Mediascape or Media-escape?

The omnipresence of the media is summed up in Appadurai's use of the term 'mediascape'. The word is very well chosen because, like landscape, it carries with it not only the sense of omnipresence, but also the notion that people are immersed in the media which are largely taken for granted.

Audiences, Nicholas Abercrombie & Brian Longhurst (1998)

Most audiences are organised around discrete events - a show, film, speech, etc - but this has changed with the digital broadcasting schedule. Simple audiences became mass audiences and mass audiences have become diffuse. But, the need to identify based on the audience experience remains. However, the sheer number of media products make this difficult, as not all media products are meaningful to the audience. Resultantly, those that remain important are elements typically used to construct the individual's narrative. One goes to a classical music concert, one watches Jersey Shore while another watches a sports competition (or all of the above) - these become part of their respective identities. This is true regardless of whether consumed in the private or the public space.

The issue with the current landscape is that there is a "large and complex repertoires of images and narratives, convoluted mixtures of the world of news and the word of commodities" delivered to people throughout the world. News organisations are part of this. They add to and provide context to the saturated mediascape. Providing the words, images, that make up the narrative and influence a narrative.

Interestingly, newspapers used to counteract this inundation in part through the creation of a community. The consumption of news was a ceremony. The number, and variety, of people consuming news reassured the imagined world was rooted in everyday life. Newspapers linked the variety of images together temporally. Readers were unified in the publishing schedule. This continues to be true. However, they must also work to unify readers through something more. Newer, stronger (better, faster) communities should be created. Otherwise, these organisations risk users escaping, rather than bringing them into their personal mediascape. 

High journalism and low journalism

Historically, high journalism has largely been subsidized by low journalism. In modern times, however, the two are increasingly decoupled, largely because we can get the latter online in unlimited quantities, and people are willing to pay for the former.  While high journalism outlets are attempting to exist on their own through the use of paywalls or events businesses (in addition to various forms of advertising) around traditionally "high" content, low form companies like Buzzfeed and Gawker are moving into long-form and hard news articles.* Indeed, “viral news has been co-opted by advertisers, pranksters, political operatives and others looking to sell something” forcing these media agencies to evolve their offering.

Consider Buzzfeed, a website dealing with "low" forms of news.  It is a product designed for a new set of client who want to target a specific user- the bored at work crowd. It is responsive to its customers and focuses on R&D, and has shown remarkable innovation in its use of analytics, community and monetisation. The company’s focus on mobile only, as compared to “digital” is a forward looking response to current media trends. Now, the company’s ability to harness virality into revenue has allowed it to expand its content (including video and hard news content) and develop its business based on a committed user base. They have managed to become a news source to readers. 

But, if young, innovative firms gain the high journalism market, legacy organisations may not survive. Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation suggests established firms fail not because they are unable to keep up, but because they are unable to pursue these innovations when they arise. And indeed, it is this newer convergence that legacy institutions seem unable to adapt to. The business environment makes them unable to dedicate resources to the new innovation, either because they feel unable to take resources away from a sustaining innovation (paywall, being one of them), or the company bureaucracy/identity does not allow for it.

Firms who succeed typically bring unique departments within their organisations that do this. And certainly, a number of organisations are looking at building these more innovative sites. The Trinity Mirror created UsVsTh3m, the Daily Mirror launched Ampp3d, and the Atlantic has Quartz. But, will these converged forms be enough? The next wave of development will now depend at how these will be brought into the legacy organisation, and whether they are able to act on this convergence/decoupling paradigm. 

*By high Journalism, I mean strong news reporting and investigation pieces (think Pulitzer). In this context, low journalism means diarists and parodists  (think The Onion, The Daily Show, Colbert, etc).

Consumption versus production in the new media age

The distinction between enthusiast and producer has become less certain, particularly in the news media. Microblogging platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have made the ability to produce content and have say significantly easier. Longform platforms like Blogger, Medium and WordPress mean analysis, investigations, and more can be created and disseminated through the internet, for free. Barriers to entry to produce the news are at an all time low, and the definition of “journalist” is changing. Does it include bloggers? Influencers? What training do they need?

While the blurred distinction between enthusiast and producer is true in other areas as well, the difference remains in the means of production; whether a physical product is required, and how it is transferred between people. With news media, people are not selling the product, but the advertising around it. Yes, this is changing via paywalls, events, and other revenue opportunities. However, historically, the more eyes, the more money, the greater someone’s brand. This creates the potential to branch out and for an enthusiast to move into the professional realm at an established news organisation. Consider, for instance, a number of big name “bloggers” that reside within news organisations (Nate Silver, Paul Krugman, &c). 

The advent of digital media has also had repercussions on the consumer/audience. In 1995, Tulloch and Jenkins wrote they would: “adopt a distinction between fans, active participants with fandom as a social, cultural and interpretive institution, and followers, audience members who regularly watch and enjoy media… programmes but who claim no larger social identity on the basis of this consumption.” This distinction focuses on the identity of an audience member within the particular media type - science fiction. However, this is true across media types. Similarly, it has strong links to community identification and affiliation. Indeed, the notion of community is prevalent in many of the discussions of this audience transformation, as it is inherently based on a shared understanding of the media or the images portrayed in the mediascape.

Abercrombie makes a compelling case for audience development, suggesting a continuum from consumer to fan, to cultist/enthusiast, to producer. He uses this in the context of fan fiction, relating it to novels and TV series. These categories differentiate primarily along lines of the object of focus, media usage and organisational structure. The step from enthusiast to producer (or petty producer, to use his words) passes the barrier from content creation for emotional or identity reasons to creation for commercial gain foremost. While a valuable way to contextualise audience development, this definition does not go far enough in modern times, where the distinctions are less and less relevant.

Social media and the stock market

The most significant trend affecting the financial services industry currently is increasing regulation. One of the main purpose of these new regulations (and new regulatory bodies) is to restore confidence in the market place. Social Media is the best way to reach investors, especially a new generation of investors, who are accustomed to receiving information faster, in different media platforms, and who are currently cynical of the financial industry. How can, will and should regulatory bodies and exchanges capitalize on this movement in 2012? The TSX already has a twitter page, for instance. What about an FSA Blog on upcoming regulations?

Consider, for instance, how online sentiment is already being used to predict market trends and stock prices. Social media can show attitudes “towards certain things and disdain for others, all the while displaying the overall appeal of a company.” As it turns out, this information can be incredibly influential in determining share prices. For example, the number of “followers” a company has is predictive of its valuation. More generally, the number and type of emotional words on Twitter can predict daily moves in the DJIA with almost 90% accuracy. (Personally, I’m curious how an analysis of facebook or blogs -- professional and laypersons -- would hold up). “Tweet” analysis is already being used by several companies. But, if companies begin mining for information online in order to conduct sentiment analyses, the likelihood of impulsive (or fraudulent) posts to have a meaningful (and potentially wrongful) impact is high. With social media increasingly prevalent in the world today, this risk is growing.

While one of the advantages of social media is the immediacy of information, the opportunity for mistaken stories to have a significant impact on a company’s stock is highly probable. What if major funds instantly relate to readers the trades they make?  Share prices have the potential to change drastically in a short period of time. This begs the question if social media, as it relates to the financial industry, should be regulated.  Won’t regulations of this nature have a negative impact on transparency and investor confidence… the reason for increased regulation in the first place? Clearly we’ve come full circle. Regardless, there are certainly ways for institutions and investors to further capitalize on this trend going forward.