So, two really interesting things in the “Among the Audience” article: 1) that more than half of teens (56%) post content online (even assuming this includes social networking, it’s remarkable); 2) Barry Diller’s quote that “talent is the new limited resource.” Jerry Michalski has an interesting retort – “What an ignoramus!” But boring is boring and as Mark Tremayne found in his network analysis study, good, original journalism matters, to both quality and audience size. Michalski’s partly right – online is (can be?) just as good as print or TV, but not everybody is.
Oh My News (from the “Compose Yourself” article) is intriguing because it lives, like Wikipedia, on a “tip-jar” system of funding. This is a bit like a Nielsen rating or even the collection coming after the sermon Sunday morning – it’s a direct reflection of perceived value of the site, and presumably the content on the site. It’s exciting that OhMy has led to increased conversation online in traditional news outlets. I dare say the discourse is probably a lot more informed and polite in Seoul than it is here, but I don’t know. It’s extremely important that OhMy serves as a counter to the lopsided media bias. Talk radio and now partisan news, like MSNBC and Fox, play that role here. Ironically, their success is growing in today’s U.S. media environment while the traditional objective outlets are all losing audience. Hmm… so is ideology the future of profitable news? Or is it tip-jar non-profit journalism? Oh, and the beauty of the folks at Current TV receiving upwards of half their content is that they don’t have to pay for half their content.
Philip Rosedale kind of misses the point. The RIGHT way to think about Second Life, or any other vehicle, is “let’s build a really cool swing and see if we can get somebody to PAY to sit on it.” I there’s ego (Twitter), conceit (Facebook’s “what I’m doing now”) and full-on narcissism, which is embodied… well, I guess disembodied by Second Life. Really? People have time to swing, build houses and publish a couple of newspapers in a virtual world? I’m concerned about the lack of an informed citizenry in the real world.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The economics of choice
In the Economist article, "Among the Audience," the writer states: "What is new is that young people today, and most people in the future, will be happy to decide for themselves what is credible or worthwhile and what is not." The piece goes on to say that sometimes there will be help from human editors and new filtering and collaboration technologies. That seems to be where we're headed, especially with Twitter, etc., but the question still remains, to what end?
It seems that nearly every discussion of the future of media is packed with proclamations and predictions about what people will be doing in the future, but rarely do we hear in those discussions attempts at assessing why anyone will be doing new fad x, y or z.
Similarly, David Gauntlett, in his article, "Media Studies 2.0," states that the "emergent alternative" to the traditional approach will in part be characterized by the replacement of the "fetishised expert" with a "focus on everday meanings," or content produced by audience members interested in new qualitative research techniques.
There is an assumption here that the audience brings with it a sense of "everydayness" which is difficult to prove. The audience can bring with it many things—expertise, ignorance, varying degrees of truth—but just because they are not professional content producers does not imply that they are somehow more real than paid journalists. We need to ask ourselves why an audience wants to participate rather than adjust and encourage participation without understanding motives.
It seems that nearly every discussion of the future of media is packed with proclamations and predictions about what people will be doing in the future, but rarely do we hear in those discussions attempts at assessing why anyone will be doing new fad x, y or z.
Similarly, David Gauntlett, in his article, "Media Studies 2.0," states that the "emergent alternative" to the traditional approach will in part be characterized by the replacement of the "fetishised expert" with a "focus on everday meanings," or content produced by audience members interested in new qualitative research techniques.
There is an assumption here that the audience brings with it a sense of "everydayness" which is difficult to prove. The audience can bring with it many things—expertise, ignorance, varying degrees of truth—but just because they are not professional content producers does not imply that they are somehow more real than paid journalists. We need to ask ourselves why an audience wants to participate rather than adjust and encourage participation without understanding motives.
Advertising and social media: Right on time, and other links
- Per our reading on new advertising where people are the media, Nielsen has made a deal with Facebook to measure the effectiveness of advertising on the site.
- Microsoft appears to be planning to challenge Apple, Amazon.
- On a similar note, a business-oriented reading device.
Measurement evolution
In a time of transformation such as ours, I think establishing a valid and reliable measurement is important. Terms of Internet that we learned from Dr. Chyi's ppt made me thinking.
Hits > Page Views > Minutes > Click > Leads > Visits... How fast it has changed! Let's compare them with pre-Internet measurement of TV audience rating like Neilsen. How about comparing with print circulation of ABC in pre-broadcast era? I think what has changed most is transparency. And, the power of media over audiences.
ABC is based on self report of media. Majors manipulated it actually. Neilson rating is survey. It is more objective but a little expensive to get the full data. Now everything is logged to the server automatically. Everyone has the access to it.
So, we have to admit the Internet is more democratic. But conclusively, shouldn't we have a measurement that can guage all the platforms? A yardstick that can be used to the Internet, broadcast or print? A measurement that can last at least a decade or so? Establishing concept for this measurement, testing it, predicting the effect will be a challenging task for a Journalism scholar. The task may be something that needs collaboration of old and new, tech-savvy and tech-avert scholars.
Hits > Page Views > Minutes > Click > Leads > Visits... How fast it has changed! Let's compare them with pre-Internet measurement of TV audience rating like Neilsen. How about comparing with print circulation of ABC in pre-broadcast era? I think what has changed most is transparency. And, the power of media over audiences.
ABC is based on self report of media. Majors manipulated it actually. Neilson rating is survey. It is more objective but a little expensive to get the full data. Now everything is logged to the server automatically. Everyone has the access to it.
So, we have to admit the Internet is more democratic. But conclusively, shouldn't we have a measurement that can guage all the platforms? A yardstick that can be used to the Internet, broadcast or print? A measurement that can last at least a decade or so? Establishing concept for this measurement, testing it, predicting the effect will be a challenging task for a Journalism scholar. The task may be something that needs collaboration of old and new, tech-savvy and tech-avert scholars.
Questions for new media
Why do we pay attention to new media?
I cannot imagine the world without the Internet. In the Web world, I get information, meet friends, and even get rid of stress by watching movies. I do such activities more often online than offline. Going back to the theoretical world, people raise questions about why people welcome the Web-based world and what distinguishes it from traditional media. Several points can be summarized from the readings for this week; new media give people an opportunity to explore the truth and challenge professionals, eventually contributing to democracy. Nevertheless, we need to consider what they really mean.
What is “truth?”
The article, Among the audience, discussed that the new media permits multiple sources of truth as opposed to the old media, which offers just one such source. Does the truth exist beyond the area where the traditional media failed to report? Also, does the number of sources or channels guarantee a “better” truth? Can audiences really sort out what is truth, what is credible and worthwhile, and what is not? Given that we have little trust in the traditional media today, why do we tend to trust new media? Is it because new media gives us an opportunity to participate in the message production and distribution processes? If we do not trust the messages provided by traditional media since news is produced and selected through its institutional processes, do people believe that new media has no such institutional processes?
What is “professionalism?”
As stated in the article, we have competing arguments about blogging. On one hand, blogging is good because it gives everyone a platform on which to express their views. On the other hand, it is bad because unqualified amateurs weaken media professionalism. Is there a concrete definition of “professionalism?” It could be the difference between a professionalist and professional content. For instance, can it be said that professional content is a product that is produced by professionalists? What makes a professionalist professional? Can new media to become a “paper of the record” as traditional media is considered?
What is the “democracy?”
If it is a compelling argument that the Web is really a tool for democracy, then I wonder what democracy is. What are the vital elements of democracy? Is democracy intended to give everyone the opportunity to participate in discussions and express their opinions, or is it restricted to accessibility itself? Also, regarding the persistent discussion on electronic democracy, I have begun to wonder about the extent to which the Internet contributes to the diversification of voices in our political world. Of course, it is a positive development that the Internet enables people to express their opinions; however, if these opinions are forced to represent a homogeneous voice, we may encounter yet another problem. Can we judge accurately whether there are shared prejudices or common knowledge?
I cannot imagine the world without the Internet. In the Web world, I get information, meet friends, and even get rid of stress by watching movies. I do such activities more often online than offline. Going back to the theoretical world, people raise questions about why people welcome the Web-based world and what distinguishes it from traditional media. Several points can be summarized from the readings for this week; new media give people an opportunity to explore the truth and challenge professionals, eventually contributing to democracy. Nevertheless, we need to consider what they really mean.
What is “truth?”
The article, Among the audience, discussed that the new media permits multiple sources of truth as opposed to the old media, which offers just one such source. Does the truth exist beyond the area where the traditional media failed to report? Also, does the number of sources or channels guarantee a “better” truth? Can audiences really sort out what is truth, what is credible and worthwhile, and what is not? Given that we have little trust in the traditional media today, why do we tend to trust new media? Is it because new media gives us an opportunity to participate in the message production and distribution processes? If we do not trust the messages provided by traditional media since news is produced and selected through its institutional processes, do people believe that new media has no such institutional processes?
What is “professionalism?”
As stated in the article, we have competing arguments about blogging. On one hand, blogging is good because it gives everyone a platform on which to express their views. On the other hand, it is bad because unqualified amateurs weaken media professionalism. Is there a concrete definition of “professionalism?” It could be the difference between a professionalist and professional content. For instance, can it be said that professional content is a product that is produced by professionalists? What makes a professionalist professional? Can new media to become a “paper of the record” as traditional media is considered?
What is the “democracy?”
If it is a compelling argument that the Web is really a tool for democracy, then I wonder what democracy is. What are the vital elements of democracy? Is democracy intended to give everyone the opportunity to participate in discussions and express their opinions, or is it restricted to accessibility itself? Also, regarding the persistent discussion on electronic democracy, I have begun to wonder about the extent to which the Internet contributes to the diversification of voices in our political world. Of course, it is a positive development that the Internet enables people to express their opinions; however, if these opinions are forced to represent a homogeneous voice, we may encounter yet another problem. Can we judge accurately whether there are shared prejudices or common knowledge?
Epic 2015 and the loss of choice
This video has been updated three or four times to reflect current media ... and what the landscape may look like a few years down the road. For some reason, it made me worry about the depersonalization of choice.
How are will completely free to choose when choices are made for us? If I want vanilla ice cream and search for a brand I'd like, there is a bias in the selections which are given to me by Google or Bing or any other search engine. Results are sorted by popularity or familiarity of my preferences, but they do not represent a full scope of choice but rather a determined range of choices in a determined order. Apply the vanilla ice cream analogy to larger choices and I wonder how much of what I do online is by my own choice.
How free are we?
Is new media study more laggard than new media industry?
The reading this week is here.
Survey: New media, The Economist (2006)
Gauntlett, D. (2004). Web studies: What’s new. web.studies, 2nd edition
Last week, or the week before that, we just learned that news industry has fallen behind other industries in regard to new technology adoption. Media studies 2.0 seems to imply that media study is even slower than media industry. But why?
Survey: New media, The Economist (2006)
Gauntlett, D. (2004). Web studies: What’s new. web.studies, 2nd edition
Last week, or the week before that, we just learned that news industry has fallen behind other industries in regard to new technology adoption. Media studies 2.0 seems to imply that media study is even slower than media industry. But why?
- The intrinsic characteristic of media study. As you know, I have engineering background. The major difference I found between the research in engineering and journalism is that the research of engineering always leads the innovation of new technology, while social science is to study what has already happened. (Of course I might be wrong with my limited experience in both areas.) I don't think Journalism is a special case, because my friend majors in sociology commented in the same way, too. If we can do any brand new research to lead the industry, then we won't be scholars. We'll be launching our own media. So I'm not surprised by the fact that media studies are kind of old, I thought that's how social science research works. (And that's a good news for me, because I have techniques to conduct research with new study method.)
- Demographic of scholars.
- Some personal complaints- you may ignore this part :P
No offense, but most of the scholars in university are either experienced journalists or experienced scholars. For experienced journalists, the definition of "new media" was "TV" when they were in the industry. How can they learn how news organizations now function after they left so many years? And for pure scholars, they spent so many years on writing paper/books/journals, they probably have never been a journalists in their life. I think there are just too few young scholars who know new media and research. (Iris, you're an outlier, so you're not under my discussion.) I don't really expect to learn anything about new media from old faculty, seriously. I mean, I think we will all agree that new media is something still changing in a crazy speed. If we wait till someone organizes the material and teach us, the information will be out of date by that time. And this is exactly what my advisor in EE taught me. He said, if you can find a book about your research topic, then your topic is too out of date. I think this is universal for all the researches.
About the email Iris shared with us on Tuesday, I actually feel the same way. When I was in Taiwan, I took a communication program. To get the certificate I need to take 20 credits, and almost every course I took has a final project of making a video or website. Seriously, I was so tired of new media at that time. Because it's like every professor knows new media is important but he doesn't know how to teach. So they put some premiere/Dreamweaver/Frontpage project to make themselves feel happier. "Oh! We have new media in this course!" I didn't learn anything about how to report using new media from them. In some sense I think that's the case that article trying to say. But I think as long as we can teach students how to use new technology to "report" with traditional journalistic value, that will be the industry and students need. (I basically think UT is working on this direction?)
So is New Media new?
What makes new media so exciting is the fact that it keeps changing. However after reading the articles concerning blogs and Web 2.0 it sounds like new media isn't so new. It can almost be viewed like the way television news evolved. First without a promoter or graphics, then those came along which was high technology, then live remotes became possible, and so on. So maybe new media is super cool and different - but in a way it may just be that way because it's something new. A good break from the norm.
Here's an interesting YouTube video concerning the changes to media over time.
After reading about podcasting I couldn't help but think do people really listen to those. I remember several years ago our station offered a podcast of our news broadcast. I always thought who wants to listen to someone say, “Check out this great video” when they are listening and aren't getting a description of what someone would be seeing. Needless to say the podcast went away from our station and I thought it did for others as well. I'm still not sure that sounds interesting, except maybe to the person making it.
Here's an interesting YouTube video concerning the changes to media over time.
After reading about podcasting I couldn't help but think do people really listen to those. I remember several years ago our station offered a podcast of our news broadcast. I always thought who wants to listen to someone say, “Check out this great video” when they are listening and aren't getting a description of what someone would be seeing. Needless to say the podcast went away from our station and I thought it did for others as well. I'm still not sure that sounds interesting, except maybe to the person making it.
The more, the harder
As we talked about a typology (critical perspectives x tech-savvy), we absolutely want to be type 1, which is tech-savvy with critical veiw. I would admit that poeple (both undergarduate and graduate students) are increasingly getting better at dealing with technological skills and having good eyes on what's going on Web 2.0 era.
But I doubt a notion that "media audiences (expecially students) in general are already extremely capable interpreters of media content, with a critical eye and an understanding of contemporary media techniques." I think it's getting even much harder to have a critical eye on this contemporary media environment where lots of media contents and choices are around us, which may make us tough to have a sort of sense of what's going on behind the scene.
Think of mass media and propaganda era vs. Internet era (let's say Media Studies 1.o vs. 2.o); the power relationship seems simple in Media Studies 1.o (e.g., elite vs. mass audience; producer vs. receiver...), but in MS 2.0, it seems getting more complex to figure out their power relationships among various social agents (e.g., traditional media, user-generated content, political blogger, NGOs, campagins, thousands of social groups online and offline, individuals' multi-level social identities.). See also media companies' business strategies (e.g., their M&A, complex competitions, and so on); do I have a critical eye on this?; one thing sure is it's becoming harder to catch up with it with critical views.
Absolutely, we have to focus both on how to deal with tech and how to read meanings in there. And I believe that we are taking the best of previous approaches and rework them to fit a changing environment, and develop new tools as well; and (hope) we can make it.
Anyway, both technology and research are NOT easy at all...
But I doubt a notion that "media audiences (expecially students) in general are already extremely capable interpreters of media content, with a critical eye and an understanding of contemporary media techniques." I think it's getting even much harder to have a critical eye on this contemporary media environment where lots of media contents and choices are around us, which may make us tough to have a sort of sense of what's going on behind the scene.
Think of mass media and propaganda era vs. Internet era (let's say Media Studies 1.o vs. 2.o); the power relationship seems simple in Media Studies 1.o (e.g., elite vs. mass audience; producer vs. receiver...), but in MS 2.0, it seems getting more complex to figure out their power relationships among various social agents (e.g., traditional media, user-generated content, political blogger, NGOs, campagins, thousands of social groups online and offline, individuals' multi-level social identities.). See also media companies' business strategies (e.g., their M&A, complex competitions, and so on); do I have a critical eye on this?; one thing sure is it's becoming harder to catch up with it with critical views.
Absolutely, we have to focus both on how to deal with tech and how to read meanings in there. And I believe that we are taking the best of previous approaches and rework them to fit a changing environment, and develop new tools as well; and (hope) we can make it.
Anyway, both technology and research are NOT easy at all...
how to be Win-Win?
The two articles focus on the media revolution and on the emergence (or now prevalence) of new media comsumption/use/model. As a media user, I totally agree the trend/daily situation they describe does happen in my daily life or what I observe online. User-generated or wiki economic model by no means the trend of the new media era, or, the new way to gain information.
However, when reading the critics to Media studies 1.0, and compare it with the speech from a WSJ senior reporter I listened yesterday and all other lectures in my TA class, I'm confused about are they talking about the same thing, or the critics just on certain aspect of mass media research. Is it fair enough to criticize all the traditional values in journalism? (It seems the critics to Media 1.0 focus on news media, but the characteristics or attitudes in Media 2.0 are on all the new media, especially on the user part.) Surely the old media use model no longer capture the new picture, but the other values of the news content might still work in a narrow-defined news field.
It's kind of a mix situation. I gain information, entertainment, personal relationship in using and participating in the user-generated media, but also, I rely on online news website or the news category in the portal sites to get the trustful news. They're all information and significant to me but stull function differently and can't replace each other. In market model, user-generated might be the winner. However, as a journalism student and probably need to work life-time in this area, I'm thinking and worrying about how to combine the strengths of each features in 1.0 and 2.0 era than just criticize each other in journalism or the news(like the e-mails we read on Tuesday is also a myth or misunderstanding in studying new media).
However, when reading the critics to Media studies 1.0, and compare it with the speech from a WSJ senior reporter I listened yesterday and all other lectures in my TA class, I'm confused about are they talking about the same thing, or the critics just on certain aspect of mass media research. Is it fair enough to criticize all the traditional values in journalism? (It seems the critics to Media 1.0 focus on news media, but the characteristics or attitudes in Media 2.0 are on all the new media, especially on the user part.) Surely the old media use model no longer capture the new picture, but the other values of the news content might still work in a narrow-defined news field.
It's kind of a mix situation. I gain information, entertainment, personal relationship in using and participating in the user-generated media, but also, I rely on online news website or the news category in the portal sites to get the trustful news. They're all information and significant to me but stull function differently and can't replace each other. In market model, user-generated might be the winner. However, as a journalism student and probably need to work life-time in this area, I'm thinking and worrying about how to combine the strengths of each features in 1.0 and 2.0 era than just criticize each other in journalism or the news(like the e-mails we read on Tuesday is also a myth or misunderstanding in studying new media).
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Kang's media stock
As of 9/18
Daum 42.00; 40
Google 491.46; 17
Washington Post 462.50; 3
Walt Disney 28.44; 5
As of 9/21
Gannett 9.74; 11
Daum 42.00; 40
Google 491.46; 17
Washington Post 462.50; 3
Walt Disney 28.44; 5
As of 9/21
Gannett 9.74; 11
Monday, September 21, 2009
Ads or no ad? Can it be so arbitrary?
Ads or no ad? Can it be so arbitrary?
All right, I'm kind of confused here. HMF explained the reason why the retail price will be lower and quantity will be higher with advertisement. However, the success of craigslist is base on no-ads. Then I'm kind of confused now.
So does advertisement attract more eyeballs or push eyeballs away? I was trying to discuss with my roommate, who majors in advertisement. She said if the amount of content remains the same then advertisement won't really hinder readers. So I think the key is the ratio of content and ads, and I'll probably assume users prefer higher content. (I was trying to develop a math variable to HMF's graph, and then I found it's going to be too complicated.)
Wait, I buy Sunday newspaper simply because the coupon. Isn't that an example of ads raise the quantity? (Even though the causal relationship is different from the one in HMF.) I'll rush to a website if there are coupons that I need, too. But that's coupon rather than pure ads. So should we discuss coupon and ads together or separately?
And readers seem to hold different tolerance of printed ads and online ads. The ads on a newspaper seem to be less annoying than website banner ads, at least that's how I feel. But why?
Still have no idea about the relationship between advertisement and news media.
All right, I'm kind of confused here. HMF explained the reason why the retail price will be lower and quantity will be higher with advertisement. However, the success of craigslist is base on no-ads. Then I'm kind of confused now.
So does advertisement attract more eyeballs or push eyeballs away? I was trying to discuss with my roommate, who majors in advertisement. She said if the amount of content remains the same then advertisement won't really hinder readers. So I think the key is the ratio of content and ads, and I'll probably assume users prefer higher content. (I was trying to develop a math variable to HMF's graph, and then I found it's going to be too complicated.)
Wait, I buy Sunday newspaper simply because the coupon. Isn't that an example of ads raise the quantity? (Even though the causal relationship is different from the one in HMF.) I'll rush to a website if there are coupons that I need, too. But that's coupon rather than pure ads. So should we discuss coupon and ads together or separately?
And readers seem to hold different tolerance of printed ads and online ads. The ads on a newspaper seem to be less annoying than website banner ads, at least that's how I feel. But why?
Still have no idea about the relationship between advertisement and news media.
Critical vs. Tech-savvy
In the following typology, where is the author, and where are you?
| | Critical | Not Critical |
| Tech-savvy | | |
| Not Tech-savvy | | |
Nerd alert
I was a nerd in high school and still like to think I am, though I get caught up in the faux-hipster stuff occasionally. But if I could be a tried-and-true nerd, I think I might want to mirror Mr. Craigslist ... maybe.
We talk in class about how Google often sounds too good to be true, but the altruisms of Mr. Craigslist seem to be on a whole new level. If, as Wired makes it sound, Craigslist is potentially worth billions (in a sale), then Mr. Craigslist is sitting on a mountain of cash. Yet he distributes his possible wealth and refuses to cave in to questioning about his reasoning?
Is he being, as the article put it, "coy"? Or is he hiding something? And why are we so skeptical of his motives? Can't a nerd just be a nerd? Can't a self-proclaimed good guy just be a good guy?
Still, I can't help but wonder what will happen to Craigslist if and when it does cave? Will it be picked apart and shuffled off like a Pinto to an old car lot? Or will it remain, in all of its sinfulness and simplicity, a beautifully archaic platform of success?
Aside from the simplistic threads, the would-be cashier's check scams, the lingering hookers and the pornographically inclined desperation seekers, it's a pretty valuable site. Forty-nine million Americans every month can't be wrong ... can they?
Man, I had a billion hits
Man, I had a billion hits ... so what?
When I helped develop a website for the Round Rock Express two years ago, there was no advertising on the site. Here was a company making a few million bucks off of advertising and ticket sales every season, yet they weren't even interested in formulating a plan for the site.
When told there could be money in the site, some of the sales folks scoffed. You try selling something that no one cares about to people.
So we began tracking the hits, visits, unique visits and so on. It turns out, people were reading the site. In 2007, just before we launched our new design, we drew about 5 million hits and around 30,000 unique visitors a month. That number alone compared with ad space we were already selling on our radio station for $1,500 a pop.
When the relaunch was completed, we began averaging closer to 10 million hits and 60,000 uniques a month. And the ad men came through. In the first year, we sold out of ad content and reached nearly $70,000 in sales ... a big leap from zero.
As we went along, we learned that advertisers were interested in click-throughs, unique visitors (you can't click through a billboard, but you can brand it, right?), interactivity and ad placement. All of those are trackable or explainable using software or online programs.
Through that, we also learned that while hits sound cool, no one cares anymore. Hits tend to measure the purposeful with the accidental. The repeat with the unique.
Pete's stock picks
|
| Google Inc. | GOOG | 497.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3
|
|
|
| Apple Inc. | AAPL | 184.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 25
|
|
|
| Cablevision Systems... | CVC | 24.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 33
|
|
|
| Time Warner Cable Inc. | TWC | 42.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 40
|
|
|
| The Washington Post... | WPO | 462.03 | 3 |
Advertising is good for me.
As Lacy said, when measuring online traffic, which record mouse clicks (page views) is not appropriate, what method should be used to measure real Web numbers? I do not have the right answer to this question. Most online research papers are likely to measure online traffic by measuring the number of clicks. For instance, A-list blogs were determined by the standard, which is measuring how many users read the page and how many other blogs or Web sites it is linked to. Based on this measurement, we assume that A-list blogs play a key role in connecting with other blogs that share similar political stances and ideologies. There are, of course, always concerns about click fraud; however, Jarvis’ article about the lessons from Google can be applied to Craigslist as well. Craigslist also focuses on talent, which represents a consumer-driven business that provides a community service. I believe that the success of Craigslist is a unique case, which sticks to old-fashioned ways. Most importantly, it is free from advertising pressure. However, I wonder how many any other companies can success as they do so far. Google and Craigslist are monopolies that impede other companies from entering this area. If other companies want to be like them, they must have more attractive content or guarantee more opportunities for a user-friendly platform.
I am more likely to depend on other users’ comments on products when I purchase relatively cheap items such as clothes and cellular phones. However, my attention is more likely to be influenced by advertising when I purchase relatively expensive products, such as a car or furniture, because I believe that advertisements offer more credible information about those products. In short, even though I believe that people are as good and trustworthy as Newmark believed, I do not usually trust information from anonymous users.
I am more likely to depend on other users’ comments on products when I purchase relatively cheap items such as clothes and cellular phones. However, my attention is more likely to be influenced by advertising when I purchase relatively expensive products, such as a car or furniture, because I believe that advertisements offer more credible information about those products. In short, even though I believe that people are as good and trustworthy as Newmark believed, I do not usually trust information from anonymous users.
how to measure online traffice?
When reading "Web numbers: what's real?", what comes into my mind is how do those companies actually measure traffic? Do they purely use certain advanced technology to count the number of visiting? Is there any methods or measurement design that we learn in the method class used in this process? I think it must have some measurement design or method fixed in the technology, but have no idea after reading it. If we go back to the definition of what traffic is and its complicated relationship with advertising, and then how to measure the meaningful traffic, maybe it'll make more senses to me, or let the academic folks in communication area know how to take advantage of this online method research area.
Why bulletine board is not popular in US?
This question has been in my mind since I came here 2 years ago. Neither facebook or any other social networking sites will be like the biggest electronic bulletine board, PTT, in Taiwan (now it may be the biggest in Chinese-based area) that "dominates" my life for more than a decade... it becomes part of my daily life and part of over 150, 000 users' daily life. Compared to it, facebook and other social networking sites really can't arouse my interest and influence my life so much. Even though I'm getting older and some boards are not interesting to me anymore, I can always find other boards on it. More and more people, especially the generation after mid-70s, are fully engaged in it.
Why craigslist is so popular in US is not surprising to me at all because it has similar characteristic of the bulletine board, thousands and thousands users generated information and all kinds of needs that are closest to our daily life. People share interest and also shape the identity in the "virtue" world (actually it's not virtue at all, it's real). That is the best place for me to observe the new trend of the soceity in various area and the new pattern of online interaction. All the new niches mentioned in "what would google do?" have already been shown in PTT, for example, the food product introduced on it by someone will become a hit and the firm that sells the product doesn't need any advertising at all. Now, it is news organizations that chase what's popular on the PTT and report all the young generation already know.
Unlike bloggers that could become a star after being well-known and changed his/her original reason to blogging because of the benefits from advertising. People in PTT are not easily been influenced by advertising, but greatly by other people's suggestions and personal experiences. It makes me think about are you going back to the interpersonal communication model, or online interpersonal communication model rather than mass media's grand theory (the effect of the new online interpseronal communication is big and broad though).
Why craigslist is so popular in US is not surprising to me at all because it has similar characteristic of the bulletine board, thousands and thousands users generated information and all kinds of needs that are closest to our daily life. People share interest and also shape the identity in the "virtue" world (actually it's not virtue at all, it's real). That is the best place for me to observe the new trend of the soceity in various area and the new pattern of online interaction. All the new niches mentioned in "what would google do?" have already been shown in PTT, for example, the food product introduced on it by someone will become a hit and the firm that sells the product doesn't need any advertising at all. Now, it is news organizations that chase what's popular on the PTT and report all the young generation already know.
Unlike bloggers that could become a star after being well-known and changed his/her original reason to blogging because of the benefits from advertising. People in PTT are not easily been influenced by advertising, but greatly by other people's suggestions and personal experiences. It makes me think about are you going back to the interpersonal communication model, or online interpersonal communication model rather than mass media's grand theory (the effect of the new online interpseronal communication is big and broad though).
Next in Google's path is advertising.
Reading chap 11 and articles on google ad., craiglist and Web traffic measurement, I came to think the business model of media that was dependent on advertising may finally be coming to an end. And I welcome that avalanche, the Googlanche with all my heart.
If we hold Jeff Jervis's bold prediction as something credible, media companies should stop worring about withering ad revenues. Next in Google's path is advertising. And Epstein's hypothesis that advertisers won't be able to afford ad. and stay competitive might come true. This prediction is persuasive. After all, how can you compete with what is free? And isn't the anecdote of Craig Newmark's war with Nancy Melone suggestive? Dot.com model based on payed ad was powerless against free ad model.
I think ad revenue has been a source of evil in many ways. It was interesting to see a survey result of US in chap 11 that 9 out of ten editors had been lobbied by an advertiser to alter content and one third gave in . In South Korea, it came to a point that Samsung account for nearly 20% of the ad revenues of newspaper industry, and some papers rely 90% of total revenue on ad. Samsung manufactures ship, computer, cars and even apartments in Korea. What is scary is such a huge conglomerate of firms has a centralized decision making system on advertisement.
So would like to see media declaring independence again, like the real old days when they relied on subscrition. Of course, such independence may mean the real the end for many media companies.
If we hold Jeff Jervis's bold prediction as something credible, media companies should stop worring about withering ad revenues. Next in Google's path is advertising. And Epstein's hypothesis that advertisers won't be able to afford ad. and stay competitive might come true. This prediction is persuasive. After all, how can you compete with what is free? And isn't the anecdote of Craig Newmark's war with Nancy Melone suggestive? Dot.com model based on payed ad was powerless against free ad model.
I think ad revenue has been a source of evil in many ways. It was interesting to see a survey result of US in chap 11 that 9 out of ten editors had been lobbied by an advertiser to alter content and one third gave in . In South Korea, it came to a point that Samsung account for nearly 20% of the ad revenues of newspaper industry, and some papers rely 90% of total revenue on ad. Samsung manufactures ship, computer, cars and even apartments in Korea. What is scary is such a huge conglomerate of firms has a centralized decision making system on advertisement.
So would like to see media declaring independence again, like the real old days when they relied on subscrition. Of course, such independence may mean the real the end for many media companies.
Should I buy iPhone?
The relationship between media content and advertising has long been a nonstop issue in media industry and among researchers and students who majoring media. It is absolutely true that a factor of advertising revenue are likely to influence the nature of the information and entertainment content provided, which was considered as bad things for journalism values especially when I was in college student.
Now it seems interesting to try to do research, whether and how advertising factor affect diversity of content; for instance, it seems to me that online media or search engine seem to have more advertiser or production-promotion content.
Another thing that I have been interested is social media and advertising.
Increasing attention to how social media (e.g., Twitter) have been used for business strategies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whzN-7uCiZw
And I've noticed iPhone ads on my facebook that lots of my friends are using it; and it seems cool and even very good comments on it:
Excellent app ! Much improved over the previous versions, I no longer feel as if I am crippled when using the facebook app on the iPhone, The new look and easy navigation is key for this app's success ! 4 out of 5 Stars - 5 Stars when push is available.. Thank you for this app !
Should I buy iPhone? :D
Now it seems interesting to try to do research, whether and how advertising factor affect diversity of content; for instance, it seems to me that online media or search engine seem to have more advertiser or production-promotion content.
Another thing that I have been interested is social media and advertising.
Increasing attention to how social media (e.g., Twitter) have been used for business strategies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whzN-7uCiZw
And I've noticed iPhone ads on my facebook that lots of my friends are using it; and it seems cool and even very good comments on it:
Excellent app ! Much improved over the previous versions, I no longer feel as if I am crippled when using the facebook app on the iPhone, The new look and easy navigation is key for this app's success ! 4 out of 5 Stars - 5 Stars when push is available.. Thank you for this app !
Should I buy iPhone? :D
Sandra's investiment portfolio
- 9/15/2009
Firm Paid Price; Sharings
Baidu 378.00; 10
Amazon 83.50; 8
Google 475.00; 10
Disney 27.90; 8
Time Warner Cable Inc. 41.00; 8
Time Warner Inc. 29.00; 8
The changing of advertising
When a company keeps advertising their product, does that mean the company or the selling of the product is going down? I like the concept that was mentioned in Jarvis’s article that before you spend money to advertising, investing your product and service first, especially, in the online-networked environment where people are still arguing whether the brand advertising work online. This article corrects my misconception of the function of advertise. Since social networking sites and microblogs showed up, the statement about the market evaluation that “it’s about relationships, not messages” was confirmed again. However, does that mean social media would be crucial factor that influence the advertising? How much should a media rely on the advertising revenue nowadays? There should be a lot of differences between new and traditional media when the technology access and media consumption is changing.
In addition to the network based media, search engine ads also become a popular way for online advertising such as Yahoo’s key word advertising. I was kind of surprise its effectiveness when people try to search some information actively and then relevant shows up. Moreover, such as google’s software comes up with matches more likely to bring customers to advertisers. In this kind of situation, how would a company make decision whether to put there advertising on online media or on traditional media?
In addition to the network based media, search engine ads also become a popular way for online advertising such as Yahoo’s key word advertising. I was kind of surprise its effectiveness when people try to search some information actively and then relevant shows up. Moreover, such as google’s software comes up with matches more likely to bring customers to advertisers. In this kind of situation, how would a company make decision whether to put there advertising on online media or on traditional media?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Google, social media, newspapers and ads
In his chapter on advertisiting, Jeff Jarvis states: "the best way to burnish a brand is no longer to rub against media properties like Vogue or the Super Bowl. The best way today is to rub up against people: sally the blogger or Joe the Facebook friend. The medium is the message and the customer is the medium. Sally is the new Vogue."
There's obviously been a good deal of this style of marketing going on with the major social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter. Some media outlets, such as the New York Times, have experimented with implementing their own social media elements, but it's not clear to what degree of success. Then there's Digg, which is a sort of middle ground between Facebook and Times People. Not surprisingly, Google has begun to show signs of throwing its hat into the ring as well.
If social media is the key to advertising, then that leads to the question of where it is all heading. Will Facebook or Google end up with their own newsroom?
There's obviously been a good deal of this style of marketing going on with the major social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter. Some media outlets, such as the New York Times, have experimented with implementing their own social media elements, but it's not clear to what degree of success. Then there's Digg, which is a sort of middle ground between Facebook and Times People. Not surprisingly, Google has begun to show signs of throwing its hat into the ring as well.
If social media is the key to advertising, then that leads to the question of where it is all heading. Will Facebook or Google end up with their own newsroom?
Kelly's portfolio
Stock Share Price Shares Total
News Corp. 13.69 100 1,369.00
(Chess)
News Corp 13.71 100 1,371.00
Disney Corp. 28.42 30 852.60
Time Warner 29.30 1 29.30
Google 472.14 5 2,360.70
Apple 172.16 10 1,721.60
Viacom 27.59 1 27.59
Gray TV 1.23 100 123.00
Belo Corp. 4.25 15 63.75
Discovery 28.34 80 2,237.20
News Corp. 13.69 100 1,369.00
(Chess)
News Corp 13.71 100 1,371.00
Disney Corp. 28.42 30 852.60
Time Warner 29.30 1 29.30
Google 472.14 5 2,360.70
Apple 172.16 10 1,721.60
Viacom 27.59 1 27.59
Gray TV 1.23 100 123.00
Belo Corp. 4.25 15 63.75
Discovery 28.34 80 2,237.20
The libertarian capitalism of Craigslist
I agree with Kate about Craig Newmark and the video link about Gov 2.0 was fascinating. It builds on the impression I got from the Wired article, which is that Newmark believes strongly in the ability of Americans to govern their affairs, whether they be buying and selling, campaigning, or... well, affairs. As Thomas Jefferson wrote it: "governments are instituted among them, deriving their just owers from the consent of the governed... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government." Newmark mentions the Founding Fathers in talking about Gov 2.0. I just think Craigslist started the idea - and did it well.
Newmark may be liberal but he’s created the ultimate tool for unfettered capitalism. The irony to both ideological leftists and law-and-order rightists (like state attorneys general) is that Craigslist has, apparently, proven the value of libertarian capitalism better than anybody could have imagined. Facilitate and get out of the way – it’s the ultimate tribute to economist Milton Friedman and to “grassroots democracy” (because not every posting on Craigslist is to buy and sell). And Wolf kind of misses the point on page 3, suggesting Newmark is a hypocrite for being the dictator of the ultimate experiment in digital democracy. However Newmark runs the inner workings of Craigslist he has protected the unfettered nature of the site with almost religious fanaticism. Okay, so he subjectively removes some postings, but my guess is it’s only because their language or content is offensive. This article is exceedingly cynical at the end, which is unfortunate because it seems like Wolf is trying to blame Craigslist for its content, when in fact the content is an artifact of democracy. I’ve used Craigslist to buy and sell and never had a problem. Paint me in the 99.9% - why whine about the remaining one-tenth?
And an aside from the Craigslist article - newspapers have lost $10 billion in declining advertising over the last decade? I know it’s not all due to Craigslist, but it’s amazing that papers have lost half their ad base.
Newmark may be liberal but he’s created the ultimate tool for unfettered capitalism. The irony to both ideological leftists and law-and-order rightists (like state attorneys general) is that Craigslist has, apparently, proven the value of libertarian capitalism better than anybody could have imagined. Facilitate and get out of the way – it’s the ultimate tribute to economist Milton Friedman and to “grassroots democracy” (because not every posting on Craigslist is to buy and sell). And Wolf kind of misses the point on page 3, suggesting Newmark is a hypocrite for being the dictator of the ultimate experiment in digital democracy. However Newmark runs the inner workings of Craigslist he has protected the unfettered nature of the site with almost religious fanaticism. Okay, so he subjectively removes some postings, but my guess is it’s only because their language or content is offensive. This article is exceedingly cynical at the end, which is unfortunate because it seems like Wolf is trying to blame Craigslist for its content, when in fact the content is an artifact of democracy. I’ve used Craigslist to buy and sell and never had a problem. Paint me in the 99.9% - why whine about the remaining one-tenth?
And an aside from the Craigslist article - newspapers have lost $10 billion in declining advertising over the last decade? I know it’s not all due to Craigslist, but it’s amazing that papers have lost half their ad base.
How to measure Web traffic and Google
The Web Numbers article talks about reach, which is a lot like “share” in TV news. Ratings report how many people were watching a show; share reports what percentage of the audience you got of TVs that were on in your town. So you might get an 8 rating but a 16 share if only half the town’s TVs were on. Reach reports a site’s visits as a proportion of all Web users online at a time – but is it local or national or worldwide? Is that a proportion of users in Austin or everywhere? Does it matter? I guess it depends on your business and site. A local bar like Antoine’s has a different audience than Dell, so it makes sense that different types of sites (like Meebo) would need different ways to measure traffic. By the way, a reader, “DNJC,” noted in the comments after the Web measure article; “Page views have always been a crude measure of Web site usage.”
Wow, that third paragraph in Jeff Jarvis’s article on Google is an amazing description of how Earth-shaking Google’s online advertising is. It never occurred to me how revolutionary online advertising was in so many ways, especially eliminating media scarcity (adding elasticity to the demand curve) and tying advertising to performance. I also think it’s fascinating that new media companies like Google and Apple make money “through the side door,” like downloadable music and ads. The idea that “every product is great” works online in the Long Tail, especially in digital environments where storing and “shipping” 1 million costs the same as one. In that arena, advertising as information – “the economics of information” – makes perfect sense. It’s focusing on cognitive media effects, making people aware of your product or service. After that the few customers you need to reach can go online and find you. You don’t have to convince them yours is the “it” product – you just need to get your distribution center and the existing customers in the same digital showroom. At this point, can you start to ignore affective effects, especially if you’re the first to offer something? Is there less need for complementary advertising because the market for your product already exists in the Long Tail – you just need to have it find you? (Although Apple still lives by complementarity, being the ultimate “it” company.)
Wow, that third paragraph in Jeff Jarvis’s article on Google is an amazing description of how Earth-shaking Google’s online advertising is. It never occurred to me how revolutionary online advertising was in so many ways, especially eliminating media scarcity (adding elasticity to the demand curve) and tying advertising to performance. I also think it’s fascinating that new media companies like Google and Apple make money “through the side door,” like downloadable music and ads. The idea that “every product is great” works online in the Long Tail, especially in digital environments where storing and “shipping” 1 million costs the same as one. In that arena, advertising as information – “the economics of information” – makes perfect sense. It’s focusing on cognitive media effects, making people aware of your product or service. After that the few customers you need to reach can go online and find you. You don’t have to convince them yours is the “it” product – you just need to get your distribution center and the existing customers in the same digital showroom. At this point, can you start to ignore affective effects, especially if you’re the first to offer something? Is there less need for complementary advertising because the market for your product already exists in the Long Tail – you just need to have it find you? (Although Apple still lives by complementarity, being the ultimate “it” company.)
Primer on advertising
HMF chapter 11 on advertising was really insightful, especially in two areas; the details about demographics and the fact that 9 out of ten editors had been lobbied by an advertiser to alter content (p. 257) and that one-third had assented. First, coming from TV news, I was very aware of demographics – for example, TV advertisers often pay 2 ½ times more for viewers under age 35 than for older viewers. A top-ranked show like CSI will get top advertising dollars, but a show like the OC might get one-fifth the viewers but charge almost as much as CSI because of the proportion of young adults watching. What I did not know was that online advertising gets so content specific in determining price (p. 255) – people interested in health are more valuable than those interested in video games, for example. That’s fascinating. I also liked the explanation of why there’s so much homogeneity to TV programming (so many crime and medical shows – illustrated in table 11.4 on p. 258). But with 300 satellite and cable channels and the limitless frontier of the Internet does this still happen? I guess it does on the “channels of scale,” the broadcast networks. But isn’t there a growing and more reachable market for diverse content? And does it promise a mix of marginal revenues (MRe – “news and entertainment” value and MRa – ad revenue)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)