Money for Nothing and Shorter Content for Free?

I found Bill Wasik’s interview on “Big Think” to be very in-line with my views on modern media. I absolutely agree that one of the cons of modern media is the relentless distraction it encourages. I experience it myself every day. I feel like I’ve developed internet-onset ADD! As soon as I go to Twitter, I’m clicking on 10 different links. Those pages bring me to 10 more different links. Before I know it, I have 100 windows open at once, and I am giving less quality attention to each of them. Even as I sat down to write this blog entry, it took checking my facebook, email, twitter, facebook again and then email to finally settle down and concentrate on doing my homework.

I (we) have the most ambitious intentions to see/do all, but there is so much “dangling in front of us” as Wasik says, that it’s often quite difficult to retain everything. I have a hard enough time managing modern media now - I can’t imagine what it would have been like juggling these outlets when I was younger. Don’t get me wrong – I love the fact that there is an infinite, amount of data out there – and an abundance of ways to connect with like-minded communities, however, each day that a new site/application is released, my ability to concentrate only gets worse.

I really liked Bill’s example of the Kindle as a device conducive to making money, due to the experience it affords its users (so much so that I kind of want to get one now)! I think that choosing to consume content, on your own time, is a much more rich experience than doing so in a rushed environment, while at work, on a time crunch. There is less multi-tasking, and the consumption is done in an environment away from the chaos of blackberries and computers. People are much more willing to pay for this kind of leisurely experience, than accessing shorter content, which is actually more conducive to the busy schedule. There is such an over-abundance of shorter content that developing a model to monetize will be extremely difficult (unless the scenario described by Bill becomes a reality - companies start failing, shorter content becomes scarcer, and users are actually forced to open their wallets).

Hooray for Hulu

You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, or so they say. I’d like to think of myself as pretty digitally savvy, however, I can’t break my habits of taking in programming the traditional way. I have watched online video on Hulu before, and while I appreciate its convenience and value, I am hooked on watching my favorite shows on TV (even if via tivo). There’s something to be said about coming home after a long day and unwinding in front of the tube. For me, I just don’t get that same experience watching The Office on a small computer screen.

Presently, I don’t think that offering free content on sites like Hulu takes away from the $120 billion television market. There will always be people like me who prefer to take in programming on TV over the internet. That said, trends are changing and there is a whole new generation who relies primarily on the internet to consume video content. In fact, I have encountered several individuals at UW who don’t even own a television (unimaginable to me, however, this is becoming the new norm). Moving forward, it will be crucial that content producers reach the viewers where they spend most of their time. Since eyes will be shifting away from television, commercial dollars will decline, forcing the networks and content producers to get more creative with their business models.

I don’t think that charging for Hulu is a video apocalypse, especially to their fans who find tremendous value in their service. Similar to how consumers are willing to pay a fee to access content via cable, DVR, premium channels, iTunes, etc. they will adjust to the concept of paying for online video content. I think that most regular viewers would be fine paying a small fee, rather than lose the service all together, or be bombarded by excessive advertisements, which would be the alternative route for Hulu to stay afloat. The key is to build a community of loyalists, now, while the service is free, who will stick with Hulu, despite commoditization, rather than look elsewhere on the web for content that may suffer in convenience and quality.

A Picture Tells 1000 Words

Friday is my favorite day of the week. Yes, it’s the start of the weekend, but it’s also the day that my guilty pleasure of a magazine, People, releases its new weekly issue. Each week, I pay $3.99 to look at the pictures and read the captions. Yet when I flip the last page, I pretty much have gotten the same gist of the stories as I would having read the issue cover to cover.

Granted, People magazine may not have the most compelling of all material enclosed, but in general, I have noticed that I tend to gravitate towards pictures, especially when taking in content online. I prefer You Tube to online stories and Picassa to status updates. Of course I still appreciate a good book or blog article and the words that flow together to create a captivating story, however, given the amount of content I am faced with each day, it seems like pictures really have become my preferred method of storytelling.

I found the article, Kids Consuming More Content (Research Brief), interesting, but kind of scary as well. I grew up reading, going to the movies, playing house and using my imagination/creativity to stay amused. My friends and I watched Saved by the Bell on tv after school, rather than Hannah Montana online by ourselves. Kids today (now I sound like my grandma), have so many options to stay entertained and consume content. The growth and development that goes along with reading, playing with friends, etc. seems like it is being compromised by the heavy auto-pilot consumption of online content.

Text as a currency is never going to go away. However, especially given the second nature usage of online video/photos at such a young age, I think that content distribution is going to shift to a more visual model. The challenge will be making sure that social media doesn’t become so overly consuming that it makes future generations less “social,” by negatively impacting the development which comes along with offline traditions such as reading and human interaction.