Interesting essay about the conflict between digital media giants and consumers. Couch potatoes as revolutionaries?
John Hebert --- Mike Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From Mike Stagg Mon Jul 8 08:52:26 2002 > To: "List, Digital Louisiana" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Mike Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:52:26 -0500 > Subject: [digitallouisiana] Media Giants' Contempt > for Consumers is Evident and Growing > > Technology changes in the media are driving powerful > changes in the > media market place. It is proving particularly > disturbing to those who > held sway in the previously established order -- TV > networks, record > labels, movie studios. > > The Internet and digital technology have shifted > some power away from > those oligarchs and toward consumers. That, combined > with more > competition resulting in loss of market share by > those formerly > unchallenged giants, has set off something of a > panic among them. > > MIT Technology Review columnist Henry Jenkins has > some interesting > observations on these developments. > > Mike Stagg > digitallouisiana.org > > > Here's the URL for the MIT Technology Review column > by Henry Jenkins: > http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_jenkins070302.asp > > Treating Viewers as Criminals > > Networks say watching TV without the ads is theft. > Will blipverts be next? > > Digital Renaissance > By Henry Jenkins > July 3, 2002 > > > Remember blipverts? > > The 1980s science fiction series, Max Headroom, > depicted a society > "twenty minutes into the future" ruled by powerful > television networks > locked in ruthless competition for viewer eyeballs. > Concerned by the > growing trend towards channel surfing, the blipvert > was developed as a > rapid-fire subliminal advertisement which pumped its > commercial messages > directly into consumers' brains before they had a > chance to change the > channel. > > Unfortunately, the blipvert had the unanticipated > side effect of causing > spontaneous combustion in a certain number of > overweight and chronically > inactive couch potatoes. This outcome was viewed as > an acceptable risk > by the networks, even though it potentially > decreased the number of > viewers for their programs. > > I could not help but think about blipverts the other > day when I stumbled > across the recent comments of Turner Broadcasting > System CEO Jaimie > Kellner, who asserted that television viewers who > skipped commercials > using their digital video recorders were guilty of > "stealing" broadcast > content. Kellner told an industry trade press > reporter that "Your > contract with the network when you get the show is > you're going to watch > the spots." He conceded that there may be a historic > loophole allowing > us to take short breaks to go to the bathroom but > otherwise, we are > expected to be at our post, doing our duties, > watching every commercial, > and presumably, though he never said it, buying > every product. > > Kellner's intemperate rhetoric is, alas, > characteristic of the ways that > the media industry increasingly thinks about, talks > about, and addresses > its consumers in the post-Napster era. Napster may > and I stress, may > have been legitimately labeled piracy, but now all > forms of consumerism > are being criminalized with ever-decreasing degrees > of credibility. Once > going to the bathroom or grabbing a snack on a > commercial break gets > treated as a form of theft, the media conglomerates > are going to be hard > pressed to get consumer compliance with their > expectations, making it > impossible to draw legitimate lines about what is > and is not appropriate > use of media content. > > Name-calling is the last resort of once powerful > institutions that are > finding themselves losing control in the face of > rapid media change. > Never mind that the same media giants are often the > manufactures of the > new media technologies we are using to skip their > commercials or that > some of the advertisements they want us to watch are > marketing us > features which allow us to skip advertisements. > Never mind that we now > have many more media options and we need the > networks frankly far less > than the networks need us. > > I don't know about you but I want to renegotiate my > contract! There has > been a significant increase in the number of > commercials per hour since > I first started watching network programming. > Consequently, my workload > has doubled or tripled, while my compensation the > programming has > gone down in quantity, if not in quality. One > wonders whether it isn't > time for television viewers to form a union, demand > that people like > Kellner sit down at the negotiating table, and cut a > better deal with > us, if they continue to expect viewer loyalty. And > given research > linking extensive television viewing with obesity, > perhaps we might have > some way of holding the networks accountable for > their workplace safety > violations as well, before some of us start to > spontaneously explode. > > But, seriously, the networks do not and never have > had contracts with > consumers, compensating us for the labor we perform > in watching > commercials. They do, however, have contracts with > advertisers, > promising them a certain number of eyeballs in > return for their > financial support for broadcast content, and in the > new media age, they > are increasingly failing to make good on those > agreements. > > For the better part of the twentieth century, three > networks dominated > American broadcasting. CBS and NBC ruled network > radio from the 1920s > forward. The networks sought to provide what David > Thorburn calls > "consensus narratives" which were calculated to > attract the interest of > the largest possible share of the American public as > an incentive for us > to watch commercials and in return, they helped to > fuel the dramatic > increase in consumer goods in circulation within the > American economy. > > Ironically, cable networks, such as those headed by > Mr. Kellner, were > the first to undermine the economic logic of > American broadcasting, > though they have been followed by a range of new > media technologies > the VCR, the DVD player, the game console, the > digital video recorder, > Pay-Per-View, Webcasting, and so on which have > helped to expand the > range of entertainment options available to > consumers and thus > dramatically decrease the ratings shares of the > major networks. > > As a consequence, the various ways networks measure > their viewership > and make commitments to advertisers are > increasingly losing their > credibility. The Nielsen Ratings have long been > discredited as having > little or no social science validity, measuring, by > design, only those > consumers who are desired by the advertisers > themselves. Most of us > frankly don't count when it comes time to decide > which series should be > renewed. > > These new media technologies, which allow us to mute > or fast-forward > through advertisements, call into question the > concept of the > "impression," the basic unit upon which advertising > buys get made. In > the old model, the number of people who were > watching the program were > assumed to be roughly the number of people who were > being accessed by > the advertisers. > > Those of us who grew up in a television culture know > that this was > probably never true, but it kept the accounting > simple for those in the > business of buying and selling spots. Consequently, > despite a succession > of significant shifts in broadcast technologies and > consumer behavior, > the same basic vocabulary dominated commercial > negotiations for decades. > > Today, those negotiations are reaching a crisis > point. The networks are > responding not by rethinking how they do business, > not by developing new > metrics for measuring and accurately reporting > viewer interactions with > media content, not by adopting new marketing > strategies which take > advantage of the affordments of the new media > environment, but by > wagging a finger at consumers and demanding that we > behave according to > their antiquated dictates. > > If the networks stopped at name-calling, that would > be one thing, but > they didnt. Last fall, the networks sued SONICBlue, > the manufacturer of > ReplayTV, and convinced a Federal Magistrate to > force the company to > collect data on thousands of individual consumers: > what shows they > watch, what commercials they skip, and what if > anything they forward > to their friends. Not content to wait and worry, the > networks are now > invading our privacy to ensure that we make good on > Kellner's imaginary > contract. Thankfully, the order was subsequently > stayed by a higher court. > > Confronting such hostility, consumers are > increasingly committing acts > of passive resistance (flush often!) and forming > organizations, such as > DigitalConsumer.org, which is making the case that > consumers have rights > and interests in the negotiations that occur between > media producers, > technology companies, and policy-makers. To borrow a > line from Network, > "we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it > anymore." > > We are now witnessing scorched earth-style warfare > between consumers and > networks, as the old institutions resist change and > hold onto old > approaches up until the last possible moment. As the > battle lines > intensify, we move step by step closer to the > blipvert era which Max > Headroom predicted not twenty minutes ago but twenty > years ago. The > future is closer than you think. > > Henry Jenkins is director of the Program in > Comparative Media Studies at > MIT. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
