What is New Media?

It's not a simple question. I offer that new media is a way in which the delivery of news and information follows a many-to-many format. This stands in contrast with the mass media that just preceded this age of conversation. Vin Crosbie wrote a lengthy piece on the use of and definitions around new media on Corante back in April of 2006. Although I like very much where he arrived with his explanation, I found it difficult to follow him in getting there.

"Within the next ten years, most New Medium consumers will be receiving information from each choice of myriad broadcasters and publishers, perhaps too many for any individual consumer to name or even realize. (Early adopters of tag-driven XML, advanced RSS, and 'peer-to-peer' technologies have already begun making such use). Because these many consumers will be sharing content choices and control with all publisher and broadcasters, the New Medium serves not just a 'one-to-one' or 'one-to-many' medium but a 'many-to-many' one.

Publisher and broadcasters who don't make full use of the New Medium will likely be left behind and wither during this new century."

The Economist has a better way to explain the phenomenon and takes a shorter route to a definition in an article published at around the same time titled among the audience and starting with movable type, the technology that changed everything, twice. We now find ourselves immersed in a new culture, that of participation.

Yet, the technology and structures where this new culture is developing in large part are still inadequate for the user. The pipes and networks were built with the old mindset of mass communication in mind -- corporations just assumed this was a new distribution system for them. While it is easy to use these pipes for broadcasting out en masse, it is still quite challenging to use them in uploading content from a user peer-to-peer model perspective [UPDATE: see BusinessWeek story on mounting peer-to-peer pressure for Comcast] -- desk or airport or wherever we are. This new culture

"... has profound implications for traditional business models in the media industry, which are based on aggregating large passive audiences and holding them captive during advertising interruptions. In the new-media era, audiences will occasionally be large, but often small, and usually tiny. Instead of a few large capital-rich media giants competing with one another for these audiences, it will be small firms and individuals competing or, more often, collaborating. Some will be making money from the content they create; others will not and will not mind, because they have other motives."

I really like the idea of collaboration because it builds on individual resources and expertise and makes the networks aggregated in this fashion much stronger and more committed. When participation is the price of entry, loyalty goes way up. This is the place where conversations come in, an open-ended format in which many-to-many co-create and contribute to evolved content.

The interview series I've been running here in the last several weeks demonstrates that there is still a role for editors of new media. Except for these new editors are increasingly of our own choosing. Inability to perform in this culture of participation is simply a lack of personal involvement plus. We really don't know what that plus may be, or do we? Is it likeability? I'm thinking it's more about the individual as a person -- take Tony Hung at The Blog Herald or Ann Handley at Marketing Profs, they are both editors and members of the community at the same time.

One thing is quite certain -- the old business model may not be sustainable. All the advertising dollars in the world will not help if people just don't want to go there and view the ads. Online publications receive only a very small percentage of ad revenue compared to their print editions -- about 20-30 cents for each dollar. Even if this market is growing rapidly, it is still quite small.

Is the answer going to be moving the ads where the people are? Aren't we still talking about a mass media model? Using personal information that people uploaded on sites like Facebook may seem like a good idea to provide personalized product offerings, yet the move brings up privacy concerns. Deb Schultz sums it up quite nicely with one image of the missing feature.

I questioned a move by AdAge to take over The Power 150 list of marketing bloggers who publish in English. In the weeks that followed that move, we have not really seen any appreciable many-to-many efforts by AdAge to make the list come to life. Mack Collier at The Viral Garden called the publication on its intent when he wrote asking if it in fact hookwinked bloggers. Why hasn't AdAge used the opportunity it had to be a participation leader?

We're more and more in a collaborative story-centric approach of publishing. This is what I call new media and one of the biggest ahas I had in documenting these changes. You are a publisher, what has been your biggest aha with regards to new media?

Comments

[Geoff Livingston]

Spot on. I've already pulled my blogs out of the Ad Age 150 because of several perceived fallacies.

Of course, the question is what will happen - or continue to happen - to old media forms. Which stay, which go, how do they change, etc., etc.

[Steve Rubel]

Bigger question is - when do we stop calling this all "new" media rather than what it really all is - media? Also the chart you have there from eMarketer is fixed in time. It assumes no new format will come along.

[Carolyn Ann]

I'm reminded of something I read about 10 or so years ago: the generation that creates the technology never figures out what to do with it. It's the next one that does!

All of the corporate purchases of Facebook, YouTube, etc, etc, etc all indicate that many think that the next big thing is here. And it might even be true. But it won't be the next big thing until someone figures out to effectively advertise on it. Or generate revenue some other way - YouTube could charge for premium content, for instance. (Actually, I'm not at all sure why they don't.)

One 'big' thing standing in the way of making money from the web? The mantra that information wants to be free. Not open source, but the idea that "it's available on the web", and it's usually there for free.

Want to know the direction and cost of a stock, the price of gold, the Yen, the Dollar? It's available - the delays in its delivery aren't appreciated, or are ignored. Information became a commodity to be given away, somewhere along the way. And when a few million can be traded in/on that delay - you have a way of making money.

Advertising is merely one market that hasn't figured out what to do with the web. An important one, to be sure. But while the fixation on page-reads and click-through's continues, no one will be able make the consumer and advertiser 'click'. (Sorry! :-) ) A different measure is needed - and one that's more attuned to the smaller, more dynamic, audiences that you mention, Valeria.

Of course, getting the current advertisers to change their paradigm (oh, how I dislike that word!) and redefine what they they know about mass audiences... Well, that's going to be a challenge for some hardy (and resolute) souls!

Heck, what constitutes a "mass audience" is in dire need of redefinition!

Going after the Top "N" bloggers, and seeing if you can make money of their content isn't a fool's game: it's simply a game of fools being their own kind. In a way, it's a subtle manipulation that the rebellious nature of blogging simply won't tolerate. Don't forget: "the establishment" doesn't blog. (Yet.) Besides, treating the top bloggers as something like an employee isn't likely to enthuse the bloggers... (Even if they make money off the deal; in which case - "they sold out, and who wants to pay attention to someone touting that"?)

Lots to think about there, Valeria! Just what I need, right now... :-)

Carolyn Ann

[Carolyn Ann]

Here's a thought: if you're trying to leverage bloggers as a marketing tool - how do you measure your demographic?

Just today I had a comment from someone in Bangalore (he rides a Royal Enfield, too!) How can geography become a factor? Or, does it need to be?

So much is international, and yet so many (Internet sites) seem to limit their reach to the northern Americas, or Europe or whatever happens to be local. Still others insist on knowing where you're located before they let you on the site! It just seems so restrictive; as restrictive as chasing a mass market that isn't relevant!

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

What a conversation we have here! Thank you all for diving in.

@Geoff -- I think the bigger question is how are traditional media vehicles dealing with the fact that information wants to be free. I'm reading a wonderful book on leadership where the question is not about poor communication -- it's about lack of information. What a concept! I will noodle over this at work as it leads somewhere new and we do like new destinations. It is pertinent to change and growth.

@Steve -- I would love for a new format to come along. Maybe the next post will be an ideation of what that would look like. Alas, until we keep being fixated with what worked before and copying each other (very pervasive not only in corporate America), we won't know. I'll repeat something Tom Peters wrote that really stuck with me: it ain't old if it hasn't been done! And this many-to-many is just barely scratching the surface as an economic model. Thank you for joining the conversation. Maybe you have further ideas.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Carolyn Ann -- on the planning side I can tell you that we stop too soon. We don't push hard enough for the right answer in format or articulation that will stimulate a conversation. We stop at "safe". I've seen it happen over and over again. Thinking is just too hard and information that is so free online is being held captive inside organizations. We don't have a communication problem, we have an information problem! If you think that there is an effort at controlling the message out here, imagine what it is inside the walls. It isn't always done on purpose, many times it's done on distraction and to follow the hierarchies or lines of command.

You know that the network is already many-to-many but move at a crawl because of information dams. The military figured it out and are letting the information reach the front lines...

There was recently news of pay-per-post bloggers getting their just desserts by Google. What is the next step in advertising? The plot thickens as we all know that ads put forth th best face of a product or service, so to speak, yet if they were more 'real' we would not buy. We aspire, look at the self-help books -- they're not going to make us better until we decide to be what we'd like to become. Yet the sales keep climbing.

The answer resides more in relationships to create something new than in leveraging blogs with old ways. You've given me plenty to chew on. I wonder if anyone else feels like jumping in here?

[Tom O'Brien]

Hi Valeria:

Great post - but one thing is alluded to but not explicitly called out.

One great but not widely understood effect of the internet is that it allows people to find their like-minded peers around the world - not bounded by geography or time.

I can carry on a conversation about surfboards or digital cameras with my peers around the world - people whom I have never met - and I trust them far more than the marketers of the things I buy.

The internet has re-established word-of-mouth as the primary information source for me. And I am not alone.

This is what brand marketers should be paying attention to.

Tom O'Brien

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Tom -- I've always counted on word of mouth ;-) From what I've read so far at "A Human Voice", your passion for WOM comes through, and that is usually our point of departure. I might have gotten spoiled over the years, since I am a 'tween (Europe and US) and make friends easily, I've always had a global network. Ever since my middle school days when I started corresponding with students from all over the world.

Online makes it easier, of course. The trick for me is to not let what I do today sway too much what I can envision for tomorrow. Other models are possible, if we can only let go for a moment of the current ones.

Information is not power, it's nourishment. The attempt to control it, even internally, leads only to people making up their own version... and that depletes the network of needed energy focused in the right direction. Word of mouth is effective because real information is being shared.

[Seni Thomas]

Great post.

I think to distill the definition of New Media one more level and better encapsulate your thoughts it can be expressed as Many-to-Many-to-One communication.

The information is propagated then it is screened by various editors, communities, and trusted sources then fed to you in a personal and relevant stream. You already touched on these points, but I feel that this might be an easier way of conveying the idea.

Cheers,

Seni

[deb schultz]

Once again - you have a great ability to look at broad implications. The issue is indeed using an old framework for an emerging model - webpages are still not pages are they..;) And social media is once again only being viewed as a new distribution mechanism in which to place ad models. However the impact all this social media stuff is having on individuals and business has much broader strategic implications for companies and customers that are bigger than simply "marketing & advertising".

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Seni -- maybe another way of looking at it is self-service. We pick the threads in the information highway that most resonate with our focus at the moment. Yes, it's personal and it's relevant and we choose which one it is. Thank you for fleshing it out.

@Deb -- I couldn't have said it any better. Unless you do it (hence the strategic importance of internal blogs and social media) you don't really know how much this changes the way we do business and how we are in conducting business.

[Vin Crosbie]

Valeria:

Your criticism is apt. Understanding New Media requires a conceptual leap. Like the Theory of Relativity or that of Quantum Physics, the dynamics of New Media are not that hard to understand once you conceptually see how it coalesces. But the problem is to get yourself to that perspective and, once you are there, trying to explain what you see.

Some people use the New Media's facet of social networking as a prism through which to understand and explain it. Others use a facet that is changing marketing. I've been trying to see it through a facet that is changing communications and the media industries (which is of course why my essay appeared in Corante's Rebuiling Media). All these views of the same thing are valid. We're all struggling to find a better ways of explaining the whole that we see.

I need to rewrite my essay.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Vin:

Your essay was a great departure for this conversation and your observation about articulating what we experience is right on target.

Part of the answer may be creating new language as the existing is charged with history. We're observers and creators so the challenge is felt on multiple fronts.