but in practice, probably not. Definitely not. No way. In the 2004 election, 64% of eligible voters nationwide voted (way to bring down the average, S.C.). While I'm sure getting the other 36% to vote for you in the next election would definitely sway things your way, getting the 64% of people that actually have a proven track record of voting might be a better gamble.
So who has a proven track record of voting? Old people. Citizens age 65 and up have a 79% turnout rate! People 45 and up have a 70% turnout rate. Your voter turnout rate also increases the more education you have. Of course, you also have to consider who old, overeducated people vote for: republicans.
While I guess bombarding YouTube and e-mail boxes and other hip new media with your candidate can't hurt you, time will tell if it can actually help you.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Keen on it
I found Andrew Keen's book and put a library hold on it. Hopefully I'll get it this week and have some interesting responses next week!
Harry Potter and the e-book pirates
Let me preface this by saying I've never read any of the Harry Potter books. Not because I'm a philistine or a snob, but becuase I don't read much fiction, barely any fantasy fiction, and haven't read a book about children since I was a child. It just doesn't interest me. It's not because I'm heartless.
Anyway, the sixth Harry Potter book comes out on Saturday. And, like many media products with devoted fan bases, will have many 12:01 a.m. releases around the country. But it's too late. The thing's online already. And the publisher spent about $20 million to keep it secret. Money well spent? Hmmm.
So what happened? Well, someone got a hold of it, took a photo of every page and uploaded it on a bit torrent page. Then someone else scanned it in, put it through some optical character recognition software, proofread and then put it up. Who are these people? It's simple. They're fans. And mostly, the same dedicated fans who will line up Friday night at bookstores around the country to fight for their right to take home the book and stay up all night reading it. How come the publisher didn't decide, hey, maybe this is the time to release an official e-book? How come e-books aren't nearly as popular as downloading music? I think the answer is human conditioning on intake methods.
I was born in 1981. I grew up watching television on a television, watching movies in a movie theater (or on Betamax at my rich friends' houses), listening to music on the radio or on a cassette deck or record player, and reading books, you know, out of actual books. After 25 years, really only one of these methods has changed drastically, and another has changed mildly. First, I still watch movies in movie theaters, but a DVD player has eclipsed the Betamax. And second, I listen to music on my computer mostly, but sometimes still on a record player. Most importantly, I still read actual paper-and-ink books.
Partially, I think, it's because I have easily-tired eyes, and reading on a computer screen for long periods of time makes me sleepy. Second, maybe, it's because I sit at a computer for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week and when I get home, I just don't want to sit at a computer anymore. But overall, it's conditioning. I learned to read books. If I were to read the Harry Potter book, I'd be buying it in a bookstore (or on Powells.com). But I guess, if I were desperate to read it, I might download it, print it out and read the pages that way. I feel like an official e-book could have made the Harry Potter publishers a lot of money, could have alleviated the leaking problem and could have said to fans "We appreciate you," instead of saying "We don't trust you."
News coverage of this event: LA Times, Boston Globe, Salon.com.
Anyway, the sixth Harry Potter book comes out on Saturday. And, like many media products with devoted fan bases, will have many 12:01 a.m. releases around the country. But it's too late. The thing's online already. And the publisher spent about $20 million to keep it secret. Money well spent? Hmmm.
So what happened? Well, someone got a hold of it, took a photo of every page and uploaded it on a bit torrent page. Then someone else scanned it in, put it through some optical character recognition software, proofread and then put it up. Who are these people? It's simple. They're fans. And mostly, the same dedicated fans who will line up Friday night at bookstores around the country to fight for their right to take home the book and stay up all night reading it. How come the publisher didn't decide, hey, maybe this is the time to release an official e-book? How come e-books aren't nearly as popular as downloading music? I think the answer is human conditioning on intake methods.
I was born in 1981. I grew up watching television on a television, watching movies in a movie theater (or on Betamax at my rich friends' houses), listening to music on the radio or on a cassette deck or record player, and reading books, you know, out of actual books. After 25 years, really only one of these methods has changed drastically, and another has changed mildly. First, I still watch movies in movie theaters, but a DVD player has eclipsed the Betamax. And second, I listen to music on my computer mostly, but sometimes still on a record player. Most importantly, I still read actual paper-and-ink books.
Partially, I think, it's because I have easily-tired eyes, and reading on a computer screen for long periods of time makes me sleepy. Second, maybe, it's because I sit at a computer for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week and when I get home, I just don't want to sit at a computer anymore. But overall, it's conditioning. I learned to read books. If I were to read the Harry Potter book, I'd be buying it in a bookstore (or on Powells.com). But I guess, if I were desperate to read it, I might download it, print it out and read the pages that way. I feel like an official e-book could have made the Harry Potter publishers a lot of money, could have alleviated the leaking problem and could have said to fans "We appreciate you," instead of saying "We don't trust you."
News coverage of this event: LA Times, Boston Globe, Salon.com.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
New media and television essay: DRAFT
Dude, where’s my TV show?
How ratings miscount television viewers, no matter how they’re watching
In the 2006-2007 television season, the much-hyped program “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” premiered on NBC at #22. This means that for that week (Sept. 18), it was the 22nd most-watched regularly-scheduled television broadcast. Almost 13 million people watched it; roughly the same as the population of Illinois. For 2006, it was the No. 1 program recorded on digital recording systems (like TiVo) for “timeshifted” viewing. Three months later, however, in December, NBC announced the show would share its timeslot with another show, and in February 2007, announced that the last episode would air mid-month. Why the sudden change? How did a fairly popular show go from 13 million viewers to cancellation? One way: ratings.
From 1928 (when the first experimental television images were broadcast) until 1951 (when Nielsen started publishing ratings), television operated without much real, concrete knowledge of who was watching. In 1951, Nielsen announced that the Texaco Star Theater, a variety show featuring star Milton Berle, was the most-watched program on television. Why was this data important? Well, aside from the curiosity of broadcasters, it satisfied a need for advertisers. Broadcasters could more effectively price their advertising space. If more people were watching Texaco Star Theater than anything else, then advertising on that show should cost more. Ever wonder why commercials on the Super Bowl are so expensive? Super Bowl broadcasts are some of the most-watched telecasts. In fact, out of the top20 prime-time telecasts of all time, half are Super Bowls. In 1982, more than 40 million households watched Super Bowl XVI, and a 30-second commercial cost $324,000. The prices are set by analyzing previous ratings, projecting how many people will be watching when the commercial airs and then charging accordingly. It really is a popularity contest. But how to they determine which shows are being watched?
In the beginning, it was simple. Nielsen sent you a diary and you wrote down what you watched. Nielsen would send diaries to enough people to produce a statistically accurate sample to estimate the nationwide counts. But there were numerous problems with this system. People didn’t send the diaries back on time, or didn’t fill them out at all, or even lied when they filled them out. Why did they lie? Sometimes to make themselves seem smarter (it’s been published that people say they watch a lot more PBS than they really do), or to try to protect certain shows from being cancelled. In 2004, Nielsen came under fire for testing “Peoplemeters,” special remote controls each household member used to track demographic use, and a special box that sent all the information to Nielsen. You couldn’t lie and you couldn’t cheat, but somehow, the Peoplemeters were giving drastically different information than the diaries were, and most of the changes involved television shows with minority casts. So, the Nielsen rating system is flawed. Not only may it produce wrong numbers, be susceptible to fibbing viewers, and only samples home viewing (plenty of televisions are watched in airports, bars and restaurants). But what about all the rest of the ways we watch television programs? Can they affect a show’s fate? Why, yes, they can … at least sometimes.
The animated comedy show “Family Guy” proved that networks are paying attention to the DVDs we buy. “Family Guy” was cancelled twice, in 2000 and 2002, but DVD sales figures and high syndication ratings convinced the FOX network to bring it back in 2005. According to USA Today, this was the first time a show was reinstated after cancellation due to DVD popularity. So, at least the networks are paying attention to what we buy, but how about what we rent? Or what we download? The simple answer is that they aren’t. As evidenced by the fact that “Studio 60” was the No. 1 “timeshifted” (that means TiVo-ed) program of 2006, but was still cancelled. The answer is simple: you can fast forward through ads on TiVo. Why pay for advertising on a show most people don’t watch ads on?
Some networks are capitalizing on the “timeshifting” idea and profiting by showing streaming video of shows on their Web sites and charging for advertising there. On NBC.com, for example, you can watch the season finale of “Studio 60” brought to you by the T-Mobile Sidekick. The episode is split into five short video segments, each preceded by a T-Mobile ad. And the network is counting who’s watching. According to a recent article in TV Week, advertising revenue for streaming video should hit $1.31 billion this year. NBC announced that it had delivered more than 300 million streams this season alone. But it isn’t enough to save some shows. Shows with steep production costs (like “Studio 60,” or another NBC hit “ER”) have to make up the costs, and sometimes they just can’t. Spending $40 on DVDs is one thing, but paying $1.99 to download a single missed episode from iTunes just doesn’t add up the same way. And there’s no profits at all for illegally-downloaded episodes. Even though you can build a strong and dedicated fan base that way, there’s lost revenue.
The long answer though, is that processes are in development to measure portable media devices like iPods and cell phones. They call this “placeshifting,” and plan to study ways to accurately track them. The problem here is there’s no accidental viewing. For instance, when you’re watching a television show on television, there’s a chance you can accidentally happen upon another show (the show coming on after or before the show you’re watching, or on a nearby channel while you’re flipping during commercials). You might find your new favorite show this way, or at least something else to watch. But with downloading, you only pick the shows you want, so there’s less of a chance you’ll ever try anything new. Which only adds to the possibility of new shows being cancelled from low ratings, because people won’t download them on a whim.
Of course, there are still the old-fashioned ways of trying to protect your favorite show from cancellation: letter-writing campaigns and petitions, but they aren’t working anymore. Being a Nielsen test subject and watching the show is the only way to make a difference, Just like always, you’ve got to put your money where your mouth is.
How ratings miscount television viewers, no matter how they’re watching
In the 2006-2007 television season, the much-hyped program “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” premiered on NBC at #22. This means that for that week (Sept. 18), it was the 22nd most-watched regularly-scheduled television broadcast. Almost 13 million people watched it; roughly the same as the population of Illinois. For 2006, it was the No. 1 program recorded on digital recording systems (like TiVo) for “timeshifted” viewing. Three months later, however, in December, NBC announced the show would share its timeslot with another show, and in February 2007, announced that the last episode would air mid-month. Why the sudden change? How did a fairly popular show go from 13 million viewers to cancellation? One way: ratings.
From 1928 (when the first experimental television images were broadcast) until 1951 (when Nielsen started publishing ratings), television operated without much real, concrete knowledge of who was watching. In 1951, Nielsen announced that the Texaco Star Theater, a variety show featuring star Milton Berle, was the most-watched program on television. Why was this data important? Well, aside from the curiosity of broadcasters, it satisfied a need for advertisers. Broadcasters could more effectively price their advertising space. If more people were watching Texaco Star Theater than anything else, then advertising on that show should cost more. Ever wonder why commercials on the Super Bowl are so expensive? Super Bowl broadcasts are some of the most-watched telecasts. In fact, out of the top20 prime-time telecasts of all time, half are Super Bowls. In 1982, more than 40 million households watched Super Bowl XVI, and a 30-second commercial cost $324,000. The prices are set by analyzing previous ratings, projecting how many people will be watching when the commercial airs and then charging accordingly. It really is a popularity contest. But how to they determine which shows are being watched?
In the beginning, it was simple. Nielsen sent you a diary and you wrote down what you watched. Nielsen would send diaries to enough people to produce a statistically accurate sample to estimate the nationwide counts. But there were numerous problems with this system. People didn’t send the diaries back on time, or didn’t fill them out at all, or even lied when they filled them out. Why did they lie? Sometimes to make themselves seem smarter (it’s been published that people say they watch a lot more PBS than they really do), or to try to protect certain shows from being cancelled. In 2004, Nielsen came under fire for testing “Peoplemeters,” special remote controls each household member used to track demographic use, and a special box that sent all the information to Nielsen. You couldn’t lie and you couldn’t cheat, but somehow, the Peoplemeters were giving drastically different information than the diaries were, and most of the changes involved television shows with minority casts. So, the Nielsen rating system is flawed. Not only may it produce wrong numbers, be susceptible to fibbing viewers, and only samples home viewing (plenty of televisions are watched in airports, bars and restaurants). But what about all the rest of the ways we watch television programs? Can they affect a show’s fate? Why, yes, they can … at least sometimes.
The animated comedy show “Family Guy” proved that networks are paying attention to the DVDs we buy. “Family Guy” was cancelled twice, in 2000 and 2002, but DVD sales figures and high syndication ratings convinced the FOX network to bring it back in 2005. According to USA Today, this was the first time a show was reinstated after cancellation due to DVD popularity. So, at least the networks are paying attention to what we buy, but how about what we rent? Or what we download? The simple answer is that they aren’t. As evidenced by the fact that “Studio 60” was the No. 1 “timeshifted” (that means TiVo-ed) program of 2006, but was still cancelled. The answer is simple: you can fast forward through ads on TiVo. Why pay for advertising on a show most people don’t watch ads on?
Some networks are capitalizing on the “timeshifting” idea and profiting by showing streaming video of shows on their Web sites and charging for advertising there. On NBC.com, for example, you can watch the season finale of “Studio 60” brought to you by the T-Mobile Sidekick. The episode is split into five short video segments, each preceded by a T-Mobile ad. And the network is counting who’s watching. According to a recent article in TV Week, advertising revenue for streaming video should hit $1.31 billion this year. NBC announced that it had delivered more than 300 million streams this season alone. But it isn’t enough to save some shows. Shows with steep production costs (like “Studio 60,” or another NBC hit “ER”) have to make up the costs, and sometimes they just can’t. Spending $40 on DVDs is one thing, but paying $1.99 to download a single missed episode from iTunes just doesn’t add up the same way. And there’s no profits at all for illegally-downloaded episodes. Even though you can build a strong and dedicated fan base that way, there’s lost revenue.
The long answer though, is that processes are in development to measure portable media devices like iPods and cell phones. They call this “placeshifting,” and plan to study ways to accurately track them. The problem here is there’s no accidental viewing. For instance, when you’re watching a television show on television, there’s a chance you can accidentally happen upon another show (the show coming on after or before the show you’re watching, or on a nearby channel while you’re flipping during commercials). You might find your new favorite show this way, or at least something else to watch. But with downloading, you only pick the shows you want, so there’s less of a chance you’ll ever try anything new. Which only adds to the possibility of new shows being cancelled from low ratings, because people won’t download them on a whim.
Of course, there are still the old-fashioned ways of trying to protect your favorite show from cancellation: letter-writing campaigns and petitions, but they aren’t working anymore. Being a Nielsen test subject and watching the show is the only way to make a difference, Just like always, you’ve got to put your money where your mouth is.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
the web giveth
So, today, on BoingBoing (which I read through the Google Reader rss application), Clay Shirkey, a blogger at Corante (which also hosts one of my favorite blogs, Copyfight), called this guy Andrew Keen, whom I had never heard of, a Luddite. Well, kind of. He accused him of having Luddite views.
So now I'm researching Mr. Keen. He wrote a book, which came out last month, called "The Cult of the Amateur." From the reviews I've read, notably, this one in The Sunday Times, Keen basically says that the Internet is adept at flooding the intellectual market with low-quality information and entertainment. He likens it to the idea of monkeys on typewriters, but there's no chance of even the infinite number of monkeys out there creating anything brilliant. He argues that the old media did a good job of picking out what was good or important and making it popular.
Shirkey says Keen's argument is Luddite because Keen isn't anti-technology, he's anti-technology-replacing-the-way-we-used-to-do-things. This is Luddite because, well, it's what the Luddites thought. Shirkey explains that in 1811, a group of weavers broke mechanical looms. Their issue was that these new mechanical weaving looms made it cheaper to make fabric, which hurt their profits. They were counter-revolutionaries. Of course, we all know what happened to the weaving industry, as I'm sure nothing I'm wearing right now was woven by hand.
So far, the most interesting idea for me is this bit from the Sunday Times' review:
So now I'm researching Mr. Keen. He wrote a book, which came out last month, called "The Cult of the Amateur." From the reviews I've read, notably, this one in The Sunday Times, Keen basically says that the Internet is adept at flooding the intellectual market with low-quality information and entertainment. He likens it to the idea of monkeys on typewriters, but there's no chance of even the infinite number of monkeys out there creating anything brilliant. He argues that the old media did a good job of picking out what was good or important and making it popular.
Shirkey says Keen's argument is Luddite because Keen isn't anti-technology, he's anti-technology-replacing-the-way-we-used-to-do-things. This is Luddite because, well, it's what the Luddites thought. Shirkey explains that in 1811, a group of weavers broke mechanical looms. Their issue was that these new mechanical weaving looms made it cheaper to make fabric, which hurt their profits. They were counter-revolutionaries. Of course, we all know what happened to the weaving industry, as I'm sure nothing I'm wearing right now was woven by hand.
So far, the most interesting idea for me is this bit from the Sunday Times' review:
Even if they had the talent and the connections, no blogs could afford to conduct investigations comparable to the great newspaper campaigns of the past. So the idea that content on the web is “free” is mistaken: the hidden cost may be the demise of old media and entire art forms on which the free content depends.Not to toot my own horn, but earlier in this blog, I mentioned that possibly, we were paying the price of humanity by using the Internet for simple tasks. Are we willing to pay these prices? I need to read Keen's book and get back to you. Hopefully, I can get it from the local public library today.
Monday, July 9, 2007
the iPhone vs. the iPhone buzz
I didn't buy an iPhone last week. However, I read so many articles about them, I felt like I did. The front page of the Saturday (June 30) issue of the Myrtle Beach Sun News business section even had an article picturing people in Charleston, S.C. (a 2.5-hour drive away), waiting in line for the iPhone. They looked vaguely similar to the people I'd seen in newspaper photos waiting for the iPhone in New York, L.A., and everywhere else hip enough to have their very own Apple store.
I recognize the power Apple holds over us, but after reading a bunch of articles and books about poverty in America, it's kind of hard for me to plunk down $599 for a telephone. And I actually wouldn't be plunking it. I'd be charging it to my medium-high-interest credit card, where it and months of other purchases wait to actually be paid for.
But I have read some very interesting things about the iPhone, and some very interesting things about the iPhone buzz. David Pogue, at the NY Times says it "matches most of its hype." Pogue also said, in another article, "With its new iPhone, Apple pulled off two masterful feats: creating the machine and creating the buzz around it." This reminds me so much of so many technical advancements in new media and other technologies in the past few years. So many things are announced with so much fanfare, but when the product or the technology is available, it just doesn't live up to the hype. Ten years ago, the Internet would change our lives. The only thing it's exceptionally good at though, is selling me things.
But the creation of hype, of buzz, of hope, is really what a lot of industry is actually about. Getting people excited about things is big business, and being able to get people excited about new media is hot big business. Maybe that's the popularity of Apple. They can really back up their claims. Sure, the iPhone took about 3 years from rumor to product, but they really nailed it when they did ship it.
Buzz though, is an interesting creature. "Viral" marketing has tried to sell buzz, but nothing can really replace word of mouth. Nothing can replace magazine and newspaper articles discussing your product. Nothing can replace news segments on television. Advertising that can't be paid for, the "buzz," is the most valuable. But the buzz is fickle. Burn the buzz once and the buzz won't take kindly to you next time. You don't even get the shame-on-me second chance to burn it again. And the buzz-savvy consumer is very intelligent. He or she can always tell the difference between real buzz and paid-for hype.
How have buzz (the un-buyable word-of-mouth marketing) and hype (the paid-for marketing) changed since the shift to the Web? Well, you can say they've just both found more audience members. You can barely vist a Web site without seeing an ad for something. I can't even check my gmail without seeing an ad for a shoe store. I can't check the weather online without seeing an ad for refinancing my mortgage. I can't check my email without getting offers for drugs. But the buzz has been infiltrated. People are paid, well-paid, to sit around and type up ads on messageboards and forums. Posing as regular users, these sentries infiltrate and try to scam you into buying things. The savvy consumers see right through it, and the buzz is protected. It has an even bigger audience too. No matter what product you want to discuss, there's probably a place on the Web to do it. Your real life friends aren't into talking about the iPhone? That's okay, just find a million new friends on the Web that want to nit-pick every nuance. The buzz has grown, because people can talk to more people.
What will be the long-term effects of new media on buzz? We'll have to wait and see. Short term though, I haven't bought an iPhone, but I'm eager to try one out in person. If that's all the hold the buzz has over me, maybe it needs to work harder.
I recognize the power Apple holds over us, but after reading a bunch of articles and books about poverty in America, it's kind of hard for me to plunk down $599 for a telephone. And I actually wouldn't be plunking it. I'd be charging it to my medium-high-interest credit card, where it and months of other purchases wait to actually be paid for.
But I have read some very interesting things about the iPhone, and some very interesting things about the iPhone buzz. David Pogue, at the NY Times says it "matches most of its hype." Pogue also said, in another article, "With its new iPhone, Apple pulled off two masterful feats: creating the machine and creating the buzz around it." This reminds me so much of so many technical advancements in new media and other technologies in the past few years. So many things are announced with so much fanfare, but when the product or the technology is available, it just doesn't live up to the hype. Ten years ago, the Internet would change our lives. The only thing it's exceptionally good at though, is selling me things.
But the creation of hype, of buzz, of hope, is really what a lot of industry is actually about. Getting people excited about things is big business, and being able to get people excited about new media is hot big business. Maybe that's the popularity of Apple. They can really back up their claims. Sure, the iPhone took about 3 years from rumor to product, but they really nailed it when they did ship it.
Buzz though, is an interesting creature. "Viral" marketing has tried to sell buzz, but nothing can really replace word of mouth. Nothing can replace magazine and newspaper articles discussing your product. Nothing can replace news segments on television. Advertising that can't be paid for, the "buzz," is the most valuable. But the buzz is fickle. Burn the buzz once and the buzz won't take kindly to you next time. You don't even get the shame-on-me second chance to burn it again. And the buzz-savvy consumer is very intelligent. He or she can always tell the difference between real buzz and paid-for hype.
How have buzz (the un-buyable word-of-mouth marketing) and hype (the paid-for marketing) changed since the shift to the Web? Well, you can say they've just both found more audience members. You can barely vist a Web site without seeing an ad for something. I can't even check my gmail without seeing an ad for a shoe store. I can't check the weather online without seeing an ad for refinancing my mortgage. I can't check my email without getting offers for drugs. But the buzz has been infiltrated. People are paid, well-paid, to sit around and type up ads on messageboards and forums. Posing as regular users, these sentries infiltrate and try to scam you into buying things. The savvy consumers see right through it, and the buzz is protected. It has an even bigger audience too. No matter what product you want to discuss, there's probably a place on the Web to do it. Your real life friends aren't into talking about the iPhone? That's okay, just find a million new friends on the Web that want to nit-pick every nuance. The buzz has grown, because people can talk to more people.
What will be the long-term effects of new media on buzz? We'll have to wait and see. Short term though, I haven't bought an iPhone, but I'm eager to try one out in person. If that's all the hold the buzz has over me, maybe it needs to work harder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
