Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Amazon of the media, the printing press and storytelling
Once upon a time Johannes Gutenberg invented (or re-invented, or perfected) the printing press with moveable type. For a long, long time the press he designed and made was THE printing technology.
Then other people modified and improved the press and the type, used new materials that made it all more durable or easier to use or more efficient, and their presses and type expanded the market.
Then a clever person (or people) devised a way to separate type and press, so that the text could be set up separately and combined with the press in a different way that was more efficient again. As Adam Smith would have predicted, this increased output further. It also allowed presses to become faster, driven first by steam and then by electricity.
Then the mechanical typesetting systems were replaced by electronic ones, and then the electronic versions were made simpler and easier and this process collided with the miniaturisation of computers, leading to desktop publishing that put the compositors and proof-readers out of business.
And now, as Marshall McLuhan would have predicted, the press has become a fully electric artefact, incorporated invisibly into the code that drives a computer and its screen.
At each stage there was upheaval and realignment; people who did old things had to learn to do new things or be pushed aside by the inevitability of technological progress.
And at each stage, as old business opportunities and models died away, new ones took their place.
The people who made the real money were those who owned the means of production, as Karl Marx would have predicted, by which they could introduce those with something to sell to those who had the money to buy – and charge both sides. The bait was "journalism" (ie stories) and they needed to employ other people to do the actual production (printers, compositors, journalists), so the money got spread around a bit, and they continued to grow partly by taking over or driving out smaller, less capitalised businesses.
We can see that something major is happening now, and even though we can't see the outcome, the process follows a similar pattern.
A clever man (or men, or people) invents the electronic press (internet protocol), someone invents a way to both locate and distribute the products of that press (search: AltaVista, Dogpile), then someone else invents a better, more efficient, way (Google). So far, the people who have made a bit of money out of this are the equipment suppliers (routers, servers, personal computers) and the businesses that have managed to combine search and advertising (basically Google to date).
At the same time, because the means of production have become much more widely available, capital and the accumulation of income have also become more widely (and thinly) distributed.
The question for journalists then becomes either "Who will pay me to produce?" or "How can I tap into the current streams of revenue?"
(This leaves aside questions about the role of the press as the Fourth Estate, and editorial workers as Gate Keepers and all that – perhaps those roles are relativistic.)
If the previous patterns show us anything useful, it is that someone will invent a new way of harvesting the potential – but also that many new ways of harvesting will be discovered. And if the shitstream (Copyright: Dr Daniel Meadows) of the internet tells us anything it is that people still love stories, telling their own and consuming other people's.
So here's one thing for all journalists to cling on to: Find the best stories.
Then other people modified and improved the press and the type, used new materials that made it all more durable or easier to use or more efficient, and their presses and type expanded the market.
Then a clever person (or people) devised a way to separate type and press, so that the text could be set up separately and combined with the press in a different way that was more efficient again. As Adam Smith would have predicted, this increased output further. It also allowed presses to become faster, driven first by steam and then by electricity.
Then the mechanical typesetting systems were replaced by electronic ones, and then the electronic versions were made simpler and easier and this process collided with the miniaturisation of computers, leading to desktop publishing that put the compositors and proof-readers out of business.
And now, as Marshall McLuhan would have predicted, the press has become a fully electric artefact, incorporated invisibly into the code that drives a computer and its screen.
At each stage there was upheaval and realignment; people who did old things had to learn to do new things or be pushed aside by the inevitability of technological progress.
And at each stage, as old business opportunities and models died away, new ones took their place.
The people who made the real money were those who owned the means of production, as Karl Marx would have predicted, by which they could introduce those with something to sell to those who had the money to buy – and charge both sides. The bait was "journalism" (ie stories) and they needed to employ other people to do the actual production (printers, compositors, journalists), so the money got spread around a bit, and they continued to grow partly by taking over or driving out smaller, less capitalised businesses.
We can see that something major is happening now, and even though we can't see the outcome, the process follows a similar pattern.
A clever man (or men, or people) invents the electronic press (internet protocol), someone invents a way to both locate and distribute the products of that press (search: AltaVista, Dogpile), then someone else invents a better, more efficient, way (Google). So far, the people who have made a bit of money out of this are the equipment suppliers (routers, servers, personal computers) and the businesses that have managed to combine search and advertising (basically Google to date).
At the same time, because the means of production have become much more widely available, capital and the accumulation of income have also become more widely (and thinly) distributed.
The question for journalists then becomes either "Who will pay me to produce?" or "How can I tap into the current streams of revenue?"
(This leaves aside questions about the role of the press as the Fourth Estate, and editorial workers as Gate Keepers and all that – perhaps those roles are relativistic.)
If the previous patterns show us anything useful, it is that someone will invent a new way of harvesting the potential – but also that many new ways of harvesting will be discovered. And if the shitstream (Copyright: Dr Daniel Meadows) of the internet tells us anything it is that people still love stories, telling their own and consuming other people's.
So here's one thing for all journalists to cling on to: Find the best stories.
Labels: amazon, audience, Cardiff Journalism School, community, development, digital revenue, media jobs, online, print journalism, readertorial, web 2.0
Monday, November 17, 2008
Follow-up Amazon themed thoughts
After publishing the previous post I came across a piece by Scott Karp on Publishing 2.0 which seems relevant - although some of the comments go into unrelated areas.
Labels: amazon, development, digital revenue
Opening thoughts about an Amazon of the media
Reading a Guardian Money article about the online retailer triggered a question: what would be the media equivalent of Amazon?
This was the specific paragraph that got me thinking:
Perhaps it's yet another of Jeff Jarvis's "we'll know what to call it when we see it" phenomena.
(Uh oh - when finding the link to Jarvis's piece I also found this about a new aggregator-portal: Jarvis seems to be involved with the project in some way too.)
This was the specific paragraph that got me thinking:
It suggests that shopping around the net in the traditional way - searching out the cheapest price for each individual purchase at price comparison websites and then ordering from a raft of different retailers - may now be redundant. Many online competitors have decided that if you can't beat them, join them. Amazon invites other retailers into its "marketplace", allowing it to offer prices that, even if they are not sourced by Amazon itself, are some of the cheapest on the net. Rival Pixmania.com now sells through Amazon, while Marks & Spencer and Mothercare have subcontracted Amazon to power their own websites.So far I have not developed the thought at all but I can say that the equivalent would not be like a "portal", even though the principle could be interpreted that way. It's probably closer to Sky or Freeview, a service that offers many other services; a one-stop point of choice.
Perhaps it's yet another of Jeff Jarvis's "we'll know what to call it when we see it" phenomena.
(Uh oh - when finding the link to Jarvis's piece I also found this about a new aggregator-portal: Jarvis seems to be involved with the project in some way too.)
Labels: aggregation, aggregator, amazon, development, digital revenue, Guardian Money, jeff jarvis, mashup, online
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Clarksongate
That's funny. It looks as though my Clarkson hypothetical is happening!
Or perhaps it's just predictable.
Or perhaps it's just predictable.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Clarkson shares in Top Gear's success
In an interesting addendum to the last post, according to a report in the Guardian (part written by Cardiff Magazine Journalism graduate Owen Gibson) Jeremy Clarkson is on a deal that allows him "to share in the commercial exploitation of Top Gear around the world". That must be a bit like having points in a Hollywood movie.
In another addendum, never, ever mention the fact that the first Lord Rothermere, founder of the Daily Mail, had Nazi sympathies, both with Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts in this country and Adolf Hitler's real deal in Germany. Because if you do mention that fact and the Daily Mail's current editor Paul Dacre hears you (especially if you say it on the radio, for instance), he is likely to go "barmy" ('A source at the Mail said yesterday that when Brand mentioned Hitler, editor-in-chief Dacre went "barmy"') and come after you with the big stick of British newspaper journalism at its finest.
And when I jokingly said that the Mail is a boiling bucket of hypocritical pus, I actually meant to say that it is like unto a whited sepulcre.
In another addendum, never, ever mention the fact that the first Lord Rothermere, founder of the Daily Mail, had Nazi sympathies, both with Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts in this country and Adolf Hitler's real deal in Germany. Because if you do mention that fact and the Daily Mail's current editor Paul Dacre hears you (especially if you say it on the radio, for instance), he is likely to go "barmy" ('A source at the Mail said yesterday that when Brand mentioned Hitler, editor-in-chief Dacre went "barmy"') and come after you with the big stick of British newspaper journalism at its finest.
And when I jokingly said that the Mail is a boiling bucket of hypocritical pus, I actually meant to say that it is like unto a whited sepulcre.
Labels: Adolf Hitler, Barmy, Blackshirts, Cardiff Journalism School, Jeremy Clarkson, Lord Rothermere, Nazi, Oswald Mosley, Paul Dacre, Top Gear, Whited Sepulcre
