Comments on: Via PaidContent: “Old Media’s Options: Co-opt New Media, Take Its Lead—Or Both”

By: Islander 84

Islander 84 — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:57:20 +0000

Am I missing something? Besides a ton of buzz and millions of people flocking to social media (many to see video of sleeping cats), where are the examples – hard examples of what public broadcasting is missing out on. When I think of public media, I think of excellence of content. Lots of people flocked to “Who Wants to be a millionaire”, millions of people bought Rubic’s cube, thousands bought pet rocks, everyone with a dot-com was printing money. All the while NOVA, NPR and other innovators created some the highest quality content that didn’t play to the mass audience.

I will grant you there is something revolutionary about social media – the landscape will never be exactly the same, BUT, to where should I be showing my reverence? People are communicating and connecting with each other without ever leaving their house? …. sounds like it might have as much “legs” as a pet rock in the long term. I realize I come off sounding like I am sounding both like I both have my head in the sand but at the same time have a glimpse of the “revolution” that y’all have bought in to, but, what I really would like to see is what y’all are seeing that makes you feel like social media (and the leaders in that arena currently) will obliterate everyone else who has come before.

PRX is the best example and they are “in” the public broadcasting family already and hopefully pushing the envelope for others to follow. Don’t give me YouTube as an example – pure voyeurism – that’s not a standard that I would put up to public broadcastings reputation. Y’all cite the first popular podcasts – where are they now? As you mention – nowhere – some of the most popular ones are those content creators who had starts in or still are in traditional media.

What am I missing here? I don’t mean to come off as a know-it-all, I honestly want to know what y’all have seen that makes you certain that social media will far surpass current media. So far I see a lot of talk and reverence shown for a media that has more promise than proven success in positively changing peoples lives permanently.

thus ends my ramble …

rob

By: Kerry

Kerry — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:42:08 +0000

Hey Jake,

I think you are on target with your assertion that this is an opportunity for public media to make a correction by integrating audience input via the third space.

Old Media’s only real option is to kill its own ego and remake itself into a much more nimble and less monolithic entity. As this “third space” rapidly matures, it will co-opt the power of commercial and non-commercial outlets to create and retain an audience. Already much content is a cellular entity that is consumed via YouTube, PRX, BitTorrent, and the like. Like many others, I am more apt to go to Google to look for content than I am to go to the radio dial, the TV, a station or network site, or a social network site. Right now, in 2006, traditional distribution and broadcast models are much less effective at audience creation and retention than they were even a year ago.

Rather than focusing on an empirical content aggregation model, I think it now makes more sense to focus on an de-centralized star-system of content creation. Individual reporters and producers should be cultivated and branded. This is a huge opportunity to develop in-depth content to feed hyper-specific audiences.

I hope the biggest impact of social networks on established media entities will be to force the big players to invest in high quality content. Good content still herds the most cats. Unfortunately, it’s already going the other way with Yahoo! and Reuters distributing cel phone videos to news organizations.

Finally, while pubmedia gets its feet wet in this third space, I think it must atomize its current funding model, underwriting individual bits of content, and giving underwriters the gift of niche, microaudiences.

Kerry…

By: jake

jake — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:24:47 +0000

Hey “Ida”, thanks for the comment. I think you got my post and the PaidContent post I was commenting on mixed up, but I appreciate your points. I totally agree that social media is not waiting around for public broadcasting at all, nor should it. At Beyond Broadcast last year part one of the questions was whether social media may ultimately render public broadcasting superfluous. Basically I’m saying that some of the best of what public media has attempted and achieved merits mapping over to social media; for its own sake public broadcasting would do well to understand and support social media; and big commercial media is aggressively scrambling to sort it out to its advantage already. And yes, public broadcasting has lots of work to do to improve what it’s already got and reach audiences that it’s not serving now. I like your newspaper idea, certainly seems some of them are looking for buyers…

By: Ida Rathanot

Ida Rathanot — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:58:15 +0000

Not only is ‘new media’ not that ‘new’ anymore (folks, its almost 2007 already…) ‘social media’ is, by and large, white noise. This commentary isn’t a bad example. Harness social media? Good luck harnessing a landscape where there are zero barriers to entry. Social media simply doesn’t need pubcasters to make it more public: it’s pretty ‘public’ already, thanks. Which brings us to the obvious:
If a traditional broadcast media outlet (comm or non-comm) wants to put up its own soapbox and/or otherwise bring worthy values (or junky values, if you prefer) to the social media space–have at it. Nothing’s stopping you. Go on: become huge! Fulfill a public service on the web! Do good deeds! Just don’t be disappointed if the world doesn’t come knocking at your portal.
Or, perhaps, public broadcasting could truly extend its mission and launch a high profile, first-rate international newspaper.
No? Why not? Too expensive? Not enough print expertise? “Newspapers are disappearing”, you say?
Puh-leeze.
If public broadcasting wants to ‘articulate its values and aspirations’, perhaps it should make a go of doing a better job with the channels and tools already at hand. Isn’t it challenging enough to make better public broadcast programming that’s more relevant to more people?
I keep re-reading the title of this piece, wondering what I’ve missed. “Old Media’s Options: Co-opt New Media, Take Its Lead or Both”.
Um…or else…what?