What will the media of the future look like? As Vivian (2009) notes, new technologies have always shaped and driven mass media distribution channels. With the advent of the public Internet, according to Vivian, consumers began swarming online in the early 1990s. Companies around the world have since engaged in a mad dash to beat competitors to the Web to deliver new forms of content. Perhaps nowhere is this struggle to redefine value and purpose more apparent than in the mass media industry. Recent surges of inexpensive, widely available digital technologies into mainstream usage have allowed consumers to take media into their own hands (Vivian, 2009). As Pascu, Osimo, Ulbrich, Turlea, and Burgelman (2007) note, these technologies “have the capacity and the force to disrupt existing social and economic relations and thus have major impacts on society” (1). Indeed, today’s media companies have more to be concerned about than audiences that want something new or different. With the widespread adoption-and implications-of technologies such as wikis, Twitter, RSS, and DRM, media companies now face social and economic pressures to produce innovative digital solutions a step ahead of their audiences, before those audiences create something new or different for themselves.
Wiki: Working Together
One of the earlier pioneers along the lines of user-as-producer Web thinking, wiki technology presents a collaborative online environment designed “to harness collective intelligence” (20), according to Pascu, et al (2007). A wiki is a Web site that allows its users to create and edit the content that is displayed on the Web site (Bhuiyan, 2006). As Bhuiyan states, “wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly” (19). Despite occasional criticism regarding its susceptibility to user mischief, consumers’ enthusiasm for wiki technology is best demonstrated by the popular, public (and free) Web site called Wikipedia, which recently boasted over 4,600,000 articles in over 200 languages, according to Bhuiyan. According to Tapscott and Williams (2006), wikis present media companies with opportunities to tap into the collective conscience of their audiences, take advantage of the public’s wealth of knowledge, and work collaboratively across geographical bounds to compile central content. For instance, the book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything is, in itself, a result of such collaboration (Tapscott and Williams, 2006).
On the heels of massive adoption rates surrounding blog (or Web log) technology, several providers have delved into the offering of microblogging, as epitomized by Twitter. A microblog serves the same purpose as a blog: to distribute and store content entries, express views and opinions, share information and links, and distribute news or commentary, according to Bhuiyan (2006). The differentiating aspect of microblogging sites lies in the micro factor; Twitter entries, for instance, are limited to 140 characters. In many cases, 140 characters is just enough for a link to a Web page and a teaser enticing followers to click. The character limit inherent in microblogging can be, by turns, an advantage or a disadvantage-some struggle to adapt to constricted language while others revel in pithy link sharing. As Pascu, et al (2007) note, such technology has enjoyed increased use as a content distribution channel, both within the mass media industry and among other professions. Twitter users can quickly and easily build up a following composed of thousands of individuals and, with the click of a mouse, issue direct updates designed to goad those followers to action. Therefore, Twitter has become an esteemed promotional tool for many media and marketing professionals. As a reflection of its widespread adoption and effectiveness, Twitter has surpassed the $1 billion mark in value and has garnered the attention of giant technology conglomerates as a potential acquisition (Mermigas, 2009).
RSS: Many to One
Often used in conjunction with Twitter, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) allows users to subscribe to desired content feeds and build personalized aggregators that compile information of interest from users’ selected sources (Tapscott and Williams, 2006). By subscribing to a Web site through RSS, users receive real-time updates, usually via email notifications, to highlight new, posted content. With this capability, according to Pascu, et al (2007), “every user is able to build [his or] her own personal newspaper” (25). RSS has become a common accompaniment to many forms of digital technology, allowing users to track blogs, microblogs, media Web sites, discussion forums, and more. In general, the mass media industry has incorporated RSS capabilities in designing user-friendly, accessible online information that is delivered directly to consumers via preferred distribution channels. This method of content distribution represents an advantage to both consumers and media companies. Consumers can abandon the practice of bookmarking and checking Web sites for new information, and media companies can effortlessly deliver new content to audience members’ inboxes. However, RSS presents a risk to outlets that is inherent in all instant-distribution methods: because feeds update as soon as new content is posted, erroneous content can easily reach thousands of subscribers before mistakes are caught.
A contentious offspring of digital technology’s unintended consequences has arisen in the introduction of DRM, or Digital Rights Management (McGuigan, 2010). DRM exists to impose controls on the free-for-all copying and redistribution of content that lies at the heart of many user-generated capabilities. Many forms of media, according to McGuigan, incorporate DRM measures “for restricting the free use and transfer of digital content” (1). McGuigan notes that DRM techniques include coding and encryption of data to restrict access to media to authorized users, typically those who have paid for access. Restrictions might limit the number of times users can access content or the number of devices upon which the content can be accessed, McGuigan states. While the mass media industry has embraced DRM as a last-ditch stand against consumers‘ entitlement mentality and the dissolving boundaries between fair use and copyright infringement, such measures are largely unpopular among consumers and have received hefty criticism in light of changing content-use trends.
Overall, these technologies, among many others, continue to hammer home the dawning reality of traditional mass media as an endangered industry. As Pascu, et al (2007) and Vivian (2009) note, because digital technologies allow users to produce, publish, and share content with little effort or technological know-how, the mass media industry has lost its corner in the information distribution arena to its consumers. According to Pascu, et al, such technologies have allowed user-generated content to become a heavyweight contender against traditional, established mass media staples, such as the encyclopedia of yore. After all, as one special report found a few years ago, the user-generated and user-edited Wikipedia proved comparable to the long-standing and long-respected Encyclopedia Brittanica in terms of information accuracy (Giles, 2005).
The threat of digital technology to mass media companies is well nigh self explanatory in light of such evidence of the public’s ability to produce and share no-cost content that is on par with information that was previously, painstakingly vetted by professional writers and editors. Media outlets that have customarily served as the “voice of the people” now find their content offerings are subject to increasing levels of cannibalization at the hands of their audience members. While savvy companies seek to integrate and capitalize on the same digital technologies available to their audiences, the mass media industry overall has taken a reactive stance rather than the proactive approach now dictated by consumer trends and developing online business norms. As a result, mass media has suffered an undercutting of its traditional foundation, orchestrated by the very consumers who built it in the first place.
References
Bhuiyan, S. (2006). Impact of new media technology on society. AsiaMedia Archives. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=52164
McGuigan, B. (2010). What is DRM? wiseGEEK. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-drm.htm
Mermigas, D. (2009). Social media is the new mass media. MediaPost. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art;_aid=119013
Pascu, C., Osimo, D., Ulbrich, M., Turlea, G., & Burgelman, J.C. (2007, March). The potential disruptive impact of Internet2 based technologies. First Monday [Online], 12(3).
Giles, J. (2005, December). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, (438), 900.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin Group.
Vivian, J. (2009). The Media of Mass Communication (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
