A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste – Taking Back New Media
What happened? Why YouTube and not ABC, CBS, or NBC? Why is Google the world’s largest advertising agency (market cap of $137.70B) over 13 times bigger than WPP (market cap $10.47B)? Why with a billion downloads is iTunes killing every other record labels? Why do newspaper publishers seem like the blacksmiths of the information age? And why is Facebook Generation Next’s favorite book -- that they don’t even have to buy?
I have been thinking about it all during the holiday break as I have watched traditional media players implode (check out my delicious on Media Downturn for the articles -- http://delicious.com/sshamp/mediadownturn). Old media had the experience and expertise. It should have provided the pathfinders in this new media wilderness. But instead of writing their shareholders about their successes, old media titans are signing pink slips. And the new media moguls care more about Charlie the Unicorn (33 million views, go figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus) than community responsibility.
As the students we handed mass communication degrees report back being laid-off, I wonder if I/we have done a good enough job as a media educator(s).
We didn’t focus enough on the technology. We believed that the content skills we taught our students would beat the channel savy technowledge start-ups offered. Sensible enough. People were still going to read, listen, and watch. The content production skills would be relevant no matter what the medium, right? Unfortunately, technology radically changed the patterns of consumption. Technological capability morphed traditional industry structure into something today’s media professionals barely recognize.
We teach our students to be great videographers. But one kid with camcorder in the back of an auditorium tapes a guy dancing and over 100 million people watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg) – that is more viewers than last year’s Superbowl. Newspaper layout is meaningless when RSS feeds bring us news from every newspaper we don’t want to subscribe to in a single browser window. Google takes ad buying to eBay with automated bidding. Forget radio programming strategy. Pandora makes a radio channel just for me with just the type of music I want to hear – and it pushes it to my cell phone! And why worry about Nielsen ratings when the video I watch on my cell phone reports back exactly what I watch along with all my demographics.
The centrifugal force of technology change is spinning to the periphery the very skills we used to consider core. I am afraid our students are the best at what doesn’t matter anymore.
We nodded our head when told “the medium is the message,” but we didn’t really get it. Gutenberg started the whole mass communication thing by mastering the technology. But we forgot his lesson. Technology matters. And only those who understand the intricacies of the technology will be able to lead the companies making content in the future.
But a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So we are starting a discussion in the Grady College. How much and what type of technology do we need to teach our students? Tell us what you think.
I have been thinking about it all during the holiday break as I have watched traditional media players implode (check out my delicious on Media Downturn for the articles -- http://delicious.com/sshamp/mediadownturn). Old media had the experience and expertise. It should have provided the pathfinders in this new media wilderness. But instead of writing their shareholders about their successes, old media titans are signing pink slips. And the new media moguls care more about Charlie the Unicorn (33 million views, go figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus) than community responsibility.
As the students we handed mass communication degrees report back being laid-off, I wonder if I/we have done a good enough job as a media educator(s).
We didn’t focus enough on the technology. We believed that the content skills we taught our students would beat the channel savy technowledge start-ups offered. Sensible enough. People were still going to read, listen, and watch. The content production skills would be relevant no matter what the medium, right? Unfortunately, technology radically changed the patterns of consumption. Technological capability morphed traditional industry structure into something today’s media professionals barely recognize.
We teach our students to be great videographers. But one kid with camcorder in the back of an auditorium tapes a guy dancing and over 100 million people watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg) – that is more viewers than last year’s Superbowl. Newspaper layout is meaningless when RSS feeds bring us news from every newspaper we don’t want to subscribe to in a single browser window. Google takes ad buying to eBay with automated bidding. Forget radio programming strategy. Pandora makes a radio channel just for me with just the type of music I want to hear – and it pushes it to my cell phone! And why worry about Nielsen ratings when the video I watch on my cell phone reports back exactly what I watch along with all my demographics.
The centrifugal force of technology change is spinning to the periphery the very skills we used to consider core. I am afraid our students are the best at what doesn’t matter anymore.
We nodded our head when told “the medium is the message,” but we didn’t really get it. Gutenberg started the whole mass communication thing by mastering the technology. But we forgot his lesson. Technology matters. And only those who understand the intricacies of the technology will be able to lead the companies making content in the future.
But a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So we are starting a discussion in the Grady College. How much and what type of technology do we need to teach our students? Tell us what you think.