Comments on: Web 2.0: Diller

By: Indonesian Blog Community » Are You Ready for Web 2.0?

Indonesian Blog Community » Are You Ready for Web 2.0? — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:38:45 +0000

[...] That clear-headed observation didn’t set well with some, including media critic Jeff Jarvis, who promptly blogged the talk and labeled Diller with the deadly moniker, “Web 1.0.” [...]

By: Web 2.0 » Blog Archives » Alex Barnett blog : Web 2.0

Web 2.0 » Blog Archives » Alex Barnett blog : Web 2.0 — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:33:51 +0000

[...] entertaining. I m not exactly sure why he s often interviewed Archived in Knowledge | Trackback | del.icio.us | Top OfPage [...]

By: sfd

sfd — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:37:04 +0000

passive aggressive.com

By: Will L

Will L — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:44:34 +0000

Sounds like a fairly arrogant statement. I guess that can happen when you make some money and hang out with a bunch of old Hollywood cheeseballs.

It’s akin to saying all talent (which is of course born, not made) has already been discovered and there is no more out there; (because I, Barry Diller am omniscient and all-powerful). All of it is already employed (prob. in Hollywood). -What a crock!

-Maybe one day, Proliferation will force people to raise their game. ++ Cheaper, tools will beget increase of expression => ++competition & critique => a few more already talented folks become ‘trained up’ to higher levels.

As far as anything internet-related, Barry is just a Buyer and IACI is just a conglomerate of other people’s ideas and already successful companies. The most ‘revolutionary’ things BD has ever done on the net are to throw up sites for Home Shopping Network and USA. The chart of IACI vs. many large internet businesses should be an insight to some of his crankiness, esp the recent 1:2 reverse split.

If you want great ideas, hire a conceptualist and an inventor or even an innovator for the talk, not an Arbitrageur/Trader which is what BD is. I believe he is misplaced on the ‘Big Thinker’ list for anything after say, 1995.

By: Paul Story

Paul Story — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:37:12 +0000

I’m with Mark on this and Jonny is spot on. Sure there will be mass markets. There will also be a shift in power from those who broker the deals towards a symbiotic collaboration between artists and audiences to float talent. At the same time, the economics of the business will change to allow a large number of niche projects to flourish that would not make sense to the old media organisations.
Like Mark, I’m in on this at the ground floor with a podcast. I’ve chosen to by-pass traditional publishing and have never submitted my novel to them. If we do talk, I hope that the relationship between us will be on a more balanced footing than might otherwise be the case.

By: Melanie

Melanie — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:59:21 +0000

Diller is hopelessly 1.0 or earlier, hasn’t heard of the long tail, the demonstrated move to a more actualizng less lowest-common-denominator culture, the shift to interactivity from passivity in entertainment and many other ideas.

By: Mark Jeffrey

Mark Jeffrey — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:58:53 +0000

Nice job, Jeff.
Being a big fan of podcasting, and hearing for myself that, in fact ,there IS a LOT of ‘amateur’ talent out there, and conversely, lots of lack of talent in the mass media, I think we’re on the verge of a revolution in who the media producers and media consumers are. And it scares the pants off the old media folks.

By: jonny goldstein

jonny goldstein — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:51:10 +0000

Joe,

I think, in many cases, the cream does rise to the top, although sometimes mediocre stuff can be marketed and doctored enough to do well. The point is, it will be much easier for the cream to create media and get noticed. They may choose to migrate over to established big media, or they may keep videoblogging or podcasting , or whatever. Of course there will be a lot of boring stuff, but there will be ways to navigate through that and get to the good stuff (word of mouth, reviewers, etc.). Of course the big media entitities will not disappear. There is a market for big budget productions. At the same time, there will be ever more quality media options out there for people.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:28:26 +0000

Perhaps some interesting stuff will come to the surface, but if it is like the blog sphere where most blogs are about people with uninteresting lives posting about stupid stuff, the world will be filled with nothing but garbage. If it is worth something the money will follow the talent (or popularity in mass group think) otherwise it will be nothing but crap.

Talent = other people think you are worth seeing = success = money

Talent is NOT popularity before you say something like Spears disproves the formula. As a distributor for a Canadian based film studio I can tell you that the cream ALWAYS rises period. So unless you are cream, forget it.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:02:49 +0000

Just because Web 2.0 gives new life to the niche, doesn’t mean mass is dead. They’re not mutually exclusive. “Lost,” “Desperate Housevives,” “Harry Potter,” Oprah’s book club, the Superbowl… all mass phenomenons that aren’t going away anytime soon.

By: somedude

somedude — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:39:02 +0000

That is to be read as “want to show something else that proves otherwise?” Goodnight.

By: somedude

somedude — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:32:48 +0000

Jeff- i don’t really like the labels. I respect you and your work, but its pretty silly to make claims that are associated with obvious negative connotations. The implication is that “Diller doesn’t get it.” Not sure how far you’re looking around, but no one that matters (the mass) is talking about niche. Scripted programming (hollywood style) is still the entertainment that matters to people. The businesses that people will care about (and pay for) will be those that can take these to the web in some fashion… not the businesses that take everyone’s tv show to the web. Want something proves otherwise? Besides VC $.

By: KirkH

KirkH — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:22:48 +0000

Diller is profiting from people who think the web is tv with a few more buttons. It’s a big market but it’s a dying market.

He’s the king of middlemen. According to Wired he bought Ticketmaster, Expedia, Hotel Reservations Network, companies associated with annoying service charges.

There will probably always be a mass market, albeit smaller, and there will always be people like Diller making money off of that mini-mass.

By: jonny goldstein

jonny goldstein — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 03:48:12 +0000

There is so much talent out there, it’s ridiculous. Gimme a freakin’ break, Diller.

By: Joe Zekas

Joe Zekas — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:46:44 +0000

People can’t figure out why the CEO of a major Internet ccompany is speaking at Internet events. Have I got that right?

Makes you wonder who belongs at these events and who doesn’t.

If you ever have the opportunity and take the time to listen to Diller at length, you’ll have no doubt that he’s not Media 1.0. He’s media, whatever the version, since there are principles he’s grasped that go beyond cheap-shot cutesy numbering.

One hass to remain, as always, awed at Jarvis’ ability to make sweeping judgments on little evidence. The only evidence presented here is that Diller doesn’t talk like Jarvis.

By: Ethan Kaplan

Ethan Kaplan — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:59:21 +0000

I can’t figure out why he was here either, other than to remind us that there are still vestiges of very media 1.0 thinking out there. I worked in newspapers, and Diller reminded me of publishers that I spoke to a lot at these New Directions for News conferences in the 90’s. Publishers trying to be progressive but just exposing fear of the democratization of media.

Oh well.

I can’t see where you are sitting Jeff, but hi.