Comments on: Whither the networks

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:21:01 +0000

This is what my friends on Madison Avenue fail to understand. They think people like us are into blogs because of some semi-mystical Cluetrainy goodness. When in fact we’re into it because it’s cheap and easy.

Like the uber-chap Clay Shirky says, “Help, The Price of Content Has Fallen and Can’t Get Up!”

“A business is either growing or it’s dying.” -Hugh’s Mom.

By: NYC SmallBiz »Blog Archive » Who’s Paying Attention

NYC SmallBiz »Blog Archive » Who’s Paying Attention — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:14:38 +0000

[...] …and from Jeff Jarvis, “Whither the networks” …in this new small-is-the-new-big you no longer have to be No. 1 (or 2 or 3) to survive. You can be No. 3000 or 30,000 and be big enough to succeed. And so the networks will find themselves with 30,000 or 30 million new competitors nipping at them. [...]

By: z adura

z adura — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:07:10 +0000

One concern I have about this transition is that it reduces the already staggeringly small amount of investigative journalism we have today. While there is significantly less such reporting than maybe a generation ago, there is still a paycheck to be found for the likes of David Kay Johnston or Lou Dubose.

What happens when they are gone? Who will be vigilant about accountability?

By: Drew

Drew — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:01:34 +0000

To the nay-sayers:

In my life-time, I grew up with only 4 stations including PBS. Most people in other parts of the world still have fewer options when it comes to the powerful moving image.

Now in the US many homes have several hundred stations.

Out of those several hundred, or even thousands of stations, it’s so expensive to get a show on the air, and there is so much competition, the content that we see there has only been the lowest common denominator content.

In the future, as more and more professional producers realize the availability of distribution over IP, we will start to see many professional shows that will actually be good because they will cater to niche audiences; a niche audience can be a big asset, especially when the cost for availability is nearly zilch. Think of all those Hollywood pilots that never got made because one person didnt think it would sell enough or couldnt get a personal favor.

The meaning of a niche audience is much bigger now too because it involves the “on demand” aspect and especially because of global, cross cultural reach.

As a result of all the personal media and citizen journalism, everyone in the world will begin to see a more candid and truthful reality then we see now as a result.

This is only just the beginning of a revolution that has been predicted and tried for years, its just that bandwidth speeds are now pervasive enough for the audience, IMHO.

By: Jersey Exile

Jersey Exile — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:26:23 +0000

The new media will have plenty of time to build its own established infrastructure.

Don’t get me wrong — I’d like nothing better than to see that happen. But right now it’s not about big fish versus little fish, but more like sharks with a host of remoras hanging around them. When the new media can swim on its own without scamming a free lunch off of the old only then we can start talking about the inevitable death of the MSM dinosaurs… er… sharks.

By: jeff m

jeff m — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:26:34 +0000

The Guardian?

By: Jon Lester

Jon Lester — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:23:28 +0000

I think the old networks will resemble major newspapers; they’ll survive for a long time yet but they won’t really grow. The end will be a long, slow erosion of market share and profitability. The new media will have plenty of time to build its own established infrastructure.

By: Jersey Exile

Jersey Exile — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:22:24 +0000

Of course the new media can afford to operate on a fraction of the cost of the media giants — it piggybacks off the MSM’s infrastructure. Rocketboom is the online equivalent of reading one of those free “Metro” newspapers they hand out in most American cities which consists primarily of recycled stories from the AP and Reuters, albeit a little more fun to watch than the Metro is to read. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think it isn’t quite fair to make these Old Media vs. New Media pronouncements without acknowledging the latter’s ongoing dependence on the former as a source of cheap raw materials.

By: jonny goldstein

jonny goldstein — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:30:09 +0000

I’m with you on this. Networks will continue to exist, but only as somewhat bigger fish in a pond full of brine shrimp, minnows, tadpoles, and the odd piranha.