Valuing Our Stuff

Bill Wasik, the senior editor of Harper’s Magazine, has a lot to say about the Internet’s impact on stories, on their digital life cycle, and about their evolving market value. He briefly touches on the monetization mystery of the written word in a short, 10-minute video on Big Think, in which he suggests that long “stuff” – as he calls the written word here – will have an easier time finding a market than all of the short snippets sprinkled throughout the millions and millions of conversations and observations taking place on the Internet.

Interesting to me was Wasik’s suggestion that technology, like Amazon’s Kindle, would help support and monetize longer format writing. He believes the Kindle will succeed in adding value back to the book-reading experience (and therefore to books themselves) because it gives readers a break from the ongoing distraction of the Internet, even while it relies on the latest digital technology to retrieve content.

With it’s access to more than 360,000 books, magazines, newspapers and blogs, the Kindle is untethered from the Internet, freeing users to replicate the kind relationship with the material that they used to have with their favorite paperback on a rainy day. Everything new is old again.

Even more intriguing was Wasik’s suggestion that the shorter “stuff,” newspaper articles, magazine articles and blogs, will only be monetized after enough of the good ones have failed, leaving readers in a lurch, desperate for good material. He is essentially arguing economics of scarcity; the less we have of something, the more we value it. I hope he’s right. I’m more of a cynic.

I don’t believe we will begin to value the “short stuff” until something tragic happens, some corporate or political scandal resulting in the unnecessary loss of human life. At that point, the public will want to know who to blame. When they find out, the next question will be: Why didn’t we know? The answer, of course, will be that there are no more investigative journalists to do the kind of reporting that would have brought the story, and the culprits, to light. Only in that “aha moment” will the public once again begin to develop a hunger for the kind of journalism that takes time, effort and money.

The Harper Magazine editorial board hit it right on the head, as far as I’m concerned:
•    All information is not created equal.
•    Expertise is invaluable and should be shared
I would finesse that second point, however, to read:
•    Expertise is valuable, should be funded, and should be shared.

Get out your pocket books America, before it’s too late.

Throttling Access

Since its launch in March of 2008, Hulu has aggregated premium content, and then offered it to viewers free of charge. In exchange for watching a few, short ads, viewers receive great TV shows, movies, and documentaries for nothing.  Nada, Nichts.

Revenue from Hulu’s current model of ad-supported streaming video doesn’t compare, however, to the advertising revenues its broadcast TV cousins enjoy, and that has Hulu executives suffering a little ad revenue envy. Hulu, a joint venture between GE, News Corp and Walt Disney, is now considering a drastic change to its business model in order to better monetize the company.

While Hulu execs huddle to discuss whether to go with pay-per-view charges or a monthly subscription fee, some members of the company’s loyal (and former TV) audience are threatening to jump ship, bristling at the notion of having to pay for what is now free. They underscore their outrage by pointing out that advertising already supports the content, so to add any other fees would be just plain wrong.

All of the jostling, maneuvering and hand wringing that entertainment producers and distributors are going through makes me wonder if the advertising industry isn’t experiencing its own economic adjustment. Maybe the days of ads that bring in $3 million dollars for 30 seconds, as this year’s Super Bowl ads are expected to do, are limited. Maybe, like all of us, the shareholders of Hulu, and their advertising brethren, are going to have to be happy with less gold lining their pockets.

According to comScore.com, the average U.S. viewer now watches more than 5.5 hours of online video in a month, and that number continues to grow. The audience migration from broadcast TV to the online video market is certainly a symptom of technological disruption, but it may also one day, in retrospect, mark the beginning of the decline in advertising revenues for the entertainment content creators and distributors.

Hulu can try to fight the reality of an audience that expects free, and will go to great digital lengths to get it, but in the words of Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, “You can’t slow the pace of technology.”

Parallel Narratives

There was a time in my life when I viewed everything through the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” “The Fountainhead,” and several non-fiction books discussing objectivism, her guiding philosophy. While I’ve long since changed my philosophical beliefs, I still carry in my metaphorical back pocket a handy tool borrowed from her discussions. Rand maintained that there are no contradictions. Whenever you are facing a contradiction, she advised, check your premises. One of them is wrong.

The description of narrativity as something confined to a temporal sequence seems, to me, to be based on an assumed premise; one that insists that only one action or thought can present itself at a time when we tell a story. Since narrativity relies on the relationship that unfolds between the narrative and the viewer, it is impossible to ignore that the story being created in the mind of the viewer has the opportunity to spread out and connect with parallel or tangential stories at the same time.

Even when considering the more austere idea of the narrative, the simple describing of a sequence of events, one cannot ignore the supporting stories and ideas that create a backdrop in the storyteller’s mind during creation of the narrative. Never mind that only one sequence of events is ever presented at a time. Like the parallel universes that string theorists say resonate throughout our universe, narratives are shaped by other stories that exist, in tandem, in the narrator’s mind: unseen, but no less important.

A temporal arranging of events is a neat and tidy way in which theorists can describe something as dynamic as narrativity, but it in no way represents the messy, complex and intertwined way in which we live our lives… or tell about the living of those lives. It is that abundant collection of actual or imagined experiences that gives illustrative or pictorial narrativity the power to bring us to our emotional knees. Certainly a single image evokes a different experience for the viewer than, say, a video or a novel, but different does not necessarily mean “less than.” In fact, it rarely does.

 

 

 

Story Trumps Technology

 

When Bill Clinton won his come-from-behind bid for president of the United States in 1992, his campaign manager, James Carville, kept the “Boy Governor” on message and on task with a banner that hung in Clinton’s Arkansas campaign headquarters. It read: “The Economy, Stupid.”

Carville was underscoring the importance of connecting with voters where they live. His slogan, in all of its cut-to-the-chase Carvillian glamour, recalled the time-honored rule of writing: “Keep it simple, stupid.” As new media proselytizers, I think we sometimes get so tangled up in the frenzied joy of the newest, sweetest technological gadgets and platforms, we forget that it is our job is to meet people where they live. We often pick our delivery method or technology just because it’s slick or new — even when it isn’t necessarily the best tool for the job.

Don’t get me wrong. I love technology. I own an iPhone and feel naked without it. I carry around my Flip Mino camcorder in the event I see something I want to capture. I post to YouTube, Tweet if you sneeze, and share my milestones on Facebook. Each time I stop to communicate, however, I have to keep reminding myself that, written on a metaphorical banner above my head, are the words “It’s the story, stupid.” Frankly, I believe story trumps technology.

All of the technology and lightening speed delivery platforms won’t save a piece of communication if it doesn’t have the pillars of good storytelling. And a good story will never be toppled just because it’s jumping off a television screen, or peeking from behind the cover of a hardback book, instead of showing off as the latest download on your Kindle.

I want to leverage all that I’ve learned in the MCDM program to create stories that touch people in a relevant way, and then deliver that story to wherever the audience may be. Sometimes that will be a fantastic video built for the web and found only online. Other times it will mean using audio, video, photos and plain old copy to deliver pieces of the same story on a blog just like this one. Occassionally, however, it may be a short story delivered via a magazine.

I do think that we are in the middle of a digital (r)evolution, but it is our mandate, as storytellers, to engage people wherever they are, in the way they want, and with the kind of relevent content that resonates with their everyday experiences as human beings. Is our audience migrating to online and devouring new media in numbers unimaginable a mere 20 years ago? Certainly.

But before we rush in to capitalize on that trend willy-nilly, we would be wise to remember why we’re creating, and what we’re hoping to accomplish. In letting those elements guide our work, we are bound to create compelling stories that are shared and amplified by people, just like us, who Tweet, post and upload, whenever a story has touched their lives in a significant way. In my book, or my future, nothing could be more rewarding.

Evolution of the New York Times

The New York Times. Four little words with such big meaning. Smart. Lengthy. Investigative. Incisive. Print. Paper. Irrelevant?

Mmmm, not so fast. While everyone is writing the obituary for the nation’s newspapers — and, to be fair, those same papers seem to be bleeding out for lack of revenue — some very smart decisions are being made about how to keep the New York Times relevant in a digital world; and video is helping to lead that evolution.

When the Times first began featuring video on its website, the result was less-than-effective. Nervous print reporters stood in front of cameras and haltingly talked about the story they were covering. That early training ground, however, proved only the first step into the paper’s digital transformation.

Today, the site is user-friendly, slick and captivating. In addition to the always flawless reporting and beautifully executed written copy, website visitors now encounter tightly produced videos presented in an easy-to-navigate user interface.

The length of the videos varies, and seems to be dictated by the story’s breadth and depth. Not all stories have a video element, but the ones that do have an impressive style and appeal. They are broadcast quality but, unlike broadcast, take the time to tell each story as it needs to be told.

This ability to capitalize on the Internet’s infinite availability of time may be a key element in the struggle to breathe life back into the nation’s leading newspapers. As long as the paper produces videos that capture the attention and imagination of viewers within the first 30 seconds, the patient just may have a chance at survival, after all.

Flash Dance

Technology offers a huge array of digital tools for today’s communicator. New devices. Slick platforms. Technological slight-of-hand. The real trick, however, seems to be in knowing which tool to use to do your communicating. Gary Vaynerchuk, host of Wine Library TV, an online wine review show featuring weekly webisodes, understands that streaming video is the perfect selection for his product.

Visitors to Wine Library TV find Gary’s latest webcast cued up and ready to go in a Flash 10 player. The market penetration that Flash enjoys, along with its agnostic platform (it prays to neither the Mac or PC gods), make it the smartest choice for savvy marketers like Vaynerchuk. The last thing he wants his viewers to do is to navigate away from his site in search of a plug-in for QT or Real. Additionally, Flash now has enabled H.264 video compression, providing great quality video while taking up about half the bandwidth of MPEG-2.

Streaming video is the perfect tool for Veynerchuk’s hand-waving, wine-slurping webisodes. He’s an entertainer who engages all the senses, making video the right delivery medium for his wine reviews and sports predictions. His full-screen option is nice, but the loss of quality at full size is a bit of a distraction in today’s high-definition culture.  Nothing that a good glass of red won’t take care of, however.

Life Support

Some people play “20 Questions” in the car. Others listen to NPR. My favorite thing to do while zipping down the freeway is to try and save journalism. In this endeavor, I rack my brain, trying to figure out what kind of monetization model will protect the investigative journalism that has, for decades, kept our country (and our constitution) intact. Free may be the reigning model in regards to information, but not all Free information is created equal.

I don’t know what the answer is. I do, however, have some fresh thoughts about the whole dilemma after reading the opinions of Anderson, Godin, Cuban and Gladwell. Let’s start with, “They asked for it.”

Many of my journalism colleagues, as little as four years ago, were still adamantly insisting that even if papers became less popular, reporting would still exist just as it had for decades. Papers might be shaken to the core, but would survive the quake. These smart-yet-blind friends scoffed when I suggested that Internet delivery of the news would replace papers.

What they couldn’t see was that information had gone from scarce, to abundant. That, in Anderson’s words, newspapers had lost their “monopoly on consumer attention.” Why? Because those consumers were spending more and more time online.If journalists had only checked their self-righteous indignation, and thrown all of that energy into quickly learning how to provide digital delivery of the news, they may have fended off the onslaught of citizen journalism more successfully.

Instead, their denial and downright defiance inspired a backlash of bloggers and chat-room mavens to confiscate the role of town crier. When that happened, the crowds realized their collective wisdom, and it was the beginning of the end for journalism, as we know it.

Just because the paper dies, however, does not mean that journalism is headed for the ICU. I agree with Cuban that newspapers with solid brand value – the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, even our beleaguered P-I – should carefully select where and when their digital content is offered Freely, without giving in to the demands for no-strings distribution by new media evangelists. In this way, reputable media companies can protect the value of their brand and, hopefully, garner an audience for the kind of online content that is becoming more scarce in the wake of the news wars – investigative reporting.

Digital delivery of pithy, in-depth, and even scandalous news that is relevant to my life? Now that, I would pay for.

Video Pitch

I am considering three different ideas, but tasked with choosing only one. As usual, I want it all. The three topics I’ve been juggling in my indecisive state are: Rain, coffee and success. Let me quickly tick off the reasons why I’ve eliminated rain and coffee.

Rain. Quintessentially northwest. Puddles, faces looking through drop-splattered windows, fantastic nat sound for almost any shot. The flip side, of course, is wet equipment, reliance on weather, and potentially dreary scenery and/or action. I’m out.

All right, then, let’s try coffee. Can’t you just hear it? The grinding, the beans pouring, the steam rising. Oh, wait. I’ve already heard, and seen that, so many times before. This absolutely Seattle theme has been pounded into the ground(s) and I’m afraid that, with so many new transplants to the Seattle area in our class, the project would turn into a great, big Starbucks commercial. Let’s not.

That leaves “success.” This topic is so open-ended that it begs for the director to slip on her imagination and run with it. Success could be an ant moving a crumb one foot into safety. It could be a dog catching a Frisbee. It could be a teenager driving away in a car for the first time.

Success is an individual theme, living against the backdrop of the director’s life and experience. It is also focused enough to allow the class to create a series of shorts that will knit together beautifully, and clearly, for the viewer. The theme also allows success to be defined by the antithesis — failure — opening up even more material and ideas.

I want to work with an idea that is broad enough for 1000 ideas, but obvious enough for viewer accessibility without relying on a narrator’s guidance. I think “success” meets all of that. It has the added bonus of undoubtedly leaving the viewer with a smile and, hey, who doesn’t want one of those?

Vote Now. Vote Often.

First assignment in Web Stategies for Storytelling? Choose one — just one — theme to pitch for the class video projects. In a world of so many fantastic possibilities, I’m counting on the wisdom of the crowds to help me decide (although I have written a pitch for one of them on my class page on this blog)!

I C U

I have always been interested in trend spotting, the kind that goes on in the streets of our country’s biggest cities by corporate scouts looking for the latest craze. In this arena, professional spotters go hang out in economically depressed neighborhoods to see what new fashions are emerging on the backs and feet of the nation’s poorest kids. The kind of poverty in which these kids live seems to forge unique creativity and self-expression, which makes its way into rap and hip-hop, and then translates into tomorrow’s fashion.

Mark Lowenstein’s article about location-based services makes me think that other industries might now be able to mimic the kind of success that the fashion industry has realized by watching the behavior of teens.

Consider this. Generation Y is nearly as big as the Baby Boom generation. Boomers have unequivocally changed the world at every age and every stage of their lives. We can undoubtedly expect the same from their children, the teens and young adults who make up Gen Y.

A location-based application that captures the daily movements of great groups of teens can provide product designers, content creators, and marketers important information about the needs of tomorrow’s consumer.  The impact of an idea like this goes far beyond the ability of a company to make a buck, however.

The information collected when tracking the movements of people can certainly better inform retailers how to provide products that more effectively meet the needs of consumers. Imagine, however, the kind of impact that information might have on city planners. Think bigger, even.

Imagine how the world might be affected should cell phone ownership reach critical mass worldwide, and should those phones be armed with location-based services. If we could track the movement of the world’s population, what might we do with that information? How would our lives, and our future, benefit from the kind of far-reaching information LBS is capable of providing?

Global becomes political becomes personal. Now that’s what I call social media.

______________________________

1. What kind of impact would tracking the location and movement of a city or region’s popultion have on transportation planners? City planners?

2. What are the privacy implications of LBS for adults, and even children? We’ve joked for years about chips implanted in rear-ends in dogs, children, and even fellow adults. Is LBS so very different just because it has an on and off switch?

3. What parent wouldn’t jump at the chance to use LBS, even secretly, to track their child’s movement? Can they do using a program that works like a Trojan Horse, posing as something else, so that their kids don’t know about the tracking? Is that ethical? Is that legal?