Trendscout and coolhunter Josh Spear about digital natives:
Much more interesting than the fact that he gives a speach on digital natives at the Google Zeitgeist conference is the fact that he seems to market himself effectively…
Over at Dave Weinbergers blog is a short excerpt from a Q&A at an Edelman/PR Week Summit.
It’s about the way the WSJ sees their own new role in he whole news biz:
Gordon Crovitz, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, described how the Journal had rethought its role as a newspaper. Rather than trying to present the first view of news, the Journal assumes its readers got the news the day before on line. Instead, 80% of the articles aim at helping readers understand the news they already have.
I agree, I think the future of printed media is in the detailed, well researched and very long analysis or report of things. At least until someone develops a screen that is as comfortable for reading long texts as if they’re printed on paper.
Dave replied, that he can get a lot of expert background information on the web, through emailing lists, etc. on the things he needs.:
I can get more focused analysis on the Web. E.g., the mailing lists I’m on about Internet regulation issues gives me far more coverage and analysis than any newspaper devotes to the topic, and the mailing lists include people with great expertise; newspapers can’t compete with that.
I think we’re mixing two different objectives here. The stuff Dave reads through his lists are probably not the things newspapers want to get into in the first place.
There is a scale of depth of information. Online will be best to cover the fast, but rather shallow bits of news, newspapers/magazines will cover more detailed background information (aimed at the interested amateur), and mailing lists, forums and (printed) literature will be perfect for expert knowledge.
There is a new prediction market leveraging the crowds wisdom: Media Predict.
Here’s how it works: when users register, they get 5,000 virtual dollars to begin investing. They can scan the markets for book proposals, up-and-coming musical acts, script treatments and TV pilots. Each is valued in virtual dollars per share based on perceived potential. If shares of a particular book proposal are going for 55 dollars, for instance, the book has about a 55% chance of being published. If a project seems like it might take off, a wise investor can put his or her money behind it. Or, conversely, he or she can sell if stock seems like it might plummet. In doing so, players drive the market value—and those who have a keen eye for the next big blockbuster get rewarded for it. When a deal goes through—for instance, if a book proposal gets signed to a publisher—shares pay off at USD 100 each. And on the flipside, when a venture doesn’t succeed, share value bottoms out at USD 0.
(From: Crowdfinding the next blockbuster).
I doubt this mechanism will really display the true future potential of a book/movie. The danger of having typical stockmarket ralleyes is too high.
People putting money against movies, not because they might actually succeed, but only because they can potentially earn some money through the speculation on the Media Predict Website.
In the end, there will be people voting for movies they don’t actually consider worth watching in the first place. This would obviously contradict the purpose of this website.
There is an interesting article at the Times Online about the new book „the cult of the amateur“ by Andrew Keen. A cry out against the crowdism of web 2.0 and how it is killing our culture. How user generated content on wikipedia, blogs, youtube, et al results in the crippling of traditional, quality content producing industries.
I don’t agree. I think quality will still prevail. The problem with some of these „quality content producers“ was simply the fact that it wasn’t really good quality. The value for money isn’t right. So it is better to watch much worse content from users for free rather than paying anything for only mediocre content.
I think this whole trend will only result in a market shake out. Providers of really good content will always be able to charge money. They will always enjoy large appreciation. But those providing contents with little added value (e.g. newspapers simply copying news from a press service or TV stations showing low quality TV series) will face a decrease in acceptance.
They also state the example of how the interent has resulted in big problems for the music industry. This I don’t agree with at all. The biggest problem of the music industry is the fact that they have not adapted quick enough. There is lots of potential to leverage the net. Apple with iTunes has proven that there is lots of opportunities!
The internet is making standard market mechanisms more efficient, that’s all.
This is one of those most amazing setups: Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are being interviewd during the „All Things Digital“ conference this year. They talk about the computer, software and internet industry, some thoughts about the history but also the future, etc. Well worth watching, also very entertaining!
It already starts with a prologue of other incidents in the last few decades, when the two met for discussions.
Watch Steve talk about things he can’t talk about yet, but „they are beautiful, so amazing, they will blow you away“. Again and again. And Bill trying to tell fascinating stories by stating facts.
If you don’t have the time to watch it all the way, make sure you watch at least the „highlights reel„
Here is a cool 60 minutes video of a David Weinberger presentation on his new book „everything is miscellaneous„.
A video used to be embedded here but the service that it was hosted on has shut down.60 minutes is quite long. But it is very much inspiring, if you’re into the categorization of things, the order of information, data vs metadata, etc.
Wo ich sonst so bin...