This blog ought to be subtitled “my brother was right,” because it is inspired by a September visit to his New Jersey home, during which he showed off his new home theater and predicted that motion pictures would soon be released via pay-per-view. So I tipped my hat when I read the article in my Sunday San Francisco Chronicle that reported on the home-release strategy behind the new political video, “Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price.”

The article by my colleague Joe Garofoli (he and I are both Chronicle staff writers) goes into the WalMart saga and the pro and con on the video, so you should read his piece if that is your concern.

I mention the article because I agree with my brother that home release is the shape of things to come, not just for political theater but for all forms of entertainment and information. Nor should it come as a surprise that mass media — under which I include Hollywood film studio — may be followers rather than leaders in home release. The studios have less incentive to pioneer new distribution. Their marketing engines can deliver a mass audience even for works of dubious merit (fresh in my mind is last night’s viewing of Zorro, to which my boys cajoled me into taking them at a waste of $25).

So the path to home release will be blazed by underground and low-budget videos, political pieces of every hue, niche videos (like “The Art of Racing,” a DVD release noted by the New York Times (registration required)), and the various flavors of pornography.

Home release will therefore offer neither salvation nor damnation. It will just become a new set of tricks or treats in the evolution of “big-screen” media (a topic I addressed in a Chronicle article of my own a couple of years back).

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media

Today I will try to explain, visually, how Internet sites currently make money on content. I will then contrast that metaphor with a profitable mini media ecosystem. It boils down to the difference between the whales and the bees.

By the way, my word production unit is off (vocabulary has a union contract that specifies this as an “in-service” day). So management has put out this blog using images to drive home the point.

The money-making-model for big sites like Google and Yahoo is to create huge aggregates of content, which attracts millions of viewers, upon whom the site operator feasts much as whales eat plankton.

This is relatively assymmetric relationship that benefits the whale far more than the plankton.

But this is business and the aggregation model is a rich for the few lucky whales.

In contrast to this I would offer the mini media model which has some idealistic, perhaps even silly overtones.

Nevertheless I see a business model in nature that shows how to organize many thousands, even millions of amateur, semi-professional and professional niche publishers into smaller content aggregation units that could, collectively, form a rich end market. This model is quite simply the hive.

The hive has characters whom are recognizable in the publishing context, starting with the vision or voice that defines the publication. The personification of this is the queen.

Under the queen’s direction, many worker bees produce the product.

One nice thing about the hive model is that it can be practiced in thousands upon thousands of geographic locales.

But the hive model extends beyond the 30,000-plus zip codes in the United States. Imagine that you could slice content into a taxonomy of thousands of subject-driven categories. In this setting the hive model could create content akin to thousands of flavors of honey.

Of course I’ve left out the essential industrial element of this metaphor: the beekeeper.

I have some ideas for how to accomplish this beekeeper function but no time to outline them now. I must complete online traffic school (damn those red light cameras!) and cannot afford further distractions.

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media

Yesterday I stuck up for amateurs in response to a post by Nicholas Carr that looked down on the Web 2.0 hype around user-generated content. Today I point to a frank critique by Editor & Publisher columnist Steve Outing who finds many citizen journalism sites populated by writing “that only a mother could love” — and suggests how to boost quality.

This is what call my “airport security” blog. That is I empty the contents of the column into the plastic bin and x-ray them for points that fit my theme (that citJ, as Outing calls it, is worth soliciting and can be improved). So in recognition of the fact that virtually all of the following is pillaged from his column, and to see what I left out, you may wish to read the entire piece.

Outing, a print and online veteran who lives in Boulder, Colorado, started his research by looking at Yourhub.com, a new network of micro-local citJ news Web sites created by Denver’s daily newspapers” and then surveys other sites. He writes:

“Among citJ content, there’s a mix of quality … I saw much more writing that only a mother could love. (Citizen photography was, in my opinion, better than the writing.) The best citJ sites will identify the best citizen content and highlight it — so that a list of the top five items on a homepage will be interesting and not deadly dull.”

This latter point — that you have only one chance to make a first impression — is emphasized by Northwestern University journalism professor Rich Gordon who is the faculty advisor for the student-run GoSkokie.com citizen site.

“Hard as it is to get people to visit a citizen journalism site for the first time, you don’t want them to come and decide it’s not worth coming back,” Gordon tells Outing.

Outing brings up the issue of compensation. Some sites try to pay a little something to regular contributors, other say no, the glory of exposure is enough. (I believe money matters and wonder whether there is a business model in hosting citJ content, and flowing services to the contributors such as ad placements with a revenue split between host and author; not a novel idea but better than not paying which, in my view, only attracts people with axes to grind.)

He talks about training, and again responses are divided. My feeling is that if you don’t establish a cadre of regular, somewhat-trained and somehow-compensated contributors, you’re going to get great heaping gobs of yuck. One great guerilla idea I noticed in the column was to look for people who live in an area and who post on some other sort of online forum, even a picture place. Ask them to populate your site.

The piece also makes the argument that giving exposure on the main page to the best stuff encourages more good stuff. And don’t forget about Outing’s comment that user-generated pictures were, by and large, of higher quality than the word stuff. The Rodney King video certainly had impact.

One last note. Outing points to a lovely blog on citizen journalism called iReporter.org. It’s run by Amy Gahran and Adam Glenn and offers useful pointers such as a reminder that this weekend in New York is the meeting of the Online News Association.

In quick summary, my view is that we do need to make citizen journalism work, and that payment and training of some form will be necessary. I am ready to identify problems, like how do you encourage and elevate quality rather than take whatever comes over the transom, without getting elitist and squelching innovative approaches. But I don’t consider it wise to base a business or social model around slapping up a site and expecting readable, useful to appear. Such forums already exist in the social networking world and they seem to attract people who want to get laid or sell the stuff in their garage. Both are noble goals and may those posters meet success. But I want to aim citizen journalism at loftier targets.

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media

Please don’t read this at work! I’d feel terrible to cut into your workday after seeing the AdAge article that says 35 million U.S. workers will spend an average of 3.5 hours per workweek reading blogs. That purportedly equates to 551,000 years of wasted effort. I’d point you to AdAge to learn more but be aware the site requires a free registration which may only further contribute to you e-malingering.

In all seriousness I consider workplace distraction a serious problem. As regards blogs I have a friend (honestly, it isn’t me!) who used to read a lot of blogs, and kicked the habit during a job change so as not to get off on the wrong foot. This is non-trivial issue. If the time losses are of this magnitude, corporate America will have to find ways to discourage reading, and publishers will have to adapt. Editing and filtering, both human and technological, will be prized. At least so I hope.

Speaking of filtering, a piece in Wired News talks about “Memeorandum (a site) which started with a focus on political blogs in 2004 and launched a technology version just weeks ago … It attempts to solve the problem of information overload with a few smart algorithms that constantly track the hot topics in tech and politics blogs.” In other words, editing — in this case machine-wise — to provide a one-stop shop for certain types of information.

I wonder how long before we have a mass extinction of blogs and online media, if it is not in fact already occurring — and what will evolve to take the place of the Web’s current flora and fauna?

Finally, when it comes to time wasting nothing beats television. Last week you may recall I wrote about a study that, I infer, suggests we are approaching the media saturation point. Independently, Nielsen Media Research recently reported that “the average American home watched more television the past TV season vs. any previous TV season.” The precise figure was 8 hours and 11 minutes per day, “the highest levels ever reported since television viewing was first measured by Nielsen Research in the 1950s.”

That explains a lot about American society, culture, values and politics. In summary, media consumption at work: bad. Media consumption at home: worse. For goodness sake, stop reading and do something constructive!

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media

Can citizen journalism save newspapers? That’s what I’ve been wondering lately. What I see is a circulatory system in which the newspaper is the heart, its staff-written content comprise the major blood vessels, and citizen journalists serve as the capillaries that reach down into niches where the big vessels just can’t penetrate.

That papers need saving, or at least reinvention, seems indisputable. Entire books have been written about “The Vanishing Newspaper.” Newspapers remain a powerful force but their own circulation is flat to down and advertising growth is poor relative to other media. As for reputation, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote in June that “the media’s reputation since(Watergate) has sunk like a stone.” Tap into the daily buzz via Romanesko and what do you see: a pointer to Editor & Publisher, which recently weighed in on the Judith Miller affair (the bigger issue would seem to be whether the nation was misled into war and, if so, the role of all media in that — unless we all think Judy & the Times are solely to blame for whatever went awry).

In the spring issue of the Wilson Quarterly, Terry Eastland, publisher of The Weekly Standard, take a shotgun to the media when he writes:

“It’s premature to write an obituary, but there’s no question that America’s news media—the newspapers, newsmagazines, and television networks that people once turned to for all their news—are experiencing what psychologists might call a major life passage. They’ve seen their audiences shrink, they’ve had to worry about vigorous new competitors, and they’ve suffered more than a few self-inflicted wounds—scandals of their own making. They know that more and more people have lost confidence in what they do. To many Americans, today’s newspaper is irrelevant, and network news is as compelling as whatever is being offered over on the Home Shopping Network. Maybe less.”

How could citizen journalism improve this picture? By forcing newspapers and other media outlets to listen to the communities they cover and lessen their tendency to look sideways at each other for cues as to what they should be covering. Modern media are wired to receive the news of cities, states, nations, corporations and other big institutions. They have the Associated Press and many specialty news feeds that deliver reams upon endless reams of bulletins and press releases on items deemed important — by whom? By issuers with the power to command attention: elected officials, corporate and union outlets, the organized newsmaker community. How does a newspaper or other local media listen to its audience? Through letters from those who take time to write, and from phone calls for those who need to get off a complaint or ask a question.

This is isn’t enough local feedback. What if a newspaper encouraged bloggers and hosted them? One media think tank put it somehwhat differently in a white paper :

“Through these emerging electronic communities, the Web has enabled its users to create, increase or renew their social capital. These communities are not merely trading grounds for information but a powerful extension of our social networks. And as in any social system, looking at our motivations helps us understand and trust the system as well as find our place in it.”

In short, participation equals audience buy-in. Sure there would be a issues to solve, some technical, (outsource the actual hosting) some legal (novices may not know about libel but you can teach them and take down libelous stuff to inoculate your news outlet from lawsuits). But reporters and editors would have a new lens down into their readership. And the people who create newspaper-linked blogs might draw their neighbors and friends into the paper’s readership. It might even be possible to sell pay-per-click ads linked to these citizen sites to give local advertisers a more efficient way to reach local readers.

I’m sure my simplistic slice leaves out a lot but it seems clear that media need to reach out to the audience. I bet there are people who are anxious — and able — to help.

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media

Yesterday I wrote about recent studies which suggest that we expose ourselves to media anywhere from a third to two-thirds of each day — and that people so underestimate exposure that observers had to track subjects to get accurate data. Today I will think out loud about the impacts or affects of this exposure, and raise questions none of which I suspect can yet be answered.

That media exposure has powerful behavioral effects cannot be debated in at least one sphere: advertising. About $245 billion was spent on all forms of national and local advertising in the United States in 2004, according to the Newspaper Association of America. Given a U.S. Gross Domestic Product of $11.7 trillion in 2004, total ad spending came to about two cents on every dollar. If advertising exposure does not influence purchasing behavior then by all means let us conceal that from ad buyers lest they quit supporting our industry!

So if media exposure, in the form of advertising, influences one form of behavior, i.e. purchasing, is this the only such effect? Not likely. Surely fashions and fads are media spread. (Did or did not Clark Gable’s bare-chested scene in the 1934 movie, “It Happened One Night” devastate t-shirt sales? You decide ?)

More sensitive questions arise when some people believe that media promote negative behavior in others and then want something done about these suspect media. Senator Hlilary Clinton caused a stir in this regard over the summer when she called for an investigation into how explicit sex scenes came to be offered as downloadable extras to the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Some years ago Tipper Gore, wife of then senator and later vice president Al Gore, joined several other prominent people in arguing for the labeling of explicit music lyrics. Actor Ed ( Lou Grant) Asner, appearing on a panel last year to discuss coverage of stories involving celebrities, reportedly called television news as “horrifying” and said it contributes to moral decay.

It may be some time, if ever, before “moral decay” can be traced to some root cause in media, in the way that sweets cause tooth decay, cigarette smoking is linked to lung cancer, and car and smokestack emissions are known to contribute to air pollution and ultimately global warming (or are we still arguing about that last point?).

My advice is to expect more complaints, criticisms and calls for media oversight as media use becomes more pervasive and media forms become more realistic, powerful and intrusive. (The day may not be far off when you’ll be seated on the train, and a sideways glance will reveal the person at your elbow viewing something smutty on their hand-held device; but perhaps the market will solve that problem with the equivalent of the brown book covers that used to be used to wrap porn novels.)

Meanwhile, there is a practical lesson to take from this media saturation data: getting attention will remain the challenge facing any new media venture. The larger questions of what all this means will pale alongside the struggle to get people who are plugged in, turned on and maxed out to pay us any mind.

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media

New studies by researchers at Ball State University show that media consumption has become so pervasive that people are often unaware how much time they spend absorbing prepackaged thought — often using two or more media simultaneously. While the studies have a practical use in helping publishers and advertisers understand audience habits, I want to think about the consequences of this media saturation and how it might change as more content becomes user-generated and audiences start to talk back.

One recent study was neatly summarized in a story in the Christian Science Monitor, a section of which I excerpt below:

“(According to) a report from the Center for Media Design at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., (r)esearchers watched the behavior of 394 ordinary Midwesterners for more than 5,000 hours, following them 12 hours a day and recording their use of media every 15 seconds on a hand-held device. About 30 percent of their waking hours were found to be spent using media exclusively, while another 39 percent involved using media while also doing another activity, such as watching TV while preparing food or listening to the radio while at work. Altogether, more than two-thirds of people’s waking moments involved some kind of media usage.”

Take a breath and think about those findings: nearly a third of the day spent focused on media, another third with media in the background. It should seem both obvious and stunning. Obvious because it probably describes how we — reading the newspaper on the train to work while listening to music via headphones. Stunning because it suggests that most of the day some thought is being whispered into our ears or flashed before our eyes
.
And for the most part, we’re not even conscious of this. Though not subliminal, media consumption has become so subversive we don’t even think we are consuming. That was the noteworthy result of an older study by the same Ball Researchers who published those results in the spring of 2004. (Visit this page and click on the link on the right to download the lengthy but readable PDF.)

In essence what the researchers found in that earlier work was that traditional media-use studies, which relied on telephone interviews or personal diaries, tended to understate media consumption. They discovered this by using observers to watch and tabulate media use in subjects who joined the study. Quoting from the report abstract:

“Diary tabulations of media use documented more usage than did the telephone survey, but it was still 12.9 percent below observed use.”

In this 2004 study the total time spent with media was huge — especially when the researchers separately clocked multiple-media use, for instance, by counting a 30-minute train ride spent listening to music and reading the paper as an hour of total media use. “Summing all media use by medium results in a staggering 15.4 hours per day,” when multi-media consumption is laid out in linear fashion, accoring to the abstract.

That seems like a lot of exposure. Is this good, bad or indifferent in terms of behavioral impact? And how will media influence change as thousands and ultimately millions of prosumers create content? I’ll wonder about that a bit tomorrow.

Tom Abate
MiniMediaGuy
‘Cause if you ain’t Mass Media, you’re Mini Media