[50 marks]
It is an unarguable fact that the internet has been extremely significant worldwide to the everyday life of billions. I believe that the internet has been equally significant for the producers of media, however not always in a positive way.
The internet was first technically developed in 1969 with ARPANET which was used for military communication. However it wasn’t a useful tool until Tim Berners Lee created the worldwide web in 1989. The first incarnation of the internet is known as Web 1.0, this was seen as an information web where information was simply provided to the consumer, it was nothing like the internet we know today.
Web 2.0 was therefore a revolutionary change to the internet. It allows for interactivity, creativity and a wide range of multi-media. It is the development of the Web 2.0 generation which has created such significant changes to media producers. However I believe the internet still has a long way to go with ever developing technology. I believe that in the future there will be no limits as to what the internet can do.
This has massively significant effects on media products. One industry that has struggled particularly due to this move to the online age is the music industry. Before the internet, music producers pushed products from professional artists via TV shows or websites, they now have a larger amount of platforms to advertise from such as ‘YouTube’ and other social networking sites. However this affects music producers as it has led to a massive rise in public produced music. Before, only professional or signed artists had the opportunity to have their music heard. However, due to the development of the internet, it is now extremely easy for the audience to record songs on their phones and laptops and then show them online. This rise in prosumers (David Gaunlett’s theory about consumers that are also producers) has raised competition as a result of the internet, as public produced media is far easier to create and show.
However prosumers are not the greatest form of competition for music producers. In 2001 Sean Fanning invented ‘Napster’, a site allowing people to share and download files such as music. This had a great effect on the music industry and its producers. Before Napster was shut down, it became extremely popular and started off a trend of other sites doing the same thing. In two weekends alone, 250 million files were downloaded using Napster. This use of digitisation has massive effects on media producers. An average of 20% of the music industry’s revenue comes from downloads. However 95% of these downloads are illegal or piracy. This takes away a large source of revenue from the music producers, however this does not mean it will stop in the future, if the ability is there to access free music rather than pay, consumers will take it.
Some companies such as iTunes, created in 2003, led the way in adapting to this digitisation by providing audiences with an effective way to download music without taking royalties away from music producers. This had a massive effect on high street stores such as HMV that have had to completely re-think their strategy. This is because iTunes have been able to adapt Chris Anderson’s Long Tail theory, when selling their products. This is the idea that for a small number of products there will be a large number of sales (top ten most popular products) but small amounts of a wide range of niche-type products (things less popular but people may still want them). For example, not many people will want a CD by ‘Venturalights’ – a band developed through crowd funding. However with apps such as iTunes not having to battle with the cost of retail space, they can supply their audience with a massive range of products putting them ahead of competitors. High street shops don’t have the space to adapt to this method as it may not make a profit on smaller items therefore they are falling behind.
Digitisation and the development of the internet is also very significant to the film industry and film producers. Due to digitisation and sites such as Netflix and Sky On Demand, watching movies is no longer a special occasion like when they were only accessible at movie theatres. As films are far more easily accessible and more common, audience shave become more desensitised. Therefore this allows movie producers to be a lot more explicit and extreme with their content. For example in 1960, a horror classic, ‘Psycho’, terrified audiences but now audiences are used to far more extreme content. This has meant that film producers have had to increase film production in order to meet the growing demands of audiences. Now 22 million hours are watched daily on Netflix so audiences have higher expectations of films in order to ‘wow’ them.
Another way the internet has had a significant impact on media producers in the film industry is through methods of production. Tapscott and Williams discuss the idea of Wikinomics, this is the concept of mass collaboration in order to reach an end goal. The development of the internet has also led to the development of crowd funding sites. This allows prosumers and consumers to find projects like films in which to invest in return for movie perks such as early previews. This largely benefits film producers who can now take more chances on projects that they may not have otherwise invested in. It also allows small projects who can’t get funding a chance of success. I believe that in the future crowd funding will continue to grow. For example they could use crowd funding in order to gain mass collaboration for casting, storylines, ideas etc. This also applies to David Gauntlett’s theory that we need to create in order to be happy and this gives audiences a chance to do so. This also limits the pressure from media producers.
Another growing trend that media producers, especially in the film industry, have been able to benefit from is the increase in social networking due to developments in the internet. As Marc Prensky says, there is a growing population of digital natives and also an increasing number of digital immigrants who are using the internet – social networking is at an all time high. This interactivity allows the trailer release of a film to almost be as big as the film release. Due to social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, film producers can give provide teasers for their products online. This can lead to a wave of online discussion and opinion. This sense of popularity is a great way of increasing film sales, ticket sales and even merchandise sales. If you see people talking abut the film online you are more likely to go and see it.
Similarly to this, I believe film producers also benefit from the rise in fandom and fan produced media. For example a film of two boys on YouTube battling through the special effect of Harry Potter, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Although these are arguably be seen as parody videos that take the seriousness out of a film, I believe that these can be a great source of advertising and a great way of generating interest in the film. It can also give producers an individual edge to put them ahead of competitors. I believe that in order to succeed, film producers and in fact all media producers, should embrace fandom and fan produced media and take it seriously in order to use it as advertisements.
I believe that in the future the internet will continue to become more significant in changing the way media producers work. I believe they will have to adapt to meet ever growing audience demands. Due to the internet, prosumers now have the opportunity to create their own media in a much easier and more professional manner. Therefore I believe that media producers in the music and film industry will keep having to improve their qualities to beat competition form the public. In order to make this easier, I believe media producers should take advantage in the growth of crowd funding and Wikinomics. To date, the largest crowd funded project, ‘Veronica Mars’ managed to raise £5.7 million from 91 thousand funders. This highlights the power of crowd funding so I believe media producers should rely on this method of consumption and funding more.
Overall, it is clear that the internet has been extremely significant to media producers, however, not always in a positive way. Due to the developments in the internet and a rise in digital natives, the Film and Music industry have had to adapt significantly to appeal to their audience’s ever developing needs and expectations.
Evaluate the opportunities and threats offered to media industries by online distribution
[50 marks]
The emergence of web 2.0 has had a major effect on production and consumption. In terms of the media industries and distribution it is the age of the ‘Prosumer’, a term coined by David Gauntlett which referred to Web 2.0 and how much easier it is to both make and consume. Julian McDougall states that contemporary media, thanks to Web 2.0, has become “more about the people, less about the media”. So how much has actually changed between the off-line and online age and what is the impact on media industries. I will discuss this topic relating to theorists in the cases of Music and of Film.
It is crucial to the understanding of consumer behaviour, distribution and the impact of Web 2.0 to understand media consumption in the off-line age. This was also called Web 1.0 and was the generation of ‘push media’ information and the media was distributed my ‘Media Gods’ to the little people – the audience.
Producers
Audiences were limited to what and when they consumed media. They used TV guides and cinema listings to find out what and when they could consume – almost as if they were being dictated to by the institutions. It was virtually impossible for consumers to produce, then to share and have their product seen by millions; they were reliant on distributors. However, due to Web 2.0 this has changed. Thanks to streaming sites such as Netflix, YouTube and Spotify audiences have more opportunity to consume these platforms and provide more freedom for the audience to consume. Not only freedom but more choice of what to consume. Now information is distributed like this as well using features such as the cloud and information can be found all around us.
Collaborative and Participatory culture was suggested by Henry Jenkins, who built his theory off the back of David Gauntlett who examined Web 2.0 and creativity. He highlighted emerging trends within audiences to share, produce and collaborate together online. A perfect example of this would be fundraising for the recent Nepal Earthquake Appeal. Web 2.0 has enabled there to be a donating platform for the last few months, providing people across the globe a chance to help. Some people, without the internet, wouldn’t even know about the earthquake and so would not help. However, due to Web 2.0, the distribution of this information has been able to spread to each corner of the earth, connecting those who have access to the internet and who want to help. Without Web 2.0 this wouldn’t have been possible. But with, people have been able to work together and further, and will be able to create and share innovative ideas.
Specific industries have been affected by Web 2.0 such as the Film and Music industries. Technical convergences such as the iPad and iPhone have drastically changed how media is produced and consumed. Whereas once people had to remain indoors and consume media from either the TV or computers, now everything is wireless. This gives the audience more freedom to consume whenever they want using the hardware and software of Web 2.0. This impacts distribution as the audience becomes wider and more vast than ever before. Films are no longer just films. There is hype about the movie months, and sometimes years, before it’s release – with online discussion forums, fan made trailers and interviews with the actors and producers are watched. An example of this is the fandom behind ‘Game of Thrones’. The fans do all of the above using platforms such as YouTube or forums such as Reddit that allow discussion on chosen subjects meaning the distribution of the media has been greatly expanded by Web 2.0.
The music industry, just like film, now has an audience that consumes less of more. Chris Anderson proposed the theory of the Long Tail, which refers to niche genres and their availability. An example how this changed in the online age is that in the off-line age niche genres in music and film would be denied shelf space. However due to sites such as Amazon and HMV they can have unlimited cyberspace to store all products, including those that are niche. Distribution has therefore benefitted vastly as there are more places to both distribute from and to.
However there are critics to the world of Web 2.0 that highlight some undeniable flaws. David Gauntlett for one disagrees with the Long Tail theory as he believes niche products still have to be searched for with all the mainstream products that are flooding the market. Charles Leadbitter also agrees that participatory culture is flawed. He believes that mass sharing can have a detrimental impact on democracy or how businesses are able to survive. However, what will happen to Hollywood? It is pointed out by Tapscott and Williams that there is still demand for credible content such as 3D and CGI. These sorts of products will continue to be made in the future as they are difficult to pirate – therefore distribution of film to cinemas will survive in a physical format.
In terms of opportunities and threats of the online age to media industry distribution, I believe that both will make the progression of distribution ultimately better. In the future I believe that the changes will become more radical e.g. google glass allowing more people to easily distribute their own products. David Gauntlett suggests that the media landscape has changed forever. Audiences and producers now don’t have top be one or the other. Everyone can be both – ‘Prosumers’.
How far do you agree with the view that the move to online media has been entirely positive for the audience so far?
[50 marks]
Since Tim Berners Lee invented the world wide web in 1990, the move to online media has been revolutionary. From 16% of the world having access to the internet in 2005, to a massive 39% online now in 2013, there has been a dramatic change. Roseland Williams said that ‘technology determines history,’ and the reductionist theory of technological determinism also states that a society’s cultural values and development are driven by their technology. Focusing particularly on the news and music industries, I will discuss how much I agree with the transformation from offline to online media and the effect that it has had on the audience so far.
Danah Boyd says that media is changing in three different ways: Translation, localisation and co-option. One example of co-option (a complete change from old to media) can be seen in the 2011 England riots. Paul Lewis, a Guardian reporter, relied entirely on Dan Gillmor’s idea of Citizen Journalism, using Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites to keep alive, up-to-date track of the riots progression. His article, ‘Reading the Riots,’ is also an example of Henry Jenkins’ participatory culture, as he says ‘the internet is allowing the gap between the producer and the consumer to get narrower.’ This shows how the move to online media has had an effect on the audience so far – but whether it is positive or not is debatable. Media utopianist David Gauntlett, author of ‘Making is Connecting,’ says that the removal of gatekeepers such as large news forms is extremely beneficial. He believes this is excellent for democracy, allowing everyone to voice their opinions and avoid the country becoming a totalitarian state. This is also an example of pluralism - gathering news and other accounts from different people of different classes and allowing their opinions to be heard – on the other hand, media dystopianist Andrew Keen disagrees, and says the removal of these gatekeepers does not promote creativity, but allows the inarticulate and talented to voice their ‘incorrect’ opinions, saying that infact, ‘those who shout the loudest will be heard the most.’ The audience been able to become journalists with access to a mobile phone is beneficial in terms of equal rights and democracy, but not necessarily for all audiences. During the riots, Google maps and Flickr partnered to create live accounts of all the criminals and their profiles, leading to the arrests of over 1000 people. This is a prime example of Morozov’s idea of mass surveillance, that everything on the internet can be traced, and if online media hadn’t been so prominent, it may not have led to the imprisonment of so many thousands of ‘the audience.’
In March 2013, the first ever live Earth-to–moon song was broadcast from the international space station, called I.S.S - Is somebody singing? by Chris Hadfield and Ed Robertson. This highlights the fast development of the web, and supports Charles Leadbetter’s theory of ‘We think: The Power of Mass creativity’. In the offline age, artists would have had to be in the same room and physically records together, but now it can be done literally all over the world. However, this also promotes cacophony - people freely sharing across the web. In 2009 The Pirate Bay, a file sharing site was sued for over 30 million SEK for infringing the terms of The Computer Misuse Act, Copyright, Designs and Pattents Act and many more all over Europe. This is an example of how the move to online media has had a negative effect on our world today – commencing illegal activities. Danah Boyd, however, believed that trying to charge people for illegally sharing is like ‘trying to build massive walls when planes were first invented,’ and instead, they should try to harness the activity.
A different example of how the change to online media has effected us is through new media practises such as crowd-funding. Amanda Palmer famously used website Kick Starter to raise over $1.2 million by offering her tailor made material, saying that it is about ‘asking and thanking your fans for buying your music, not telling them to.’ She bases her fortune mainly on one of Kevin Kelly’s 8 Generatives – personalisation – meaning audience purchases are special for them, essentially more sentimentally and priceless.
In 2012, The Invisible Children lunched the Kony 2012 campaign which went viral and has over 97 million views on YouTube to date. Although the campaign itself was doubted by many, one response video, by a female called Slubogo reached a massive 4 million views. Pippa Norris says that this is extremely beneficial for the public and media audiences, since we would not usually hear the opinions of a young girl. The majority of people who watched her video were 16-17 year old females, interesting opposite to the usual, stereotypical upper class business men who watch the news. This is also a good example of Habermas’ theory of the public sphere – that the move to online media has created an incredible, free platform for all people of all ages to voice their opinions and feel valued.
Although democracy has been an ongoing positive change for online media, some people believe it is also having a negative effect. Eli Pariser’s theory of The Filter Bubble proves that the internet shows us what it thinks we want to see, not necessarily what we want to see (This is proven when two people, for instance, ‘Google’ the same thing – and retrieve entirely different results). It is a worry that this will eventually have an adverse effect on our society, and people will eventually become uneducated on current affairs because they will not know that they exist, especially since the majority of news is now viewed for free online. Viktor Schlonburger from The Oxford Institute also believes that everyone should have ‘the right to be forgotten’ and that the internet is just a place to remind us of our mistakes from the past. It has been argued recently that it is impossible to delete yourself from the internet.
The move to online media has certainly had a revolutionary effect on our world today – from the Arab Spring social networking storm and the overturn of the Egyptian revolution of 2011, both feeding from the developments in social media. Susan Greenfield, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford says that ‘the internet is changing our brains’ – and not for good. Since 2011 we have used a stock of 320 (over 4 billion) IP addresses, and internet using is spiralling out of control – fast. We are yet to be left with a semantic web.
Overall, I believe with the saying that ‘the machine is us…the machine is using us,’ and although the move to online media has been very beneficial, I don’t believe it has been entirely positive. Soon we will have to rethink love (online dating) and ‘friendships,’ rhetorics and linguistics. The Khan Academy is a prime example of how the web is overpowering us – with over 500,00 online lessons, we must start to question our education systems, i.e. The move to web/media studies 2.0. We are promoting clicktivism in a positive way, in the eyes of Clay Shirky (‘Here Comes Everybody’) but as McLuhan said – ‘we shape our tools, thereafter our tools shape us,’ and soon the world will be run online.
No comments:
Post a Comment