Tag: modern media

Helen Thomas gets Macaca-ed

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Helen Thomas’s resignation from the White House press corps came not because of offensive comments, but because the media landscape has passed her by.

Reporters are, rightfully, under more scrutiny now than ever.  Back when Thomas started, America’s romanticized view of “the media” was something like a mix of Lois Lane, Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward – dogged reporters turning over stones, acting as the clear pane of glass through which normal, everyday people could see the world.

But gradually, reporters (including Woodward and Bernstein) became a part of the equation.  Suddenly, people realized that the reporters weren’t just a clear pane of glass, but the entire window, limited in what they showed by their own frame.  Sometimes, to see what was really going on outside, you had to look out of several different windows.

News consumers began to understand that the person telling the story affects the story.  And news consumers care about that.

This isn’t to say that reporters should be completely without bias – but most folks feel they ought to try to keep an open mind.  Thomas’s anti-Israel diatribe was anything but open minded.

That the grand dame of the White House press room was taken down by a citizen journalist – and that it was her own words, rather than any auxiliary commentary, that did her in – speaks to another truth about modern media.  The stalwarts like Thomas are less relevant than ever before.

Hitler finds out he’s pulled from YouTube

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Downfall is the movie about the final days of the Third Reich.  But of course, many of us know it for its climatic scene of Adolf Hitler’s bunker tantrum – which has been re-subtitled on YouTube to make Hitler rant about HD-DVD losing to Blu-ray, his car getting stolen, the Cowboys losing to the Giants in the 2007 playoffs, and even everyone forgetting his birthday.

Coming soon: Hitler finds out that Constantin Films, which owns the rights to Downfall, is pulling the clips from YouTube.

While it should be well within their right to do so, is this the smartest business move for the film company?  Recall that Chris Brown (before his alleged domestic violence incident made him untouchable) was able to use a viral video of a wedding party dancing to one of his songs to sell mp3 downloads.

I added Downfall to my Netflix queue last month just because of the Hitler parodies – how many DVD sales is Constantin missing out on?

Googlevision

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

This week, Google announced a partnership with Dish Network to launch a TV search service.  It’s not the first time Google has found its way into the living room – they’ve been working with TiVo to figure out what shows you watch and serve you ads when you pause a live show and measure ad performance.

Google is wise to move into TV advertising.  It may sound like they’re taking a step back; that they’re an internet company going back to traditional media.  But the line between various entertainment channels gets blurrier every day.  Online video and television video are no longer all that different.  If Google wants to be the gatekeeper for all the world’s information (and you can be sure they do), they have to watch your remote control as closely as they do your laptop keyboard.

We should have been ready – Jim Carrey predicted all this 14 years ago…

Where do you get your news from?

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

Eighteen months ago, Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was roundly criticized for being unable to answer Katie Couric’s question about what newspapers she read frequently to get her news.  Palin’s answer was “most of them.”

It’s actually a good answer poorly worded.  According to a report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 92% of American’s “graze” on news from multiple sources and on multiple platforms. Only 35% even have a “favorite” source.  So even if the dinosaurs of traditional media – such as the CBS Evening News – are losing viewers, it doesn’t mean the public is less informed.  Actually, it probably means the opposite.

Perhaps Palin should have responded to Couric’s ridiculous question with something like: “Well, Katie, even up here in Alaska it’s a digital age.   The morning newspaper and the evening news are important, but you can’t stop there, and we have access to news sources from all over the world.  I don’t limit myself to a single source or a small group of media outlets.  What well-informed person would?”

This week’s buzz about Google

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

I joined Google Buzz this week.  It was easy – I didn’t have to do anything except log in to GMail.  Google had transformed my private email – including my contact list (which it automatically populates based on my email traffic) into a social networking experience, a hybrid of Facebook and Twitter.  After several privacy complaints, Google made opting out of certain features a bit easier.  It’s still a little creepy.

Tellingly, Buzz allows you to integrate your Twitter feed but not for Facebook profile – another sign of the coming Armageddon between Google and Facebook, which Google will likely get to right after their fight with Apple and possibly after their fight with Microsoft.

How big is Google?  There were three separate stories about Google which made headlines this week.  That’s not three articles – but three separate issues which made news independent of each other.  First was the aforementioned Google Buzz; second was Google’s plan to become an internet service provider; and now comes news that Google is butting heads with the Department of Justice over intellectual property rights of authors as part of their ongoing effort  to become a latter-day, digital Library of Alexandria.

That these are all separate issues leads to them becoming one issue.  Google is seeking to define how you get to the internet, how you communicate with others, and what information/content you receive.  If this scenario continues on the same logical course, Google would become to the internet what AT&T was to the telephone networks before it was broken up by a federal antitrust suit in 1984.

Is Google at risk of an anti-trust lawsuit?  Possibly, but they have certainly done their best to make inroads with the government that would prevent that from happening.  The relationship between Google and the current administration is well-documented.

And if you believe the balance of power in Washington will tip back to Republicans in 2010 or 2012, Google is ready for that to – they are sponsoring TechRepublican’s Digital Boot Camp at CPAC this year.

When the Superbowl isn’t the Superbowl

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

A few years back, the late Mark McCormack – a key figure in the sports marketing industry and, by some accounts, the basis for the character Jerry Maguire – wrote an excellent business book, Never Wrestle With a Pig.  It outlines various rules for succeeding in a professional career, one of which is to prepare for what McCormack calls “your Superbowl” – a key event which puts your talents on display.  For a campaign, that’s Election Day, for a conservative organization looking to make a splash, it might be CPAC.  In the big brand advertising world, the “Superbowl” was, well, the Superbowl for decades.

In what is a telling sign of the evolving media landscape, big brands like Pepsi and GM are sitting out the Superbowl this year.  Even as ad prices tick downward slightly, Pepsi chose to invest $20 million in a social media campaign instead.

In many ways, corporate advertising is becoming more like a political campaign.  Successful political operations use broad-based communication – like TV and radio ads – to raise name recognition, but as election day nears they focus on contact with individual voters with targeted messages (those solidly in a candidate’s camp are reminded to get to the polls on election day, while those identified as being on the fence are coaxed onto one side or the other).

Pepsi is the second-best selling soft drink in America.  That’s a great spot to be in – it means selling an awful lot of soda.  But it also means that there are plenty of people who, no matter what, aren’t going to buy your product.  Pepsi could get in front of millions upon millions of pairs of eyeballs with a Super Bowl ad, but would those eyeballs be attached to tongues which desire Pepsi?  Or would their entertaining commercials be laughed at and talked about by people who, at halftime, would still reach for a Coke?

Pepsi first claimed to be the choice of a new generation in commercials which approximately one generation ago, but more recent branding has labeled Pepsi as “forever young.” Their advertising strategy has evolved, too (though they surely hope the comparison of Will.i.am to Bob Dylan isn’t congruent to the comparison of their new strategy to their old one).

Sine we’re all wondering, there’s still no word yet on how all this affects Bud Bowl…

The Decade of YouTube

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The last week of 2009 is a time to reflect not only on the last year, but the last decade as well.  The internet may not have been invented in the 2000s, but it certainly became more integral to our daily lives.  Among the internet innovations that have transformed not only the web but how we communicate, YouTube stands out.

The social web revolution of the last half of the decade made the internet more accessible.  Instead of acting as a one-way flow of information, everyday people could have their own corner of the web and interact with their friends digitally with ease.  But Mashable makes the case that, above Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other services, YouTube is the top social media innovation of the decade because it not only offers users a way to display content they have created, but also offers other users a way to easily share content that they like.

But the 2000s became the Decade of YouTube not because of technology, but because of cultural political impact.  In 2006, YouTube had a profound impact on politics, famously changing the course of the Virginia U.S. Senate race (and, likely, the course of the 2008 Presidential nomination). In 2008, Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency in a YouTube video.

But more important than that, activists have used YouTube to make their case on a number of issues through short videos that have been passed from one person to another.  Activists have taken down ACORN with a YouTube video.  Both sides of the health care debate have made their cases with short online videos.

In fact, the current political climate almost necessitates thinking in terms of short, catchy videos, and not just to defend against a “Macaca Moment.”  If you and your side can’t make your case with a funny or poignant two-to-four-minute video, you simply cannot win.  Sound bites were important for media coverage in 1999, but now campaigns must actively create sound bites – for the media, for their volunteers, for their donors, and for the voters they hope to win over.

Some might say this dumbs down the political process.  But focusing a message into a short video – or into a 140-character Twitter update – doesn’t need to leave out salient points.  It does require a fundamental understanding of an issue.  As Mark Twain said, “With a hundred words to do it with, the literary artisan could catch that airy thought and tie it down and reduce it to a cabbage, but the artist does it with twenty, and the result is a flower.”  Or more succinctly, brevity is the soul of wit.

There have been many ways the Internet has changed politics in the last decade, but YouTube’s impact goes beyond the internet.

The last week of 2009 is a time to reflect not only on the last year, but the last decade as well.  The internet may not have been invented in the 2000s, but it certainly became more integral to our daily lives.  Among the internet innovations that have transformed not only the web but how we communicate, YouTube stands out.

The social web revolution of the last half of the decade made the internet more accessible.  Instead of acting as a one-way flow of information, everyday people could have their own corner of the web and interact with their friends digitally with ease.  But Mashable makes the case that, above Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other services, YouTube is the top social media innovation of the decade because it not only offers users a way to display content they have created, but also offers other users a way to easily share content that they like.

But the 2000s are the Decade of YouTube not because of technology, but because of cultural impact.  In 2006, YouTube had a profound impact on politics, famously changing the course of the Virginia U.S. Senate race (and, likely, the course of the 2008 Presidential nomination). In 2008, Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency in a YouTube video.

But more important than that, activists have used YouTube to make their case on a number of issues through short videos that have been passed from one person to another.  Activists have taken down ACORN with a YouTube video.  Both sides of the health care debate have made their cases with short online videos.

In fact, the current political climate almost necessitates thinking in terms of short, catchy videos.  If you can’t make your case with a funny or poignant two-to-four-minutevideo, you simply cannot win.

It extends to entertainment, too – from Susan Boyle to Saturday Night Live, the availability of short video has served to help turn rank-and-file viewers into unwitting advertisers with the click of a forwarded email.

Internet schminternet

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Ironically, Newsweek’s online archive is the best place to find this article from 1995 decrying the hype around the internet (which was emailed to me by a business associate).  Almost 15 years ago, Clifford Stoll claimed it was ludicrous to expect the online world to provide news, information, and social interaction.  “Baloney,” Stoll says.  “Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth [is] no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.”

Stoll’s arguments make sense if you remember the internet in 1995.  Back then, the online experience started with a screeching modem, and downloading a file took minutes rather than seconds.  And sending money was dicey to say the least, which made e-commerce a non-starter:

We’re promised instant catalog shopping–just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts.  Stores will become obsolete.  So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?  Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet–which there isn’t–the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.

Today, there are probably major malls that don’t do as much business during the Christmas season as the internet does in the blink of an eye, thanks to secure online payment systems.  It turns out, people don’t need salespeople when they have hordes of consumer sites and online reviews to get unvarnished information from.

But the shift has been more than technological.  There is a cultural acceptance of the online world that didn’t exist 15 years ago.  Further, the online world has self-organized in a way that Stoll and others did not anticipate.  For instance, Stoll bemoaned the Usenet bulletin boards, claiming that because everyone had a voice, everyone would get drowned out.  A similar criticism could have been made ten years later as blogs became more prevalent.  As society has become more comfortable online, they have found the sources of information they trust the most.  Anyone can have a blog, but not everyone will have a well-respected or popular blog.

Stoll was right about one very important thing, and that is the role of the internet in personal relationships.  “What’s missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact.” Stoll concluded.  “Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another.”  In 1995, internet enthusiasts envisioned a way to connect with people from around the world – “Play Mortal Kombat with a friend from Vietnam,” was the promise Jim Carrey made in The Cable Guy – and maybe Stoll was right to dismiss that idea.  As the internet evolved, though, it became a tool to maintain connections that would have otherwise frayed.  Facebook can make every day a twenty-first century high school reunion.

It’s hard to predict how technology will change in 15 years.  It’s hard to predict how people will change, too.

“Free is too expensive”

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

That’s yesterday’s line from Les Hinton, who oversees NewsCorp’s American operations such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to newspapers.  They cannot, he explained to the World Newspaper Congress, simply give away the content they create.  “News costs,” said Hinton.  “Quality costs.”

His boss, Rupert Murdoch, has already promised that his online properties will being charging for content, and Hinton encourages others to do the same.  Some outlets have been able to do that – Roll Call, National Journal, and the Wall Street Journal charge readers for online access, and ESPN’s website has certain sections which require a subscription fee.  Google is obliging, making it easier for subscription sites to appear in news searches without giving away all of their content.

But as any armchair economist can tell you, as the price of a product increases the demand goes down.  So media entities which charge for their online content will naturally have fewer readers.  Hinton claims that “such a business model has to mean one of two things: Either there is no demand for the content or there are substitute suppliers of that content sufficient to drive the price almost to zero.”

And indeed, there are substitute suppliers of that content.  When the New York Post begins charging me to read about the New York Yankees, I will simply get my Yankees news from the Daily News – or River Avenue Blues, or MLB Trade Rumors.

Does that mean selling news is a bad business model?  Not necessarily.  By charging for news content, media outlets may wind up with an audience that is smaller in numbers but higher in quality.  For instance, a widely read blogger may find it worth his or her while to subscribe to news sites to stay informed and have the best blog content possible.

If the media outlet hits revenue goals which allow it to produce good content, and the blogger attracts enough readership to sell advertising, everyone hits the metrics they care about – and everybody wins.

Thanksgiving Recap: Turkey, Tiger, and TMZ

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Thanksgiving weekend accident that sent Tiger Woods to the hospital proves that what’s true of nature is true of modern media and media consumers: both abhor a vaccum.

The bizarre circumstances surrounding the situation suggest a deeper explanation than Woods heading out to his local Best Buy to snag some Black Friday door buster deals.  Traditional media outlets have reported  poked fun and spread rumors.  But TMZ is pointing to eyewitness reports that contradict the facts given by ESPN on the ubiquitous crawl across the bottom of the screen during the Thanksgiving weekend college football games.  TMZ also reports that law enforcement agencies are looking more deeply into the matter.

Honestly, the truth of Tiger Woods and his wild ride are of little import to world affairs.  Everyone – or at least, almost everyone – is happy that his injuries weren’t serious, and he can go back to being the amazing golf ball whacker guy that he was on Wednesday.

For TMZ, though, the Tiger tale gives them another notch on their belt to go along with their scoop on the death of Michael Jackson.  What used to be a disdained celebrity gossip site has now played a key role in two major stories over the past six months.  Woods even had to respond to the reports – predictably calling them false, but offering no new details.

TMZ succeeds because they fill a need for information that other media are unable to provide – working largely by interviewing witnesses, digging through public records, and other classic hallmarks of the un-sexy world of old fashioned shoe-leather journalism.  Contrast that with the largely opinion-driven chatter that permeates 24 hour news channels, and the secret of TMZ’s success becomes a little more clear.