Could Corporate Media Destroy The Internet?

Can they take the leap of faith required to sustain their business, or should we just ignore them and get on with our own?

Photo Credit: ClickFlashPhotos / Nicki Varkevisser

This feature takes a brief look the paradigm shift the internet has brought about. What will happen to traditional media?

Can individuals be successful?

Can media companies be successful?

Don't forget to add your thoughts at the bottom.

There's something tremendously unique about the internet. It's not like anything our civilisation has ever seen before in history. The closest thing you can draw parallels with, is the invention of movable type. The paradigm shift it brought about was incredible, and yet it pales in comparison to the internet.

Whilst movable type allowed mass dissemination of information like never before, and helped break the stranglehold on knowledge the medieval Church held. The democratic power of new media is something one could only dream about as little as 20 years ago. And yet, now we have it too many people do not, and will not understand it.

The State of the Media

The internet has brought a new shift in global culture. Whereas old media still believes they are entitled to remuneration for their work, regardless of its merits; simply because they created it. The internet culture believes they are entitled to free access to information. The merit of the work is judged after the availability of the work.

Let me explain.

Two people could write a piece on the best method to compress vocals in a mix (to take a niche example). One is published freely on the internet with no obligation or commitment required for access. The other is locked away behind a paywall, (a barrier that requires the user to pay a fee to access the article). The latter is of a far higher standard than the former free article.

But, which do you think is more successful? The answer lies in, of all places, evolution. To anyone the least bit familiar with the process, the answer to the aforementioned question should become readily apparent.

The merits of the content will be assessed only by those who can access it. So even if the former was of a less quality as more people could access it, it is judged as better.

The former has a far greater chance at being read and shared and thus, having success. The reasoning is simpler than you may think. Information just demands to be free. You can attempt to lock it up, but if it is good it will find a way to get out. Someone will eventually post it up for free access. No matter how hard you try, if it is valuable just like a gene in the evolutionary process it will find a method live on, or it will die out and become nothing but a paragraph in a history book.

When information is just begging to be free, you have two choices.

You either release it free and become known to the wider community as intelligent or perhaps even an expert in the field.

Or you lock it up, and allow a tiny portion of the community read it. The merits of the content will be assessed only by those who can access it. So even if the former was of a less quality as more people could access it, it is judged as better.

What happened?

Aside from causing a new culture to form, the internets greatest strength is also traditional media's greatest weakness. The cost of publishing. Or the effective lack of a cost of publishing.

It's no secret that traditional media's cash cow was selling copies of their media. They had no hesitation to water down the quality to appeal to the masses.

If anyone can publish, everyone will publish

Niche topics like for example guitar modding are not marketable to a large sum of people in comparison to the unfathomably popular topic of celebrity gossip. The former would appear as a single article once a year, while the latter has spawned an entire industry of magazines publications.

So naturally common business sense dictated that the more profitable content was to be published, after all if not many people were buying your media the costs of publishing prevent you from staying profitable.

 Thats just simple economics. And, it did make sense back then.

Now of course, on the internet, publishing is effectively free. To anyone wishing to put their thoughts forward to the world in a blog, numerous free services are just waiting at their beck and call. Just fill out the form and in under a second you have a publishing platform that can literally reach the world.

Guitar modding which was once a small niche topic for one city, has entire forums and communities that span the globe. People from all around the world can join in.

There is simply nothing traditional media can do to compete with that, other than join in.

In just the same way movable type spurred a paradigm shift, so too does the internet.

Clay Shirky wrote perhaps one of the most influential pieces on this topic. In which he argues how we never paid for content, rather we merely paid for the packaging. Such an argument rings astoundingly true with my previous notion that information was always and will forever be free.

But what does this have to do with Corporate Media?

Every major shift in the media landscape has affected the way the previous medias work. Radio, TV and Film all affected each other when they came about.

The internet's paradigm shift is more than just a cultural and social one though. It brings efficiencies to publishing, but due to the nature of internet culture it also forces these efficiencies on the creators.

No longer can a business justify having 500 staff; when 10 can do just as, if a not better job.

These efficiencies are what Corporate Media, like Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, The Associated Press (AP), the RIAA (but not the music industry), the MPAA (but not the film industry) and the journalist associations like The National Press Club in Australia are so utterly terrified of.

Just like the medieval Church when movable type came about, Corporate Media is for the most part at a complete loss for what to do. Many are looking to old solutions to new problems. Such as the AP's decision to add Digital Rights Management (DRM) to news. Their idea is an attempt to bring traditional property rights into the realm of information. The RIAA, MPAA and IFPI have all tried this, and the current 'Intellectual Property' laws reflect that.

They want to assert that information is just like physical property; it can be stolen, it can be owned. As much as they try, the fact is: such an assertion of rights is impossible. The two, physical rights and the horrible named 'intellectual property' rights are not mutually compatible though.

In fact, property and information are mutually exclusive. They are the polar opposites of each other:

• One embodies everything the other is not.
• One can be owned exclusively, the other cannot be owned.
• One can be stolen (the act of depriving another of a good), the other cannot.

Because of this, traditional media advantages pale in comparison to the power of the internet:

• One can only be distributed locally in a day, the other can be distributed globally in a second.
• One is costly to produce and distribute, the other is not.
• One is old, the other is new.
• One can only allow a small number of select people to rise to fame, the other can allow anyone rise to fame.
• One functions much like a dictatorship, the other a democracy where popularity rules.

So what is one to do?

You must recognise and adapt to these efficiencies of publishing. They are compulsory, but not mandated by any government or higher authority. No these efficiencies come from a more natural source, culture. To put it another way, if you want to be successful and profitable on the internet you cannot just throw money at it.

Simply put; You must adapt, its not a choice, but a necessity.

If anyone can publish, everyone will publish. If everyone is publishing, what becomes successful. Whatever the majority decides. It can often be rather arbitrary, but given the right circumstances anything can go viral; the process of spreading around the internet and the global culture. Often mutating and becoming bigger than it was before.

Anything can be a hit or a niche, not just what (or who) some suits decide. That is true democratic media. It's unpredictable, and transient.

So the answer is simply to adapt. It's not specifically your choice. Rather its a natural evolution of the industry. You need to identify the efficiencies and work out how you can adapt your current business. If your an incumbent (a proponent of traditional media) this will undoubtedly mean the unfortunate task of layoffs or cutbacks. But that is life. Innovation breeds new efficiencies and new opportunities.

Now, this isn't to say there is no need for quality in content, on the contrary. If you look at two of the most successful new media enterprises Revision3 and TWiT, they have the audience of many TV and Radio stations. But on a global factor. They are also profitable. Leo Laporte the man behind TWiT recently let some interesting numbers fly. It costs him $US350,000 a year to run, and makes $US1.5 million in revenue. With 7 employees.

Such a feat is not impossible.

We are still at the beginning of the internet cultural revolution. There is but one major obstacle for us to overcome.

The incumbents, their nasty business tactics, their horribly out-dated laws brought in to try and protect an obviously dead business.

Only when they die, only when they disappear, can we as a society truly move forward.

The democratic media is coming, but not until the corporate media leaves.

Do you agree? Will it take corporate media to leave the game before new media can truly thrive?