Monthly Archives: July 2005

Mix’n’Match

Funny how the mind works in a hyperlinked Web. One moment we’re searching for this, then we trip across that, and suddenly a distraction becomes a fascination. It was just such a train of … can I even say thought … that led me to a brief essay that expressed the tension many of us feel between the desire to share what we know, and the pressure to control, profit or merely get credit for our work.

The focused mission that launched me on this diversion was an exploration of Remix Culture, the emerging practice of grabbing bits of this and that to make new whole that are presumably greater than the sum of the parts. That search led me to the nexus of alternative copyright, Creative Commons, and ultimately to Opsound.org, an experimental site for audio artists. And that’s where my thought engine got derailed in reading what Opsound artist Sal Randolph had to say about mix’n’match culture:

“There is a tension between our need to be able to use cultural elements freely and the desire to make a living off of the kinds of value that are made by creativity and innovation. This isn’t only true for artists. The phenomenon is much broader, across all of our cultural knowledge, from science and technology to folklore and custom, games and sports. In a strange paradox, as technology multiplies our interconnections and access to each other’s contributions, it also motivates content owners towards restriction and control.”

Randolph alludes to open source software, which evolved around the general public license, and the new media ferment that has been catalyzed by the copyleft licenses, and observes that these are crucial (but preliminary steps) “in the creation of a social consensus (another sort of social technology) that we all have a stake in a common culture which has been collectively authored.”

That struck me as a deep and interesting notion, one that seems at the same time hopelessly idealistic yet temptingly plausible. One glance at the prime time television would suffice to depress. Yet at the same time there are quite obviously arising the tools that allow ordinary people to create works to amuse or inform each other. This could allow us in the not-too-distant-future to return to what I imagine to be the past. Before electricity people played pianos or fiddles or simply told stories. Industrialization and specialization squelched that. It was more efficient for most of us — who, after all, have limited talents in these regards — to outsource entertainment and information, freeing us to focus on whatever core competencies we might enjoy.

I say that but it doesn’t mean I like it. I fancy Robert Heinlein’s observation that specialization is for insects. Yet we live in a specialized world. At least those of us who enjoy the pleasures of hyperlink that is one of the sweetest honeys of our hive-like global economy. What a conundrum. Some few of us may rediscover the joys of self-expression, while many billions more could live comfortably for a month on what I pay for broadband access. I don’t know whether to clap or weep, so I guess I’ll just go to work.

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

Training Daze

We hear a lot these days about citizen journalism, people taking media into their own hands to inform and entertain one another or to express themselves. What sorts of training will citizen journalists require and where will they get it? I’ve been thinking about that in light of the conference that will be held in San Antonio the second week in August by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

The Association appears to be populated by college journalism instructors, the same folks who turned out people like me — card-carrying mainstream journalists. A quick look over the conference schedule shows sessions on a gamut of topics ranging from the unique concerns of college professors (there seems to be a panel on the trials and tribulations of a being a dean) to topics more sympatico with this blog (like the session about citizen journalism hosted by New York University professor Jay Rosen).

As we enter new territory, it must be apparent that the old training ways do not necessarily apply, at least not in the forms in which it is now packaged. True, aspiring citizen journalists would be wise to learn the rudiments of libel law, and they would be advised to get a dose of ethics as it applies to communicating ideas. But they are not going to get four year college degrees in order to pick up this knowledge. Are night classes available?

It is also quite likely that some of the current norms will be rejected by these new, grassroots communicators. The elusive notion of objectivity, for instance, would seem alien and contrary to media initiatives that spring from an activist conviction.

Aside from the likelihood that some of today’s journalism values may be, or at least seem, anachronistic, new production skills are certainly required, and it is not clear where these will be taught. Will the technologists of new media come from computer science departments? Or will they be wannabe communicators with the patience to patch together computer code? Or a combination of these and other sources?

Our current training apparatus is geared to graduating content producers who will be plugged into some media enterprise in which everything from the desks to the computer networks to the sales, distribution and paychecks are handled by a hierarchy. Citizen journalism would flatten that hierarchy to one or perhaps a few. So are citizen journalists already media polymaths? Or will they need to acquire new skills and form partnerships to gain the skills they are unlikely to learn?

I wish I had some answers but I’ve just started thinking about these questions, so perhaps you’ll think about it with me and we’ll talk more at some later date.

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

Juxtaposition

I have no advertising in this blog but I am trying to learn more about it. Today I’ll focus on a few bits about contextual advertising — placing ads alongside relevant words (dog food ads near dog story.) An article in Online Journalism Review notes that contextual ads sometimes create embarrassing matches, like the massage service whose ad ran alongside a news article about police raids on alleged sex parlors.

That isn’t a problem unique to new media. Mismatches occur in newspapers. I’ve heard chuckles in the newsroom when it’s discovered, often after the fact, that an embarrassing story has run alongside an ad. Ad pages are laid out prior to news pages and I don’t know whether news layout people look at the juxtapositions.

The two big contextual programs are Google’s AdSense and Yahoo’s ContentMatch. OJR notes that, unlike Google which relies upon word-matching technology, Yahoo has “a staff of more than 100 editorial people” to minimize placement gaffes.

Jennifer Slegg, author of the JenSense blog, told OJR about another Google shortcoming. It indexs web pages monthly. Slegg told OJR that “writing a single entry about popcorn right before the (Goggle) bot visits can result in popcorn ads for about a month” even if that’s the only time in the month the word was mentioned.

Contextual ad programs, says OJR, work best on focused commercial content. A travel site will do better than a general news site. Again, no surprises. It’s the same way in old media. Newspaper lifestyle sections are chock a bloc with ads.

Don’t let these minor problems obscure the fact that contextual ad-matching programs are a great for beginning publishers who don’t have a sales force. For instance, Jason Calacanis old OJR he used contextual ads to “jumpstart” Weblogs, Inc. But, he added that he “derives the majority of his income from display ads sold directly to advertisers.”

Heed the lesson. Start with the auto-placement programs. But use the money to hire a salesperson. The publisher who doesn’t sell his or her own content is missing the majority of the ad revenues that could be had.

On a separate note, I think these auto programs turn off many advertisers. They’re too complex. For instance, Search Engine News recently reported a “simplification” of Google’s AdWords programs (by which advertisers bid for words). I read the piece but am not sure how the old program worked or how the new program differs. That may be why there is a cottage industry in helping advertisers choose words to buy.

While I’m on the subject I found a survey article in Media Post that named several contextual ad vendors. I don’t think the list is complete but it’s a start.

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

Mid Year Review

I have an early breakfast with a mentor and friend this morning, and another tight deadline before then. But let me take a few minutes to reflect on what I’ve been doing since I began this blog at New Years and some of what I’ve learned since then.

Mini media is what I call the creative community taking advantage of cheap computers, powerful software and broadband distribution. Some of these folks are satisfied with self expression. I am not. I want to find or create market systems in which small producers can earn a living from selling their works. Most of the money flowing into the Web today comes as advertising, and most of this goes to a few large sites. We need markets designed to give small producers a better shake. I’ve outlined some of these ideas in three blogs entitled Food for Thought ( I, II and III).

I’ve thought about payment systems, or micropayments to use the lingo of the net. Conventional wisdom says people won’t pay for Web content. That may be true. But as far as small producers are concerned, I don’t think the Web is where they’ll make their money. They may not be able to draw enough traffic. However, they can use the Web to attract an audience, and then sell other things — for example, compendiums of their works in the form of personalized magazines.

Media is manufacturing. Creativity is essential to fashioning media products. But the business is in making and selling multiple copies. Expect that to be a continuing theme. We hear a lot about multimedia. I think the better term would be multimodal — take a basic idea and produce different versions, perhaps even in different media — such as using a short podcast to tease to a longer work. Give content away for free, but charge for customization and convenience.

I had the glimmerings of an idea recently about creating media malls as physical focal points for mini media producers. I want to think more about that in the months ahead. I have to remind myself to learn more about RSS. And I think podcasting is more than a fad. Audio delivery of knowledge is at the early days of a long, strong secular trend.

Above all new media should be delivered in short, sharp bursts. The Web is all about word-of-mouth. Make products brief and easy to pass. And remember that media is a habit. To make it habit-forming, deliver it on schedule. See you Monday!

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

Tube Town

The doings of Big TV have little bearing on mini media dreamers like me but there’s so much ferment in television that I can’t resist a few comments, starting with CBS’s plan to create the Public Eye, a sort of ombudsman blog, as part of its re-launch CBSNews.com.

Verne Ververs, who will play that internal watchdog role, will have his work cut out in defining his independence and restoring trust. After MediaBistro’s TVNewser mentioned the who and what of Public Eye, Rathergate.com picked up that report and said: “Blog patrons can smell a phony a mile away … If “Public Eye” turns out to be a sham, people can always get the skinny about CBS from (us).”

USA Today reporter David Lieberman put CBS’s moves into context in an excellent analysis that looked at similar big media forays into the web world. Three thoughts jumped out at me: Comcast chief operating officer Stephen Burke said web users “want short, five-minute clips that are educational or entertaining,” not traditional longer fare; Web video makes sense for short shelf-life news and sports and “esoteric” (niche?) content; and transmission costs for streaming video are down to 9 cents per viewer, per hour.

In other TV news, Paid Content editor Rafat Ali laments the lack of attention being given to newly-issued set of draft directives from the European Information Commission which apparently thinks audiovisual media — whether broadcast, broadband or mobile — need rules governing “decency, accuracy, impartiality and more.” Ali writes: “These rules pitches EU against UK’s media regulator Ofcom, which favors more liberal rules for online players and believes that traditionally strict broadcast regulations should not be extended to the Internet.” Ali pointed to stories on this in the London Times and International Herald Tibune but wants more fuss before the public comment period ends in September. The title of the EU directive begins, “Television Without Frontiers.” Apparently, however, this does not mean television without limits.

Finally here in the good old U.S.A., I clipped a bit that said the National Association of Broadcasters is ready to go along with Congress, which TV stations to shift to digital broadcasting by 2009 and quit that analog stuff. The news bit mentioned the “windfall (the government) is expected to reap when it auctions off unused frequencies.” Are all those old channels going back out on the auction block? Is that a business opportunity for TV entrepreneurs? Or is analog on its way to extinction?

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

This & That

Here’s a non-shocker: 18-24 year olds are most influenced by new media, according to BIGresearch. The Ohio-based survey firm based its finding of age-related media use on 14,000 interviews. Taking a sample that size allows BIG to make statistically significant observation on sub-groups, by age, inside the overall sample. BIG’s press release summarizes the findings. Most are in keeping with what you would expect. Young people adopt new media more readily. What did surprise me, however, was the ubiquity of instant messaging — even among older folks in my age bracket. I don’t use IM, but 58 percent of my cohort does.

In the Smart Mobs book and web site, online pioneer Howard Rheingold argues that camera-enabled cell phones give people enormous new powers to become news photographers, among other things. His prescient observations were borne out in the recent terror attacks in London. A July 8 report in the New York Times tells how London resident Chris O’Donovan photographed the aftermath of the bombings that occurred near his home. “By the end of the day,” wrote Times reporter Louise Story, “Mr. O’Donovan had taken about 40 photos, most with his Nokia cell phone.” The article (registration required) goes on to say that O’Donovan posted a number of his photos on Flickr.com, as did many other amateurs on the scene.

In a quick visit to the Smart Mobs site, I note this lament from a professional TV photographer and blogger, who wonders how long specialists like him will be needed.

The same thought has occurred to me. Are my days as a PWDJ numbered?

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

… No Stinking License

Eric Raymond is the author of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” the 1997 essay that Wikipedia calls “the manifesto of the open source movement.” Today I think media need an open source revolution — a sharing of techniques in the public domain — to build a marketplace for small-scale content producers. But how can open systems encourage private profit? That’s the sort of thing Eric thinks about, which is why I recently read an interview several times geekier than my usual fare to grasp Eric’s unorthodox views on that icon of open source, the general public license (GPL).

First, here’s a quick primer. Open source refers to software developed in public, by volunteers. The source code — the actual working magic — is available for anyone to use and modify. According to Wikipedia, the general public license requires that improvements to open source code must be re-licensed under the GPL — the intention being that refinements will be tossed to the public, to be used by regular folks or improved by other code-writers.

The June 30 interview in OnLamp.com, was intended to let Eric explain why he recently suggested the GPL is unnecessary. “Many people will view this as a heresy,” he tells the interviewer. “It’s part of my job to speak heresy in ways other people might feel afraid to do.”

Apparently Eric believes that open source is such a superior development system that it doesn’t need to force developers (through GPL) to toss their improvement back into the public domain. Open source derives its superiority from the fact that so many developers scrutinize alterations that bugs are discovered faster. If developers cheat, and do not put improved versions back into the public domain, they give up access to this community of troubleshooters. And presumably they’ll get buggy code. “My current belief is that the free market will do quite a good job of punishing defectors on its own,” Eric says.

I’m not sure I agree or that I know enough about software development to venture an opinion. But as I’ve written before, Web media need to embrace open source methods. That means we’re going to face the same issues as the software folks. How to create free and open systems that encourage and rewards private effort? How to prevent proprietary freeloaders from hijacking public efforts?

If I had answers I would share them. All I can offer are these questions and an observation. People who create content are bound to be more fractious than software engineers. At least software engineers share professional norms. Content creators may have little in common as regards their beliefs, backgrounds, even training. It’s inevitable that open source publishing efforts will schism. Like-minded cliques will peel off from the main effort and go their own way. Perhaps they’ll come up with techniques that can be adopted back by the main group. Perhaps they’ll just put out buggy content. Either way, Eric’s observations about the market being the best disciplinarian is particularly appropriate in publishing. Ultimately, you have to believe the best ideas will win.

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