June 1, 2005

Everything Bad Is Good For You

Steven Berlin Johnson ‘s new book, entitled “Everything Bad Is Good For You” is getting a lot of discussion lately, based on the New York Times excerpt. One point of the book is to argue that TV and Video Games are good for you, and to challenge the view that these forms of entertainment degrade our minds vs. reading written text.
On his blog, the author shares a book passage that was not in the NYT excerpt in which he provides a satirical perspective of how a video game purist might criticize book reading if video games had come first. For example:

But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path. You can’t control their narratives in any fashion—you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you. For those of us raised on interactive narratives, this property may seem astonishing. Why would anyone want to embark on an adventure utterly choreographed by another person?


I myself have always believed that video games, like games in general, are good for kids and adults alike. I will be interested to read his arguments about TV being good for you, as I must admit that TV feels for the most part like passive entertainment. With that said, I watched an incredible amount of TV as a child, to the point that I could identify commercials within the first 5 seconds. Since I turned out ok (for the most part, at least), it is possible that this was harmless or potentially even good for me. Or maybe if it hadn’t been for all that TV, I could have been a contender…

Posted by barney on June 1, 2005 at 11:11 pm | No Comments

May 29, 2005

More thoughts on digital media after D3 conference

My friend Matt Hurst appreciated my comments on the blog and newspaper
panels but asked for more of my thoughts about the issues raised during the
D3 conference. This note is a start at such a response.

When users access content through a branded source (either a print
publication or an online destination), the path by which they reached the
content plays a strong role in setting expectations for the credibility of
the content. Users increasingly access news content through search
engines. This has the effect of giving random access to content. In some
cases, users who click on search results can equally well find themselves
reading an article in a high school newspaper or the Washington Post.

However, while there is some potential for deceptive publications to mislead
readers, the content itself gives many clues about credibility. Many people
want higher quality content that has been put through a reviewed process and
are willing to pay for this with their attention or their dollars. This
point was expressed well at D3 by the newspaper publishers and by Barry
Diller. The new access to additional voices seems to me to be purely
additive and will not detract from the role or business of mainstream media.

As concerns quality reviewed content itself, a larger threat to newspapers
(and to all mainstream publishers) is that high-quality media professionals
(like Dan Gilmoor) can exploit the new publication and distribution
landscape to go out on their own. To the extent that readers identify with
the brands of content (experts, shows) more than the brands of publishers
(newspapers, labels, TV networks), this disintermediation can result in a
massive transfer of value and control. Mel Karmazin, the Chief Executive of
Sirius Satellite Radio, said he believes the users will identify with the
content, which motivated his investment in exclusive licensing of Howard
Stern to Sirius radio. Moreover, small players can focus on narrower topics
that add higher value to niche audiences than does mainstream media. Steve
Jobs gave a demo of podcasting, which will both add new voices and offer
disintermediation for established content.

With this shift in economics, it is not obvious what is the best way for
mainstream media to respond. Intermediaries clearly have to serve as good
infomediaries and focus on usable packaging and editorial selection make it
easy for users to find quality content they want. However, mainstream
publishers are traditionally not set up to provide editorial selection with
respect to the long tail of content. I think the struggle to be relevant to
more narrow segments is what motivated major newspaper publishers to puchase
internet aggregators like Topix.net and About.com. It also is driving the
shift in music (and now video) from branded networks and publishers like ABC
and CBS to narrowcast technology providers like Sirius Satellite Radio and
Apple’s iTunes Music Store. Mel Karmazin, suggested that prospects for the
old networks are limited in the new media world. If so (still a big if),
the strategy for newspaper publishers may depend on the extent to which
people want to read news they can discuss with other readers vs. the desire
to have news that is most uniquely of interest to themselves.

Posted by barney on May 29, 2005 at 2:43 pm | No Comments

May 29, 2005

Yahoo’s David Filo and Jerry Yang at D3

Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg interviewed Yahoo!’s David Filo and Jerry Yang in the last
session 2005 All Things Digital Conference.
David and Jerry reflected on:

For me, the most interesting part of the whole discussion concerned the
acknowledgement that search is king today, but that tags and personalization
are ushering in a new importance for editorial browsing:

David: People start with words, but in the results the directory is
there. People have become very comfortable with typing in words.

Jerry: Philosophically, as people want to navigate they may choose to search,
choose to browse. As we see more heightened awareness around tags, it brings
us closer to a filtered or browse scenario. I think we’re just starting to
see the back and forth scenarios. Yahoo has that capability. We can do it
in a very integrated way. Eventually those two finding metaphors will
coexist.

The rest of this blog entry contains my notes.

continue reading the Yahoo’s David Filo and Jerry Yang at D3

Posted by barney on May 29, 2005 at 3:39 am | No Comments

« Prev - Next »