Comments on: The Death of Traditional Media http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/ Mike Harding's Blog Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:58:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: mike http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32405 mike Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:18:14 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32405 Andy, wow, what a comment. Where to begin? The quality and content of "news" is a related, but completely different topic that I'll get at some point in the future. But I agree, it has devolved into a blunt tool of propaganda at best. Re the outlooks, I didn't give time scales purposefully and think that likely, my case represents an early adopter stance with regard to the media examples given above. However, within a generation I think, the outlook (meaning profits are now absent from these media) will have taken hold. I agree with you on sports and movies (consumed at home.) I don't really know what will take the place of traditional media, but I would posit that attributes of each replacement will be: - On-demand access to content - Specific content filtered to specific interests, micro interests if you will - or perhaps mass personalization - Content to be transportable to any device at any time - A mix of free content and pay to access content with the majority being free and the pay to access having specific time related relevance i.e., content loses value in a decline curve as it ages - Consumers will dictate use terms, not producers - The number of producers will increase by at least 2 orders of magnitude over present sources - Quality content will still reign supreme, and there may be cost associated with high-end, branded quality content There most assuredly will be multiple ways to consume that content through multiple channels. I don't expect to see Viacom and Fox as the primary purveyors though... Andy, wow, what a comment. Where to begin? The quality and content of “news” is a related, but completely different topic that I’ll get at some point in the future. But I agree, it has devolved into a blunt tool of propaganda at best.

Re the outlooks, I didn’t give time scales purposefully and think that likely, my case represents an early adopter stance with regard to the media examples given above. However, within a generation I think, the outlook (meaning profits are now absent from these media) will have taken hold.

I agree with you on sports and movies (consumed at home.) I don’t really know what will take the place of traditional media, but I would posit that attributes of each replacement will be:

- On-demand access to content

- Specific content filtered to specific interests, micro interests if you will - or perhaps mass personalization

- Content to be transportable to any device at any time

- A mix of free content and pay to access content with the majority being free and the pay to access having specific time related relevance i.e., content loses value in a decline curve as it ages

- Consumers will dictate use terms, not producers

- The number of producers will increase by at least 2 orders of magnitude over present sources

- Quality content will still reign supreme, and there may be cost associated with high-end, branded quality content

There most assuredly will be multiple ways to consume that content through multiple channels. I don’t expect to see Viacom and Fox as the primary purveyors though…

]]> By: mike http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32404 mike Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:11:16 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32404 Thanks for the comment Tom. NPR is interesting, we've outlawed it from the house as it is a) worse than commercials the every two week beg-fest for money and b) it is no longer objective. Thanks for the comment Tom. NPR is interesting, we’ve outlawed it from the house as it is a) worse than commercials the every two week beg-fest for money and b) it is no longer objective.

]]> By: Andy http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32397 Andy Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:02:46 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32397 It’s been said before that history is written by the victors. That is a problem for students of history because while dates and participants of historical events may be accurately presented, the hows and whys typically suffer from narrow critical analysis or none at all and so become lost or distorted (e.g., Columbus discovered America in 1492). It used to be that our news media, electronic and print, made efforts to be accurate and were assumed to be dispassionately presented and objective. In my lifetime, this has changed. Now “news” as presented on TV and in newspapers is similar to history, it is written by victors or at least those in the lead. I agree with your analysis on the trends of traditional media but not the outlook, at least not in the near term. Here’s why. I think the echo chamber that Fox, CNN, CSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. call “news” is still consumed at a critical level. And next to organized religion, print and electronic media are still among the best tools available to whip the great unwashed into a frenzy. To date, the general consensus of many Americans regarding Iraq, Iran, Democracy, Christianity (whatever that is), the Middle East in general, environment, science...is still largely dictated by the bombastic palaver (a more pc term than horseshit) streaming regularly from our TV’s or being plastered across the front pages of rags audaciously called “newspapers.” The trends may be real but they don't resonate yet. I wish everyone would stop consuming these media immediately. Come to think of it, I wish they’d stop going to church too. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had to try a little to understand what was going on in the world and also had to be accountable for their actions? I think the world would be a more reasonable place. At least, I think less Americans would pose the predictable triple threat of being narrow minded, uninformed and mean-spirited. Certainly there would be no appeal for the poster child of this philosophy, George Bush. My tendencies and a few alternate outcomes: Newspapers – The Ruppert Murdoch’s of the world will publish newspapers until the profit margin goes away. The profit margin of American news to the Murdochs, I am pretty sure, has little to do with circulation. I still read the sports pages because human accomplishment is uplifting, regardless how many steroids were eaten in the process. Television – TV will devolve into all live sex, all live executions, 24 x 7 interviews with the mentally disturbed, and advertising. It’s a drug. It will never go away. (By the way, news and advertising should always be placed in the same category.) Radio – I pay for and patronize locally-owned radio. Since publicly funded radio (e.g., NPR) is no longer objective nor are many of their supporters (why people still think it is “public” is beyond me), I’m hopeful that home-grown media such as locally owned radio and newspapers have a future. Movies – I’ve come full circle. I now enjoy the movies again. They are still what they used to be for me as a kid: a bigger than life escape. Movies are here for the foreseeable future. I believe that the void created when actual news went away from our media has been more than filled by the internet; however, information still seems too disseminated to have an impact. Or is it? Will certain websites or blogs organically evolve into prime sources of information? Will something else replace the news void in our media? Thoughts? It’s been said before that history is written by the victors. That is a problem for students of history because while dates and participants of historical events may be accurately presented, the hows and whys typically suffer from narrow critical analysis or none at all and so become lost or distorted (e.g., Columbus discovered America in 1492).

It used to be that our news media, electronic and print, made efforts to be accurate and were assumed to be dispassionately presented and objective. In my lifetime, this has changed. Now “news” as presented on TV and in newspapers is similar to history, it is written by victors or at least those in the lead.

I agree with your analysis on the trends of traditional media but not the outlook, at least not in the near term. Here’s why. I think the echo chamber that Fox, CNN, CSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. call “news” is still consumed at a critical level. And next to organized religion, print and electronic media are still among the best tools available to whip the great unwashed into a frenzy. To date, the general consensus of many Americans regarding Iraq, Iran, Democracy, Christianity (whatever that is), the Middle East in general, environment, science…is still largely dictated by the bombastic palaver (a more pc term than horseshit) streaming regularly from our TV’s or being plastered across the front pages of rags audaciously called “newspapers.”

The trends may be real but they don’t resonate yet. I wish everyone would stop consuming these media immediately. Come to think of it, I wish they’d stop going to church too. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had to try a little to understand what was going on in the world and also had to be accountable for their actions? I think the world would be a more reasonable place. At least, I think less Americans would pose the predictable triple threat of being narrow minded, uninformed and mean-spirited. Certainly there would be no appeal for the poster child of this philosophy, George Bush.

My tendencies and a few alternate outcomes:

Newspapers – The Ruppert Murdoch’s of the world will publish newspapers until the profit margin goes away. The profit margin of American news to the Murdochs, I am pretty sure, has little to do with circulation. I still read the sports pages because human accomplishment is uplifting, regardless how many steroids were eaten in the process.

Television – TV will devolve into all live sex, all live executions, 24 x 7 interviews with the mentally disturbed, and advertising. It’s a drug. It will never go away. (By the way, news and advertising should always be placed in the same category.)

Radio – I pay for and patronize locally-owned radio. Since publicly funded radio (e.g., NPR) is no longer objective nor are many of their supporters (why people still think it is “public” is beyond me), I’m hopeful that home-grown media such as locally owned radio and newspapers have a future.

Movies – I’ve come full circle. I now enjoy the movies again. They are still what they used to be for me as a kid: a bigger than life escape. Movies are here for the foreseeable future.

I believe that the void created when actual news went away from our media has been more than filled by the internet; however, information still seems too disseminated to have an impact. Or is it? Will certain websites or blogs organically evolve into prime sources of information? Will something else replace the news void in our media? Thoughts?

]]> By: Tom http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32395 Tom Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:20:12 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/10/17/the-death-of-traditional-media/#comment-32395 I'd have to agree with you for the most part Mike. The exception in my case is radio. I still listen to the radio in the house and the car. Mostly NPR or some classic rock or something. I do have a couple of sirius radios that I listen to frequently. The next 20 years shall be quit interesting indeed. I’d have to agree with you for the most part Mike. The exception in my case is radio. I still listen to the radio in the house and the car. Mostly NPR or some classic rock or something. I do have a couple of sirius radios that I listen to frequently. The next 20 years shall be quit interesting indeed.

]]>