Abstract
The thesis examines what new media is and what its relationship is to the news and information genres of old media. The first chapter has an analysis of successful pod and video casting programmes and evaluates some of the major players. In chapter two there is a close analysis of the reaction of old media and what new media means for its continued existence. The thesis argues that new media will soon be a legitimate threat to general broadcast medium productions and the technologies that allow for many to many communication will permanently secure this competitive edge.
List of Contents
Introduction New media and its meaning to old media
Chapter 1 New media
Chapter 2 Old media mindsets
List of Figures
Appendix
Bibliography
New Media and its meaning to Old Media
New media is a place where exciting changes are happening due to the
cossover of low cost technology and a media-aware society. For the purposes of this thesis new media will refer to podcasts and related items including a podcast’s official message boards, blogs and other genres of new media which are similar in function and nature to old media: radio, television and newspapers but are available online.
The reason for looking at these items which share a sort of symmetry with old media is to enable comparisons to be drawn and observe how a new environment is promoting the evolution of classic old media techniques. The current premiere new media talent are mostly old media veterans trained by old media who have decided to use the Internet instead of standard broadcasting methods. This cultural change is what separates these people and programmes from old media. Learning about creators and the causes of their modus operandi is the key to understanding what this transition means. They sidestep the huge cost and technology infrastructures required in an offline old media environment and this has given rise to variety, freedom from conventions and a lack of government censorship.
Because people have grown up with television, films and now the Internet they have learned the visual language of these media and have become media aware. This is only the first stage. As hardware becomes cheaper and more prevalent among a wider group of people, i.e. camera phones and other cheap recording methods, technical knowledge will increase and modes of expression will change, no longer taking cues from old media. This is a point of crossover where old expertise and new technologies are interacting and learning about the relationship will be of interest. However, soon new technology and new techniques will takeover permanently as people learn about media language primarily from the web and new media streams with old media being a tertiary influence. This is part of why this period of change is worth investigating.
While new media’s distribution methods and subculture has received some attention new media is not yet understood on the same level as television or film. Jennings’s work focuses on ‘information scent’ (2007), discovery and making clear how there is ‘no longer a monopoly on taste’ (2007). Jenkins[1] has written about fan culture with reference to new media and the ownership, corporations such as Warner Bros, try to exert over amateur works. There will be input from the most relevant literature on new media.
The primary investigatory element of the thesis will be an attempt to understand why old media is so passive and uncaring about this new platform. This is a part of the Innovator’s Dilemma[2]. Old media has been reluctant to engage users online aside from promotional campaigns. Christenson has argued that a firm will often fail due to delaying “making a strategic commitment to enter”[3]. This fear seems to stem from misdirecting an audience to the proportionally low income Internet advertising away from the high income television advertising.
There will be two core approaches. One section will analyse emerging online media by looking at the new conventions, modifications and just how experimental it is. There will also be an analysis of network structures and what the different distributions methods mean. This will be a part of learning about if and how online media takes a traditional idea like advertising and alters it to keep the idea relevant in an online context. For example, the area of commerce in new media is often overlooked but there are new modes of interaction with sponsors[4] and new delivery systems that are customisable to the nth degree. Also, the weaknesses of new media will be examined, for example, new media does not have many traditional methods of production that are known techniques nor the large budgets or longstanding culture of television, print and radio.
The other approach will look at how/if old media is operating in reaction to these new modes of publication in order to ascertain what effect new media is having. “Firsts” and “bests” and listing places, dates etc will be avoided[5] as points of comparison or achievement as the issues are inherently more complex. Television’s first years were experimental and the development of new media is following a similar trajectory but going into a new realm of possibilities that are not limited like prior media forms. One of the points of comparison will be internal to Old Media itself and how some organisations have made better choices than others
Chapter 1 New media
New media uses some old media ideas in its construction but distributes and operates in new ways and is a disruptive technology[6]. The product itself, for example a WebbAlert news brief[7], is not fundamentally different in what it sets out to do from a television news brief, that is to inform. However it is able to do so in a way that is less restricted by time, sponsors and FCC rules. But the technical quality is not always high or reliable. Christenson states:
When they first appear, they almost always lower performance in terms of the attributes that mainstream customers care about….But disruptive technologies have other attributes that a few fringe customers value. They are typically cheaper, smaller, simpler and frequently more convenient to use. Thus they open new markets. [8]
New media is disruptive to old media because of a number of factors:
1. Convenience
Podcasts live forever, they can be downloaded when new or years later unlike one-time radio or television broadcasts.
2. New attributes
They are not dependent on a single platform. Podcasts and other new media can be copied, transferred and listened to on almost any device.
3. Opening new markets
The content is niche and able to exploit that niche in ways the classic lowest common denominator approach is unable to.
4. Cheaper
No television, radio or costly subscription package is needed.
5. Worldwide distribution
Content is accessible via the Internet which is becoming increasingly ubiquitous.
6. Fringe customers
New modes of interactivity between author and audience.
These are just the core aspects. To understand how these aspects of new media represent a disruptive technology two video podcasts will be examined in a textual analysis with their supporting functions, i.e. websites and associated technologies. These will then be compared to analogous old media genres to identify how these technologies, though still emerging, represent a significant challenge to the authority and level of influence old media possesses.
The objects to be examined are: WebbAlert (2007, Morgan Webb), Sessler’s Soapbox (2007, Adam Sessler).
Jenkins implies that new media (at the time of his writing) was used more recreationally than as a serious professional medium[9]. This is changing now that podcasting is becoming easier and there is a knowledge base available to newcomers as well as quantifiable business benefits[10] . It is possible to form entire networks ranging from thousands of audio podcasts to serious IPTV now that programming is beginning to take shape that appeals to several different audiences.
The clearest example of how this is done well is Revision 3. Revision 3’s history dates back to an old American cable television network called Ziff Davis Television or ZDTV. Martin Sargent, head of Revision 3’s comedy programming spoke about the network:
I was working for a magazine called PC Computing that was owned by ZD and they decided to start up this 24 hour cable station about computers and the Internet called ZDTV so they tapped their writers and editors from their magazines and various holdings to come on as guests and pundits and experts and so on.
It was a wild place to work and for most of us it was our first experience with being on television so I think for the viewers there was a very obvious sense of wonder and a real level of authenticity that you didn’t see on the other television stations.[11]
Much of the staff of Revision 3 are former ZDTV employees. The original network, as noted, had authenticity[12] and this has carried over into the current incarnation of Revision 3’s technology programming. This attitude and expertise lends itself well to online broadcasting because unlike other pundits or hosts they are clearly just as interested and sometimes even more knowledgeable on a given subject than viewers and are more than just “talking heads”. They are involved in every aspect of production and work hard on their individual shows sourcing material and writing copy.
Unlike most other online programmes all of Revision 3’s podcasts are on one site. This is strikingly similar to the website of a television network in having a number of programmes unified under a brand.
Because they are hosted in one place visitors will be exposed to other programmes hosted on the same site. It is a weakness of other podcasts that users have to search and find an isolated podcast and often they accidentally find something they did not even know they wanted. Even when a podcast is in a directory like iTunes it is difficult to be noticed. Comparatively Revision 3’s site shows photographs larger than a stamp, rotates shows on the homepage and has direct video links.
This adoption of the old media network model is unusual because of the niche nature of the Internet. Most podcasters make a programme that pertains to their interests such as sport or comedy and stay within that. It is not typical for a wide variety of material to be made by a single producer or under one brand. This prevents a lot of open competition with old media which has a variety of shows for different demographics running continuously. Television also gives its programmes as much exposure as possible, cross promoting them in print, on websites and at the end of other programmes. Promoting at the end of a programme is different to a podcast plugging another podcast or on a blog because the television viewer does not need to intervene to find or download it, they just stay on the same channel. Because of this divided stance podcasts generally have fewer viewers as their independence makes them more difficult to be discovered and marketed.
Manovich’s idea of the logic of new media[13] (production on demand, just in time, things made possible by computers) is related to this new network structure. New media networks are more capable of meeting the individual needs of their viewers than old media networks. Because they are able to produce video on demand there is no waiting and viewers are able to customise their experience by watching what they want, in whatever order when they want. This means that the traditional “prime time” space (usually 7PM-11PM) is moot. Traditionally old media has offered video on demand, pay per view and others but these are space restricted to the television, they cannot be moved or archived at a viewer’s discretion or watched on another platform. Revision 3 uses RSS feeds and iTunes for subscribers and in a sense this is like a user putting together their own on demand television channel. The difference that new media makes is portability, modularity and automation[14].
New media networks are also adept at evolving with consumer needs. Television does not, it stays in one corner of the room and is a one way medium. Granted, television networks have made some shows available on iTunes but one must look further than the simple distribution avenues. iTunes carries major television programmes which makes it popular but the format is low resolution and video is cropped to look better on an iPod shaped screen as many users will be watching the video using video iPods but the downloads are often watched on a computer screen and the low resolution and cropping has several side effects.
Fig 1 From roughlydrafted.com[15]
Figure One is a representation of the difference. Comparatively Revision 3 offers video quality ranging from small to high definition for its programmes[16]. This is different to iTunes as their video can be watched without restriction on all platforms in several formats and this better serves their viewers. Computer users can download the high definition version and portable device users can download the small version. Whereas Revision 3 produces all their material iTunes is dependent on old media makers which means they are beholden to their outdated rules, even ones which limit the potential revenue. Cropping the frame and low resolution has the side effect of forcing the most loyal and thus the most valuable viewer, the type that wants the full experience, to turn to illegal file sharing to obtain an uncropped high resolution version. This is the modern version of traditionalists looking for a pristine film print.
Downloading is still a highly contentious issue among old media makers because they perceive downloading as a low revenue enterprise[17]. NBC initially pulled its programming from iTunes citing this. The universally abhorred Digital Rights Management restrictions on downloads are also an inherent aspect of all iTunes’ files and DRM, indirectly, preserves DVD market purchases which are of higher quality and more costly[18]. Microsoft’s Darknet paper, describes the effects of the inconvenience of DRM versus a lack of restrictions:
…..a securely DRM-wrapped song is strictly less attractive: although the industry is striving for flexible licensing rules, customers will be restricted in their actions if the system is to provide meaningful security. This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects. In short, if you are competing with the Darknet, you must compete on the Darknet’s own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security.[19]
Because of the built in flaws iTunes represents a hybrid. It uses the distribution lines of new media and the content of old media. Content makers have attempted to transfer the rules of physical access, from a viewer sitting in front of a television to a viewer watching on an iPod or a computer by using DRM. It could be argued that this is a stealth attempt to make viewers pay for space shifting, buying one low resolution copy for their iPod and a DVD copy for television viewing. iTunes has just started offering high definition content but, at the time of writing, it is limited to film rentals, not to keep. Mass legal downloading and the ability to purchase a wide variety of programmes is a significant step forward but the deliberate limits imposed demonstrate how old media concepts still play a large role and are ultimately self defeating.
Differences between new media production and old media production
On a basic cable television programme there is a staff of at least fifteen people plus the crew (who probably tape other shows at different times of the day) so there will be approximately forty people working on a show at a given time[20]. On an audio podcast such as Weezy and The Swish (W.A.T.S)[21] much of the work is simpler because of the format and the video based WebbAlert only has one camera, one shot and is a short show. W.A.T.S has a recording engineer and part time web developer. These programmes are often created and produced by the host(s) and assisted, technology wise if they are incapable themselves, by a few contacts. In the case of Revision 3’s Infected (2005) the three hosts (Sargent, Spieden and Rabier) made the series themselves for an investment of less than three hundred dollars[22]. At these budgets most new media is not on the same level as a studio produced programme[23]. However having all these technically aware personnel represents a fundamental shift in the division of labour which means that programmes can be made by very few people, especially when they are expert enough to be able to use technology. A podcast requires as little as one host, some basic sound editing tools and a content delivery method.
These are important differences but many old media practices survive. Though new media has a new set of production principles and a free hand to serve any niche thought still has to be given to sponsors. In this sense the old and new are still closely linked by way of some offline conventions that have been adapted to online ideas and ways of distribution.
Jennings states that because new media sources do not have the physical and currently higher grossing supply lines that old media has such as selling a CD in a shop, this has forced new media to invent new methods of promotion and advertising[24] and the overall business model. Old media perceives no need to change. Online, advertising has been reinvented for the new medium. The Internet has banner advertisements and Google Adwords but new media cannot just run the same television adverts or the same radio spots. Users do not download and search for things only to be advertised to and podcasts that follow this course are ultimately unsuccessful as they are seen as an extension of the sponsor[25] and thus not credible or interesting. This means there needs to be a new kind of integration and rethinking of typical advertising policies and product placement. Revision 3[26], is pioneering the visual advertising evolution and works very closely with one of its big sponsors, Go Daddy[27], to the extent that advertising is filmed in their studio with hosts and spokesperson Candice Michelle who also appears at live tapings at special events[28].
This is markedly different to most older methods. Go Daddy is an Internet domain registrar whose income comes from IT users and Revision 3’s core audience are these people. This audience is international in nature and domains can be purchased all over the world so using Internet based advertising is a good way to reach them. Go Daddy has advertised in the Super Bowl but is now able to work directly with a media maker and produce “laser targeted”[29] advertising that is effectively integrated into programming. Using Miss Michelle as a spokesperson and giving discount codes keeps an audience watching instead of switching off during a hard sell by a host “holding up the can of beans”[30]. The audience remains more interested than they otherwise would. The viewers are an unusual demographic in that they are more technically adept than average (ergo not very reachable via old media methods) and liable to go to another website if they feel exploited. The discount codes are also unique to each programme allowing Go Daddy to monitor success. Through this integration and acknowledgement Revision 3 is still appealing to viewers while keeping a sponsor.
However, new media is in the habit, in these initial first steps, of taking a lead from old media with regard to advertising. The familiar model of a host endorsement and a spot pronouncing “This programme is brought to you by….” still lives on, to an extent but in a less formal or blatant way. Sargent has pointed out that there were three segments separated by ad breaks on many Revision 3 programmes. The primary difference is that most of this material seem to be produced by the programme’s makers. The sponsor appears to buy the spot and allows (in Sargent’s case at least) a host to write copy and produce a spot that keeps viewers engaged and less likely to click on ahead. Also, because of the low amount of time required it keeps a viewer immersed in the programme as it is less disturbing. Jenkins calls this technique affective economics[31] citing the decreasing value of the thirty second advert: blurring the line between entertainment content and brand messages. This is very different to present television advertising which uses approximately 15-17 minutes per hour for advertising even though hardware such as Tivos are able to fast forward through them. New media advertising has been more closely integrated and it is more effort to click forward than to observe it. The increased cooperation with sponsors has effectively made the spots an extension of the show’s creativity. This is a newness that online tools have made possible and illustrates the changing nature of new media compared to old.
Comparatively old media differences in this regard are significant. Print/television/radio concerns obviously target different audiences but they aim to deliver as many viewers to advertisements as possible. In both mediums numbers are important but in different ways. Online tools and low investment mean low risk, low costs (to advertisers and producers) and there is more precise tracking so more programming and experimental ideas are likely to be tried. With the international reach of podcasts Go Daddy can appeal specifically to a large group of Internet users whereas a thirty second Super Bowl spot, though watched by millions, will only be seen once and only in America. Podcasts and other new media programming have the potential to make a longer lasting impact on a wider scale due to their longevity and unparalleled accessibility.
However, there are still elements of old in the new. Sponsors are important because they fund programming and provide income. The high profile sponsors such as Go Daddy or Bank of America have standards. Even though sponsoring a podcast does not come close to the high price of nationwide television campaigns sponsors still feel the need to protect their image and still wield a fair amount of power. This is not necessarily a weakness in new media in that there are automated text advertisements such as Ad Sense but for a more significant income bigger sponsors are required.
That sponsors of old media like Bank of America are moving into online niche appeal programmes is interesting because it demonstrates that niches have two qualities that sponsors like. The first is that a niche appeal product such as a media centre can be marketed directly to computer enthusiasts. Because of the niche a sponsor that makes a niche product can be less general than they would otherwise need to be. The second is that even when a programme operates in a niche there are general services and products that most people need such as banking which can still be marketed.
The precise level of influence that advertisers have over online video-casters is unknown. Because advertising is less frequent, shorter in length and programmes are very keen to find and keep advertisers it would likely mean that a sponsor wields more control over what it considers content that it does not want associated with its brand.
An analysis of videocasting
Morgan Webb is a television personality who has been hosting programmes on television since 2001. Her expertise is in computing and gaming. WebbAlert (2007-Present)[32] is an independent podcast produced by her and two other part time employees that covers gadgets, video gaming and other major technology news in the space of about five minutes. An interesting aspect of the production of WebbAlert[33] is the background of Webb and the programme she has co-hosted for several years, X-Play (1998). ZDTV changed format due to attempts at a mainstream breakout becoming TechTV and later through a merger became G4 which has since been rebranded as a computer gaming channel. X-Play was the only programme that survived these format changes. Webb’s X-Play co-host, Adam Sessler, hosts the Sessler’s Soapbox[34] (2007-Present) podcast and is the only on air host from the original ZDTV network still present. Similarly, Webb is the only host from the TechTV generation still at G4. Officially part of the G4 website, Sessler’s Soapbox is an opinion piece in which Adam Sessler talks about an issue in gaming, such as censorship in games and legislation. The topics and opinions Sessler puts forward are very different to G4’s television content.
Because of these historical roots and what Martin Sargent called an “obvious sense of wonder and a real level of authenticity”[35] present at ZDTV, X-Play has been a secure old media position for its hosts who are culturally different to G4. They are open to future media development in a way that G4 itself is currently a step behind. The channel has a few programmes which are downloadable and forums for their shows but these are now standard web protocols and often only ports of television content.
Thematic Analysis
Fig 2 Webb Alert, reproduced at 100%
Based on the frame in Figure 2 one may initially equate WebbAlert to a typical news broadcast however a number of key differences are present. WebbAlert’s frame is very compact and is the only angle a viewer sees of the show and the shot is never altered. It reveals no expansive set or a newsdesk backdrop. The only element apart from Webb is the screen in the background and the occasional by-line in the lower third of the screen.
Fig 3 A CNN news set
News features like Webb’s, in an old media setting, use pictograms that reference the story whereas Webb’s unchanging basic video screen is the only detail and the dress is informal. However Webb takes the news anchor format and changes it to suit production needs and the Internet viewer. The video’s viewing window is not the size of a large television and a lot of the standard, largely unnecessary, news program background is cut out (Fig 3). This makes the presentation feel more legitimate because it is not visually verbose. Also, the minimal nature enables a viewer using a portable device to watch it properly unlike conventional material. A person watching a streaming news feed has to strain to see text, background detail and sometimes even the presenter[36].
Figure 4 is from a KPIX weather broadcast being streamed from their website. KPIX seems to be of the opinion that a television stream will work just as well online. The text information, usually much larger on a television, is unreadable and the other elements of the frame seem squeezed in. A minimum size is required for Internet video to be comfortably watched and this increases if the video is from a foreign medium such as television which is produced under the impression that an entire screen will be used to display it. Content makers should keep in mind that the living room is no longer the only place to watch video as a larger audience is available in conjunction with the web and portable devices. When WebbAlert displays text it occupies the entire frame and is readable (Fig 5).
As with a news programme Webb goes to a story feed but uses a fade to when transitioning to a website which contains a story and browses over it, focusing only on the key aspects while linking to the site in the show’s notes. The visual language of the Internet (web design, interaction of colours, infinite variety, scrolling down pages) is also used as she glides over web pages in an apparently effortless and well co-ordinated manner. This is meaningful because it stays immersed online and uses the visual language of the Internet and thus remains contemporary. It does not look back to old media’s field reporters and ensconces viewers in the ‘net.
Fig 6 Sessler’s Soapbox, reproduced at 100% (download edition)
Sharing a similarity with WebbAlert, Soapbox’s camera is placed at eye-level and the shot is a medium close up (Fig 6). Sessler’s delivery and the camera placement gives the piece the feeling of a conversation between viewer and host. The tight frame focuses on Sessler and the background, presumably X-Play’s control room, giving the impression of a background set. The video monitors fill the frame and are displaying content directly relevant to the subject being discussed and the multiple screens provide depth and connotations of high tech while distinguishing it from the set of X-Play. These commonalities with WebbAlert (new media) and differences to KPIX (old media) show there are new visual ideas being explored for the Internet and the users are the ones aware of digital culture.
Content
With regard to programme content WebbAlert is about five minutes per programme. Though short, Webb has already filtered relevant information and then cast her own, generally well regarded, analysis on a subject. This presents a level of convenience and conciseness for a viewer. A contributing factor that reaches areas old media does not is that Webb and Sessler are able to report rumours and peripheral information that is not in a format that television or radio is ready to draw from on a regular basis such as blogs and websites. Old media tends to avoid this to prevent invalidating itself. This is important as there are stories that originate on the Internet meaning that a reporter does not have to be dispatched, film a piece, transmit, arrange interviews etc. All of it moves much more quickly and at the pace of a web savvy user and new media. Even though Webb often covers broken stories, so far, her content and editorial opinion on a story are unique as is her linking of multiple aspects of a story and keeping it concise and relevant to her target audience . In contrast, Anderson Cooper’s 360 Daily[37] is just a series of highlights from CNN’s nightly news.
This authorial context of online broadcasting means neither Webb nor Sessler have to go to an alternative point of view or give equal time to “nut jobs”[38] or present both sides. Their programmes are tailored to suit people who want to stay informed on technology issues and they do not want to listen to a predictable corporate spokesman giving the party line. Webb/Sessler have an open editorial style because they are not bound by FCC regulations and their analysis is more insightful than old media who are beholden to their sponsors. Old media also has to “dumb down” reports and analysis because they need high numbers of readers/viewers.
Distribution
Both Webb and Sessler do not restrict viewership to their websites. The programmes can be embedded in another site or downloaded automatically in a variety of formats which are DRM-less video files. This allows a user to freely space shift the content to any device. This recognition of online potential comes from having a creator who is skilled in technology and its related issues. By opening and freeing the content it can be more widely distributed but the main advertising in the video is preserved. Because the programme can be watched on a portable device and on other websites its advertising impact is greatly enhanced because the result is more hits. This provides a large audience for an advertiser and not just a one-time limited exposure on a single site. In addition to this the programme is downloadable for as long as the site exists so new viewers may see it as well.
Two way communication is a staple feature of new media and executing it well is not just due to the technological properties of the Internet. Jenkins describes interactivity as the ways that new media can be more responsive to consumer feedback and in this case the conversational style of Soapbox can be further developed. This is because Sessler is involved with X-Play’s forums[39] (part of the core audience for Soapbox) and has appeared as a guest on at least one other podcast[40]. This kind of personal involvement is often lacking in high budget old media productions and is important in fostering an online community if the responsible party wants to harness it.
Curiously Soapbox is commercial free. The lack of commercialisation stops Soapbox being considered as a hybrid tool used by old media to augment viewership of their television programmes. Soapbox could have a “Watch more Adam Sessler on X-Play” or similar announcements but it does not. This lack of agenda or overt commercialisation and indeed the lack of requirement for the content to be commercial in nature (which is a necessary part of the cable medium) gives the podcast a lot of integrity. Webb keeps her credibility because the services/products are directly relevant to the viewer and she does not “hold up the can of beans”[41]. Without credibility a podcast will fail[42]. WebbAlert and independent shows like it need sponsorship to survive whereas Soapbox is a G4 production which began with Sessler. As such it stands as an extra on the website encouraging page views (new media) and may be subscribed to. The cost of production is especially low as it is one take with a similarly brief editing process. Writing is the significant time sink but the op-ed style and the passion Sessler has makes the overall investment minimal. Because of these strong qualities the programme has a reasonable opportunity to develop and deliver growth for the network, an ability that many old media institutions reckon new media does not have[43].
New media conclusions
New media is still an emerging sector of the media both in terms of technology and its definition. Because it is still developing and not quite a cohesive well defined area it is difficult to form marketable products that appeal to a large group of people and this weakens it in the face of old media competitors.
The relationship that new media has with old media is a constant struggle in which classic ideas of revenue are balanced with new methods of communication and challenges to produce a profitable business model. To old media, in an age of flawless mechanical reproduction, television is still the fortress of profitability and will be for some time to come. Not all aspects of old media transfer well to new media, sport for example cannot be watched well on small video iPod sized screens and it would not make sense to narrowcast an event to millions when it can be more efficiently done with a single satellite.
The overall niche oriented nature of new media is not in itself a weakness but because it is so focused it may slow the development of larger and stronger competitive elements, when compared to old media’s technique of saturating a marketplace. Burgeoning networks[44] such as Revision 3 are old media’s most direct competitors as they use high resolution video to compete directly with broadcasting quality. Old media is more capable at producing story based products such as dramas, science fiction and period pieces because of the higher financing required. New media’s low revenues restrict the genres it can operate in on a for-profit basis. Many fan films exist on a non-profit basis and are of high quality but there are no long running seasons of material yet as there is no profit model and it is effectively a hobby for the makers. This may change in the future depending on how distribution problems could be solved, perhaps in an iTunes-like way. High production value story content is currently the domain of television. Trying to compete with its established brands and franchises will be a high risk endeavour, but is possible. Audio podcasts on the other hand are more able to compete with radio programmes because of their portability, space shifting and the much lower investment compared to video.
The other aspect of broadcasting in new media is that there is an expectation for a constant stream of media and progression because of the online culture. Online culture never stops changing and evolving and this generates a lot of pressure. Users know that new media is not usually a high budget operation so they expect more flexibility and fresh content. On the other hand when Stargate Atlantis (2004) finishes the season more episodes are not expected because a show is in production and justifiably off the air for some months (on a first run basis). Old media experiences the same pressure to update in the news genre but not across the board.
Even though there is a constant stream of production, as Sargent notes, with regard to structure, some aspects of new media are very similar to the old. While Revision 3 already uses unconventional advertising methods further development is required to distinguish the actual viewing experience from television and other media. This will help make videocasting a more attractive advertising platform and enhance competitiveness based on its worldwide reach, something no television network has. This should develop as more creators learn about visual language from more sources than just television and film. Expansion into low overhead audio broadcasting may be one way of diversifying content and exploring other niches in a low risk manner and experimenting with new concepts.
Outside the professional for-profit new media there are still legions of producers but they do not present a credible threat that will draw viewers hooked on a particular programme away from old media. Originators[45] on Youtube are not able to offer the reliability of television’s seasonal length production of high-quality content. Youtube users do not subscribe to this methodology and produce content semi regularly depending on how dedicated the user is and his/her other commitments.
Attracting viewers is still an unresolved issue in new media. The Internet is becoming larger and this creates a lot of background noise. Old media’s recognition transfers well to the Internet because it is able to cross promote itself in well established communication channels. Even as these traditional communication ways are beginning to fade away there is still enough time to use them to build brand awareness.
Cable and satellite television already have hundreds of channels, the Internet has millions of websites, News Corp is made up of over eight hundred firms. Getting noticed may require real world advertising as used by old media[46]. Many old media ports are popular on iTunes and other services because they are known and they have visibility. Morgan Webb’s old media visibility as host of X-Play and large fan following was the launch pad for WebbAlert. On a technical level there are fundamental differences between the operation of old and new. People have to seek out and find these new programmes whereas for television and radio there are clear cut guides and packages available. This lack of public knowledge is a problem as hard core audiences will discover things quickly but the general public are rarely aware of what could be online.
Overall until new media can organise itself into a group of networks that have a more significant public profile and diversify into new genres of programming there will be unresolved obstacles that prevent it from reaching a critical mass by way of audience and revenue. A lack of popular take up because of the short history of new media is a factor and one that will recede as more diverse users become familiar with computing.
Chapter 2 Old media mindsets
This chapter aims to discuss and analyse what old media’s response has been to new media start ups. Old media is using a variety of methods to maintain a monopoly over its own products. In some areas it ignores the possible avenues of innovation and simply “plugs” in its content to the new media sphere. For example, many so called top podcasts[47] are actually just converted from a talk show or radio source, the only difference being that they are usable on an iPod or equivalent. The issue old media has with new media is the lack of control. These new technologies threaten traditional methods of control. The effect on old media may be to force change so extreme as to stop old media companies being competitive.
Traditionally content makers charged for physical access to a product, such as at a cinema and supported itself with advertising as on television. Because of the Internet’s increasing bandwidth video media can now be accessed at home bypassing the old methods of control. Also, as there is a huge amount of choice online the basic cable/satellite advertising i.e. 14 minutes of advertising per hour does not work as well in this format as there are endless free programmes and content. The process of using a computer is more interactive (typing web addresses, moving and clicking with a mouse, downloading, uploading) compared with the passivity of television viewers.
It is difficult to quantify the extent to which old media is catching up as there is little consistency. Sometimes NBC lets iTunes sell some of its programmes directly to the consumer online, a day or so after they are televised. At other times a very technical network such as G4[48] appeals to their technology oriented audience by having a larger amount of online content directly on their website.
The issues behind this reticence are economic and cultural. New media will not satisfy an old media firm’s growth requirements and is, on the face of it, a loss maker to an executive. Why invest when you could finance part of the next Iron Man (Favreau 2008) or Scrubs (Lawrence 2001)? In the Innovator’s Dilemma, Christenson argues that well managed companies have trouble seeing beyond today’s profitable markets because the markets of tomorrow cannot be analysed “Companies whose investment processes demand quantification of market sizes and financial returns before they can enter a market become paralysed or make serious mistakes.”[49] Television has the standard Nielson ratings[50] whereas even podcasting experts cannot agree on metrics with which to judge podcasts.
Quantifying and judging new media has been extremely difficult if not impossible for television corporations and other firms. This means given the choice between funding a new television show or a podcast television is seen as a safer investment. Christenson’s #1 principle is that corporations rely on their customers for resources ergo few listeners = few resources. This is as true for old media as it is for new media but producing small programmes does not require a large outlay. These small experiments are not large risks and are not enormous drains on an old media firm’s resources.
Another problem pointed out by Apella[51] (Time Warner legal counsel) is that new media will not, for the foreseeable future, satisfy the growth needs and thus profit requirements of Time Warner. This seems to be a Catch Twenty Two situation. Time Warner is an enormous media firm and they and others do not seem prepared to enter the market and take part in the creation and evolution of the medium. Leaving it to the so called amateurs means that it will evolve to meet their needs with Warner only looking on from the outside, totally cut off. This is an example of a firm delaying making a strategic commitment to enter a market[52].
This dismal outlook on technology may have its roots in the cultural differences between technology makers and content makers and their different business goals. There are few firms that operate in both industries but those that do seem to do better than firms that work only in one[53]. Technology makers only provide the tools to view media and do not understand content creation or production as a broadcaster does and the content makers do not actively pursue hardware development. Not understanding the key enabling technologies that technology firms provide is a major weakness which will limit their ability to leverage content on these platforms. This lack of high level understanding with regard to online/technology culture is probably why NBC and others sell their television programmes on iTunes instead of selling them online themselves.
The new inside the old
The newer parts of the old media are still regulated by old media concepts. For example hulu.com[54] is described as “Ad-supported streaming television shows and movies, including some in high definition.” This is a next generation service far surpassing the quality on a standard video sharing site. However, it is unavailable for use outside the United States of America. The official reason is “This requires clearing the rights for each show or film in each specific geography and will take time”[55]. Reading between the lines one can ascertain that because several programmes from the USA such as 30 Rock (Fey 2006) are still first or second run programmes on terrestrial television internationally their licence holder wants to maximise television revenue then relegate the programme to the Internet as a tertiary profit measure. These programmes would probably not be as profitable given their budget if they were shown online with unrestricted access and then broadcast on a television locally. This is why only some programmes are available on iTunes one day after being broadcast on television.
Counting the cost
Old media programming is often extremely expensive to produce compared to a podcast. This is not to say household names and talented writers should be eschewed but it does mean that risk taking is often avoided because the consequences of a failure are extreme and so experimenting and trying out new methods are discouraged when something already works. The fact that television is not a connected medium is not the great issue. The great issue is that it mostly ignores what it can do for a relatively low cost. Comparatively producing the content is vastly more expensive and makes the cost of a few minor new media experiments insignificant.
However, in the final analysis simply putting video online at a site like hulu.com is not enough to engage audiences, niche or not, because it is inherently passive. It only serves as a basic route for content. It might as well be television. Television programming offers no interactivity between creator and viewer except in the most extraordinary circumstances[56] where creators are not only aware of the fan base but willing to engage with it on a level that is more than just lip service.
Technically aware old media maker Ron Moore (Battlestar Galactica 2004) produced webisodes (The Resistance 2006) for viewers in between seasons. These were short episodes (ergo low risk) that viewers could watch online. The purpose of the Battlestar webisodes were as “Craig E. Engler, general manager of SciFi.com noted, “…a way to get people talking about the show a month before it airs.””[57]. Clearly the webisodes were designed to create excitement around the upcoming series but they were the tip of the iceberg. The amount of online material that was made available was unusually high: deleted scenes, blogs, podcast episode commentaries. All this material was free for download and Battlestar itself was made available on iTunes.
The final point is important because it means that there was no need to watch the broadcast version as all the content was online. This has demonstrated that new media can be used in a way that is more meaningful than just trying to get more people to watch television and can foster interactivity on a global scale built around what was a conventional television series and use it as a foundation. The Battlestar audience are a very technically oriented demographic as are the creators and all of this material gave viewers something to look forward to and discuss online and greatly enhanced the Battlestar experience. This innovative use of a very popular property is an example of the new in the old successfully satisfying fringe customers who are slowly becoming mainstream customers as people start using technology at a younger age.
These experiments demonstrate that there are efforts in some old media firms to reach new markets but these are generally exceptions. The Battlestar webisodes were only officially available for USA viewers but despite this they spread throughout the Internet beyond NBC’s control (the same was true of the full episodes). This restriction on the webisodes was difficult for international fans to understand as they were supposedly free. By being available only to USA viewers fans were driven underground to the pirate file sharing sites and potential revenue was lost forever. The fact that some parts of the world had not had all of the prior regular episodes broadcast seemed to be the reason behind the restriction. This is another flaw in old media thinking. At a time when information moves at the speed of light the release problem was caused by the old media concept of deliberately delaying releases of media, called the tyranny of digital distance[58]. Arbitrary release dates that are often months behind others caused this issue in the first place. Leaver gives the Battlestar example that in Australia the first season was broadcast thirteen months after the first season in America. Leaver points to the unwarranted yet standard delays like this as being a cause of widespread illegal downloading:
….these delays are also hurting the businesses who live off advertising. The delays in TV shows have led to a widespread culture of TV-show downloading; torrent TV is the easiest and fastest way to keep apace of your favourite TV show.[59]
Different parts of the world have seasons at different times and by broadcasting in the summer months ratings are expected to be lower thus they are broadcast in the autumn/winter and as a result are out of sync with American broadcast times[60]. However old media broadcasters no longer have the monopoly over deciding when a consumer will see a programme, the consumer does. Consumers will always want to get information from the fastest and easiest source. So if Battlestar will not be broadcast for thirteen months why would any tech savvy user bother waiting and not download programmes or at least buy an already released DVD set? This causes a loss of ratings figures for international affiliates. Jenkins states “establishing loyalty means lessening the traditional rules of control”[61]. It was a forgone conclusion that the copyright infringement was going to happen. Limiting access to webisodes was technical naivety. NBC’s protestations about story spoilers etc are not strong enough reasons as fan communities are well versed in “Spoiler Warnings” and other netiquette.
From a promotional standpoint the webisodes could have been handed to international affiliates without promo idents ready for the affiliate’s own, had the series actually been up to date in other countries. International television markets are not marginal revenue markets and are arguably more valuable than a domestic market (especially for high production value American material). However they are fringe customers when it comes to new media because downloading episodes gives them new features, i.e. not having to wait, commercial free and, possibly the most valuable: the ability to discuss and be a part of a community of other fans of the programme in the present.
One of the differences that new media offers over old media is two way communication that can be centrally registered then viewed by others, a BBS or message board. In the past the role of the forum or internet mailing list was played by the fan magazine or fanzine. They were produced and then distributed by hardcore fans of a particular property. There were elements that limited the success of such an endeavour. Most fanzines were produced haphazardly as a side project, were not always reliable or of high quality and were not “official” and printing costs reduced the number of copies that could be reasonably expected. New media has changed not just distribution but the level of what can be achieved. The ViewAskew Message board[62] is an extension of the official Kevin Smith site and there are several sections for fans to discuss various topics There is a huge banner at the top for ViewAskew products. One section is for budding film makers. Previously, showing and discussing media other than print was quite difficult due to distances, shipping costs and the relatively low interest and high investment needed. However, new media has created the beginnings of a new history. The idea of a fanzine has transformed online to having blogs and people can go further and show their own productions and discuss them in a suitable place.
The difference between the message board and the comments under Youtube videos, for instance, is that there is a well established community and people begin to know each other, can start their own topics and the community continues to develop. Smith’s message board is also notable in that it has several people interested in actually producing film, not just being lurkers. Comparatively videosharing sites are vast and do not encourage the exchange of well thought out ideas, partially because of the limit on characters per comment and most users are not interested in leaving a long response. The users who are can be directed to an extent. On the ViewAskew board because there is a special area for originators this increases the concentration of this type of user. They can gather and have a more productive discussion than would otherwise be possible.
Smith is able to encourage brand loyalty in a new way by providing general areas of discussion about his films and advertise his wares to a very loyal and thus most valuable audience. One measure of loyalty is that it costs two dollars to join the board which is rare among forums as they are usually free. He often personally posts and chats on the board. The care and attention afforded and the media in use is an example of a collective intelligence that would be inaccessible outside the digital medium. It could not reach a significant size due to the aforementioned physical transmission barriers. In this case the Internet has been used to communicate with and generate a loyal brand community that existed but would otherwise be unreachable. A firm can harness the community that likes minority/select appeal material and increase the value of the brand by interacting with a community online in a meaningful way (that is, not only to boost sales or ratings). This can enhance the image of the producers, cultivate community interest and link periphery products making it an encompassing experience in both new and old media.
The generation gap between the youth of today who have video iPods and the
Boomers who watch television will in time, disappear as people age. Now most young people purchase digital downloads, not CDs whereas only five years ago the opposite was true. Because modern audiences are very much connected compared to only a few years ago the media entities which use this to their advantage (such as ViewAskew) will garner greater attention from them. If content producers’ communication improves they will be more valuable. This means media which can be used properly on a portable screen and interacted with appeals more than something that does not have these features.
The direct competition
There have been other attempts at reclaiming digital ground other than simply putting video online. Newspapers and other text based media outlets run major websites which generate a large number of page views per month and run advertising alongside their stories. This has been largely successful for media firms such as the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. These websites are reflections of print or broadcast versions and are major online players simply because of the infrastructure behind the old media section and their recognition. Old media has a strong influence here because it already has the attention and branding from pre-Internet work. Compared to many new media productions that are difficult to find or simply lost in the background noise of the Internet this fame and high recognition factor pushes old media ported material to the top of iTunes and in the genre of news makes them an online destination.
Producing conventional news is difficult for new media because old media is able to broadcast news on a 24/7 basis. Most new media video/audio podcasts do not produce more than an hour or two of material each week and are rarely live. Even online users will go to CNN.com for news. CNN and other large media firms have reporters all over the world and can report information instantly using satellites and another network’s feeds through various inter network agreements. Users can post online from all over the world but this is not synonymous with having experienced journalists and more like a raw information source for select events. A news media programme features footage from journalists who may be embedded in an armed forces unit or live press conferences at 10 Downing Street. This footage is also streamed live online in an increasingly high resolution to thousands of people by a comprehensive backbone that small outfits do not have. However, users do download podcasts for analysis of the news[63].
The national news is an example of a mass appeal genre that can hold its own online, for the moment. Local news is a different story. Curtis has observed that local news is the only aspect of news left that is not covered by national networks or news providers the opposite side of the globe. There is no need for a viewer to look to them for national news as there are other major carriers and they are mostly affiliates simply carrying the national feed. That said, local news is a niche interest and not immune to erosion, Curtis remarks:
Why…would anybody pay attention to local mass media? For what? People can already read national news on a national news site. People already read local politics on their local blogger’s site. People can find restaurant reviews and movie listings elsewhere as well, linked directly to where they can make reservations and buy tickets.[64]
Local papers do not use the Web 2.0 tools that users need to continue their train of thought or online journey. In a print format a film critic will write a basic review and that will be all except for some show times listed elsewhere in the paper. The same content will then be copied online. The review does not link to an affiliate site[65] like Moviefone[66] where a reader can book tickets, it starts and ends at the review. Bloggers on the other hand put hyperlinks in their text to other reports, refer to other blogs and can link to high resolution colour photos and video and use more casual sources like forums and photoshopped material for discussion[67]. Twitter.com’s microbloggers were the first to report on the 2008 L.A earthquake[68]. Information came from them far in advance of old media. Users can also reply and discuss the post with input from the blogger. This gives rise to a flow of relevant information instead of being an isolated story.
Conclusion
This dissertation has identified a series of key differences between old and new media. The more important differences are not technological but cultural. This means the desire to use and adapt technology and the ability to find new innovative ways to reach audiences that old media is either ignoring or trying to secure using outmoded models. The new media creators are unhindered by old media norms as they understand not just communication but technology and digital culture. Old media’s strengths are in its recognition and its offline history. It enjoys the results of offline market saturation but low production and distribution costs are now making niche programmes and Internet video increasingly competitive.
The competition and cultural differences signal key issues for both sides. Old media does not (from it’s perspective) need to substantially innovate as it already has high revenues but new media has to invent and develop as they are not yet profitable. This means new media is much better versed with the business models of tomorrow but will struggle in the near future. With its status as an emerging technology/business model new media cannot compete in all media genres, but this will change. New media has to break out of its technology oriented subgenres and start producing content that appeals to more niches and more groups.
What new media means to old media is a profit damaging shift of power into the hands of amateurs. The entrenched old media firms will keep to older traditional profit gathering methods despite unauthorised new media success (see Warner’s attacks on Harry Potter fan sites[69]) and will delay undertaking exploration that deviates from established norms while profits are still high.
New media’s greatest influence on old media has been on extraordinary old media creators such as Moore, Sargent, Webb and Palanker who, unlike unimaginative corporate management, are contributing to and shaping this new medium. Old media has been influenced to the extent that there have been isolated cases of change, such as KPIX (and others) putting a video stream online and some sectors of old media have made ancillary content available that uses new media. However these items are usually tied to old media concepts, thematically and in price. This is a quiet acknowledgement that new media is more efficient than old media at distributing information but using new media on a fully independent basis does not suit the old profit model. That old profit models are still used to judge new media potential means that old media is still judging it improperly and failure then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
New media’s presence has not altered the core of old media. The main changes have been in external culture and information exchange which in turn directly effects old media’s future.
New media has yet to coalesce into a network(s) that seriously challenges old media. Much of the reason old media networks succeed is because they are an easy way for an audience to receive information. Old media now relies on technical ignorance. The place in society of the film studio, television network and newspaper will not change in the near future, however over the next thirty years the media sphere will undergo a restructuring in the light of innovative, low cost communication technologies and a more technically aware populace.
Technology is slowly becoming more familiar to a wider group of people. As this process gathers pace new media will have the chance to diversify its genres of programming for these new audiences and use its new interactive tools to be more appealing than old media equivalents. If old media firms continue to stall their development and be wilfully ignorant[70] they will become extinct.
List of figures
Fig 1 From roughlydrafted.com, A video comparison
Fig 2 WebbAlert
Fig 3 A CNN news set
Fig 4 A KPIX Weather report
Fig 5 News story in progress on WebbAlert
Fig 6 Sessler’s Soapbox
Bibliography
Articles and Journals
Anderson, Chris (2004) ‘The Long Tail’, Wired. Issue 12.10 – October 2004
The Digital Humanities Quarterly, Summer 2007: v1 n2
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/001/2/index.html
European Journal of Communication Sage publications, 2006 Volume 21 Number 3
Hattersley, Mark ‘BBC iPlayer is infuriating’ Macworld.co.uk
http://www.macworld.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=2&entryid=211 Retrieved February 2008
Kiss, Jemima ‘ISPs fear iPlayer overload’ The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/13/digitalmedia.bbc Retrieved February 2008
Leaver, Tama. (2008) ‘Watching Battlestar Galactica in Australia and the Tyranny of Digital Distance’, Media International Australia 126: 145-154
Rockwell Geoffrey (Co-editor) TEXT Technology / The journal of computer text processing. Online Edition http://texttechnology.mcmaster.ca/current_content.html
Rosenfeld, L. (2002) ‘3 Reasons Why Data and Document Retrieval are not the same’, Dr. Dobbs’ Portal
Rothman, Wilson ‘Vudu Test Confirms HD Download Worries (Plus: What Needs to Be Done)’ Gizmodo
http://gizmodo.com/352392/vudu-test-confirms-hd-download-worries-plus-what-needs-to-be-done Retrieved February 2004
Williams, Chris ‘Why is the iPlayer a multi million pound disaster?’ The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/22/beeb_week_iplayer_comment/page2.html Retrieved November 22nd 2007
Books
Curtis, Drew. (2007), It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News. DIAF edition. Gotham
Christensen, Clayton M. (2006), The Innovator’s Dilemma. Collins
Erdman, Terry J. (2000), Deep Space Nine Companion. PocketBooks
Geoghegan et all. (2007), The Business Podcasting Book, Focal Press
Hauer, Rutger. (2007), All Those Moments. Harper Paperbacks
Helm, Dieter. (editor), Jenkinson, Tim (editor) (1998) Competition in Regulated Industries. Clarendon Press
Horan, Thomas A. (2000) Digital Places: Building Our City of Bits Urban Land Institute
Jenkins, Henry. (2006a), Convergence Culture. New York University Press
Jenkins, Henry. (2006b), Fans, bloggers and gamers, exploring participatory culture. NYU Press
Jennings, David. (2007), Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: How Digital Discovery Works and What it Means for Consumers. London Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Levy, Pierre, (1997), Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books.
Mitchell, William J (1995) Space Place and the Infobahn. MIT Press
Murray, Janet. (1998), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The MIT Press
Manovich, Lev. (2001), The Language of New Media. MIT Press
Nielson, J and Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders Press
Olsson, Jan. (Editor) (September 2004), Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Duke University Press
Thorburn, David, (Editor) (2004), Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition (Media in Transition) The MIT Press; New Ed
Zielinski, Siegfried (January 2006) Deep Time of the Media, MIT Press
Papers
The BBC Royal Charter and Agreement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Retrieved 19 January 2008
Hayles, N. Katherine.
‘Boundary Disputes: Homeostasis, Reflexivity, and the Foundations of Cybernetics Configurations’ – Volume 2, Number 3, Fall 1994, pp. 441-467
Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis and Christopher Mackenzie,
‘Managing Knowledge And Leading Change In The Printing And Publishing
Industries: Creator To Consumer In A Digital Age’
http://c-2-cproject.com/Courseware/oc/MKLC/C2C-MKLC_Element-2.2.pdf
Retrieved January 2008
Royal Academy of Engineering report on ‘Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance’
http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/reports/pdf/dilemmas_of_privacy_and_surveillance_report.pdf Retrieved March 28th 2008
Schiesel, Seth (2006) ‘The land of the video geek’ New York Times. USA
Prestospace on Media Migration
http://prestospace-sam.ssl.co.uk/tutorials/T2/T2-1.html Retrieved February 23rd 2008
Willman et al, 2002, ‘The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management’ http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htm
Conference Papers
What makes History? Michael S. Mahoney Program in History of Science Princeton University Consulting Historian, HOPL-II Conference 1993
IFRA, Newspaper Techniques, January 1982. Third IFRA Symposium Report, given December 3rd 1981.
Financial Times Cable, Satellite & New Media Conference, 27th/28th of February 1995 Barry Spikings’ address
Sider, Larry. School of Sound. London, 1998-2001 and associated papers up until 2007, Wallflower Press.
Podcasts
Diggnation
http://revision3.com/diggnation/
Internet Superstar
http://revision3.com/internetsuperstar/
Infected
http://revision3.com/infected/
Revision 3 Gazette
http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/tour/
Sessler’s Soapbox
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/tag/172/Sesslers_Soapbox.html
Smodcast
http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2008/06/02/smodcast-52/
WebbAlert
www.webbalert.com
Weezy and The Swish
http://www.weezyandtheswish.com
Lectures, Interviews
Lecture, Andrea Apella, Time Warner, 15th January 2008, King’s College London
Louise Palanker, Senior VP of Creative and co-founder of Premiere Radio
Networks, Interview May 27th 2008
Martin Sargent, Interview 21st May 2008
The Web
http://www.archives.gov/digitization/ Retrieved 13 February 2008
http://www.armadillosystems.com/books.htm Retrieved 10 February 2008
http://www.associateprograms.com/directory/entertainment/dvd-and-videos/index2.html Retrieved 19 June 2008
http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2006to2007/audiofiles/annualreport07voice.mp3 Retrieved 12 March 2008
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/digitisation.html Retrieved 2 March 2008
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/12/0638432.php Retrieved 21 July 2008
http://books.google.com/ Retrieved 9 December 2007
http://www.britishpathe.com/faq.html Retrieved 8 February 2008
http://cbs5.com/ Retrieved 20 June 2008
http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/02/who_really_needs_to_turn_the_p.html Retrieved 14 February 2008
http://www.g4tv.com/thepile/videos/26397/Sesslers_Soapbox_Attention_Bigots.html Retrieved 12 June 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/13/digitalmedia.bbc Retrieved 21 July 2008
http://www.hulu.com/ Retrieved 21 July 2008
http://www.londonlibrary.co.uk/ Retrieved 28 March 2008
http://labs.live.com/Seadragon.aspx Retrieved March 2008 Retrieved 2 March 2008
http://ponderance.blogspot.com/2005/08/tyranny-of-digital-distance.html Retrieved 17 June 2008
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/305F863B-B74C-4261-8E16-D129EC54D863.html Retrieved 12 September 2006
http://www.revision3.com/ Retrieved 1 January 2008
http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/blogs/ Retrieved 17 June 2008
http://www.tate.org.uk/supportus/corporate/sponsorship.htm Retrieved 2nd March 2008
http://www.talkitoverradio.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/20/1831695.html Retrieved 9th July 2008
http://www.theglobeandmail.com Retrieved 3 April 2008
http://twit.tv/ This Week In Tech Retrieved 19 June 2008
www.twitter.com Retrieved 9 June 2008
http://www.viewaskew.com/theboard/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=db6fdd11cbefd0c06fd5b6c3e5448d30 Retrieved 20 June 2008
[1] Jenkins 2006b
[2] Christensen 2006:7
[3] Christensen 2006:63
[4] http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/godaddy/ Retrieved 30 May 2008
[5] What makes History? Mahoney, HOPL-II 1993
[6] Disruptive technologies change the value propositions of the market and initially offer lower performance in terms of the attributes that mainstream customers care about. Typically smaller, simpler and faster – Christensen, Clayton M. (2006). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Collins
Pg 264
[7] www.webbalert.com Retrieved 9 July 2008
[8] Christensen, 2006:265.
[9] Jenkins 2006a
[10] Geoghegan 2007:11
[11] Martin Sargent, Interview 21 May 2008
[12] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3_ZUm72XDI Retrieved 29 July 2008
[13] Manovich 2002:27
[14] Manovich 2002:30
[15] http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/305F863B-B74C-4261-8E16-D129EC54D863.html Retrieved 12 September 2006
[16] http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/studioop/ Retrieved 21 July 2008
[17] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.WBmingram20071030121440/WBStory/WBmingram Retrieved 3 April 2008
[18] Even in DVDs content can be different. The Region 2 sets of Battlestar often lack the bonus content of Region 1 (American) releases and DVD players usually have to be hacked to playback discs from other regions..
[19] http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.docRetrieved 19 January 2008
[20] Martin Sargent, Interview 21 May 2008
[21] http://www.weezyandtheswish.com/ Retrieved 9 July 2008
[22] Martin Sargent, Interview 21 May 2008
[23] Revision 3 did recently invest a in a high quality studio that has experimental technology but appear to be unique in this regard. See Gazette Number 11 http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/studioop/ Retrieved 9 January 2008
[24] Jennings, David 2007:157
[25] http://www.intuitive.com/blog/edelman_screws_up_with_duplicitious_walmart_blog.html Retrieved 12 June 2008
[26] www.revision3.com Retrieved 1 May 2008
[27] www.godaddy.com Retrieved 29 July 2008
[28] http://revision3.com/diggnation/2008-05-01mightier/ Retrieved May 1 2008
[29] Martin Sargent, Revision 3’s Head of Comedy Programming, Interview 21 May 2008
[30] Louise Palanker, Senior VP of Creative and co-founder of Premiere Radio Networks, Interview 27May 2008
[31] Jenkins 2006a:61-64
[32] www.webbalert.com Retrieved 12 June 2008
[33] www.webbalert.com Retrieved 12 June 2008
[34] http://www.g4tv.com/thepile/videos/26397/Sesslers_Soapbox_Attention_Bigots.html Retrieved 12 June 2008
[35] Martin Sargent, Revision 3’s Head of Comedy Programming, Interview 21 May 2008
[36] http://cbs5.com/ Retrieved 20 June 2008
[37] http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/podcast/index.html Retrieved 29 July 2008
[38] Curtis, Drew 2007:111-133
[39] http://forums.g4tv.com/forum.jspa?forumID=109 Official Soapbox forum Retrieved 19 April 2008
[40] http://www.talkitoverradio.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/29/1992420.html Retrieved 18 April 2008
[41] Louise Palanker, Senior VP of Creative and co-founder of Premiere Radio Networks, Interview May 27 2008
[42] http://www.intuitive.com/blog/edelman_screws_up_with_duplicitious_walmart_blog.html Retrieved June 11 2008
[43] Lecture, Andrea Apella, Time Warner, 15 January 2008, King’s College London
[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_television_channels Retrieved 21 June 2008
[45] Jennings defines Originators as those that produce original content and post it online 2007:48
[46] http://kungfurodeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/ironman_billboard_wide_sm.jpg Retrieved 18 June 2008
[47] Anderson Cooper’s (CNN anchor) highlights
[48] http://www.g4tv.com/ Retrieved10 June 2008
[49] Christensen 2006:265
[50] A rating tells how many people watched a particular TV program http://www.nielsenmedia.com FAQ Retrieved 21 July 2008
[51] Lecture, Andrea Apella, Time Warner, 15 January 2008, King’s College London
[52] Clayton 2006:63
[53] See Microsoft’s success with the Xbox gaming consoles and its gaming software.
[54] http://www.hulu.com/ Retrieved 21 July 2008
[55] http://www.hulu.com/support/content_faq Retrieved 21 July 2008
[56] http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/blogs/ Retrieved 17 June 2008
[57] http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/12/0638432.php Retrieved 21 July 2008
[58] http://ponderance.blogspot.com/2005/08/tyranny-of-digital-distance.html Retrieved 17 June 2008
[59] http://ponderance.blogspot.com/2005/08/tyranny-of-digital-distance.html Retrieved 17 June 2008
[60] Leaver 2008: 145-154
[61] Jenkins 2006a:191
[62]http://www.viewaskew.com/theboard/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=db6fdd11cbefd0c06fd5b6c3e5448d30 Retrieved 30 June 2008
[63] http://twit.tv/ Retrieved 19 June 2008
[64] Curtis, Drew 2007:256-258
[65] http://www.associateprograms.com/directory/entertainment/dvd-and-videos/index2.html Retrieved 19 June 2008
[66] www.moviefone.com Retrieved 29 July 2008
[67] http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/05/09/captain-americas-shield-found-in-iron-man/ Retrieved 8 May 2008
[68] http://webbalert.com/2008/07/july-31st-2008.html lead story. Retrieved 31 July
[69] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/20/meet_the_warner_bros_jekyll/ Retrieved 29 July 2008
[70]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.WBmingram20071030121440/WBStory/WBmingram Retrieved 9 April 2008
Recent Comments