Tag Archives: individuate

The Spectrum of Change

 

Previous webpage: Maelstrom as the Flow Changes

 “I wasalmost a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
— Nikolai Tesla about Thomas Edison’s exhaustive experimentations.

Access and choices of news, entertainment, and information for the majority of the world’s population has shifted from relative scarcity to surplus, even overload. More than three billion people can now—via desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone—access more news, entertainment, and other information than had ever before in human history been printed or broadcast. The ranks of these of people will increase to nearly six billion by the end of this decade because all mobile phones now being manufactured are smartphone models capable of accessing this newfound cornucopia of content.

This epochal shift in readily accessible supply of news, entertainment, and information began four decades ago: no more than a wink in human history yet more than a generation ago in the lives of humans today. The shift occurred so quickly that young adults have not known anything but surplus, yet so slowly that older adults are only beginning to perceive the profound changes it has wrought. This cognitive gap, more difficult to bridge than a mere generation gap, today rends the media industries. The older adults who lead these industries or teach media too often use outdated theories, doctrines, and practices rooted in the waning era of scarcity; yet the younger adults who staff and the students who’ll soon join those industries haven’t yet enough lifetime experience and wisdom to fully formulate new theories, doctrines, and practices that comprehensively explain exactly how these industries must adapt to the dawning era of surplus.

Four decades into the epochal shift, the majority of executives and scholars still don’t understand how this change from scarcity to surplus is radically altering the media environment. Although some of them perceive scarcity’s dusk, but most seem myopic to the remarkable transformations in media theories, doctrines, business models, practices, and products that are dawning from surplus. They instead misperceive New Media merely as electronic distribution platforms the traditional media products, practices, and business models that were conceived in and based upon the scarcities of the Industrial Era: in other words, Mass Media. Failing to perceive and adapt to the epochal change underway, they are leading their industries into obsolescence. Their declining circulations or listenerships or viewerships once adjusted for population growth, and their fading market capitalizations and equity prices without adjustment, all attest their misperception and failure. Many major U.S. media corporations, in tacit admission of failure to adapt, have traditional products’ declining revenues once adjusted for inflation, their products’ been jettisoning their eldest and formerly most robust media sector products, the sector that first directly encountered the epochal switch: their newspapers subsidiaries.

What you’re reading now is a primer about the epochal change underway in media, its many aspects, and what effects causes. This primer is condensed from the first month of the New Media Business postgraduate course that I’ve taught since 2007 at Syracuse University’s S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. It’s aimed at anyone who needs help perceiving the full spectrum of media change underway. In it:

  • I’ll outline the basic spectrum of change underway in the media environment (including some aspects or ‘colors’ not easily or normally visible).
  • I’ll delineate that spectrum into ‘color’ categories based upon whether aspects of that ‘color’ primarily affect consumer behavior, production and definition of content, or transaction and distribution of content.
  • I’ll describe why the epochal switch from scarcity to surplus in people’s access and choices of news, entertainment, and other information, has made very many, if not most, of the Industrial Era theories, business models, practices, and products, all colloquially known as Mass Media communications, which have dominated media for centuries, increasingly unsuccessful, archaic, or obsolete.
  • Likewise, I’ll specifically explain why a major effect of the changes underway is that general-interest Mass Media vehicles—such as newspapers, news magazines, and news broadcasts—are failing not only in their legacy forms but also when put online; and conversely why topical or ‘niche’ media in almost all forms are flourishing.
  • Finally, I’ll explain why traditionalists in the media industries need to abandon their nigh alchemical search for a business model that will let their traditional Mass Media doctrines, practices, and products thrive fundamentally unchanged in this new environment. If traditional media companies want to survive, they must embark upon a radical overhaul of their doctrines, practices, business models, products, and industrial infrastructures. Their embarkation is already overdue.

The starting point for all of that is to look beyond the superficial of changes. Let’s start by slaying a pernicious misperception. Virtually all traditional media executives and traditional media academicians mistakenly think that the major change underway in the media environment is that people are switching their consumption habits from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’. These academicians and executives see fewer and fewer consumers reading printed periodicals or listening to over-the-air radio broadcasts or watching over-the-air or cable television video programming, and instead see more and more consumers reading, listening, or viewing news, entertainment, and other information via personal computers, electronic tablets, smartphones. The executives and academicians thus myopically assume that an ‘analog-to-digital’ switch is the greatest change underway; that the greatest, most important, or even most motive change underway in the media environment is that billions of consumers are becoming ‘wired’ or ‘hooked-up’ or going ‘digital first’. Similar misnomers are media ‘convergence’ or ‘multimedia’, terms which nowadays belie an Industrial Era perspective on media.

Although it is true that billions of consumers are now consuming media contents via computerized devices, that change is incidental. Those billions of consumers aren’t switching to use of computerized device because consuming media via computerized devices is easier. The devices’ screens are smaller than most television screens, harder to read than a book or magazine, more expensive and fragile than paper, and require a live connection to the Internet. Besides, most consumers in developed countries had already had books, newspapers, magazines, and radio and television receivers in their homes. Nor are those billions of consumers switching to computerized devices necessarily to obtain multimedia; the vast majority of the contents they consume on these devices is monomedia—a video clip, a song, or a webpage with or without still photos. Nor are those billions switching necessarily because computerized devices necessarily because these computerized devices can provide them with more up-to-date or information while mobile: the vast majority of contents they consumer on these devices is no more up-to-date than a daily newspaper or news broadcast and the majority of usage consumers make of these device is at home or in their office. Billions of consumers aren’t switching their media consumption to computerized devices for the sake of ‘digital’ or ‘wires’ or ‘wireless’ or being ‘digital first’. They are switching their media consumption for an even greater reason: because these devices provide them with so much more news, entertainment, and other information than all the paper ever printed and all the radio and television broadcast ever made can. They switch because New Media not only gives them much more news, entertainment, and other information than traditional media can, but commensurately let’s each of them find a better match of that media content to their own individual mix of needs, interests and tastes. The sheer appeal of that, fulfilled by every-increasing progress of New Media technologies, has fomented the greatest change in the history of media.

Unfortunately, those media executives and media academicians who instead misperceive some sort of ‘analog-to-digital’ switch or being ‘wired’ or ‘hooked-up’ or ‘digital first’ (or even ‘desktop to mobile’) as the greatest, most important, or even most active change underway in the media environment are blinkering, if not blinding themselves, to this greatest change and its panoramic spectrum of effects on the environment. Such simplistic and seductive misperceptions are the worst miscalculations a media executive or academician can make today. Those misperceptions lead them into the grave error of thinking that the New Media are merely ‘digital’ distribution mechanisms that have arisen for their traditional contents and products (i.e., ‘How can we put our newspaper online?’ ‘How can we use Pinterest as part of our broadcast?’ ‘How can we promote our magazine on Twitter?’). This myopia prevents them from seeing the New Media have reshaped the media environment in ways that are alien to traditional media theories, doctrines, practices, and produces; fields in which traditional media are themselves alien and unsuitable for transplantation. Executives and academicians who misperceive this way miss the truly major opportunities and changes underway in this new era.

The switch from ‘analog to digital’ (my catch-all term for all those misperceptions) is but a single hue in a far more colorful, powerful, and complex spectrum of change underway. The world’s media industries are woefully overdue to examine the complete spectrum, which is why most media industries have become, to use another trite term, ‘disrupted’.

Next webpage: The Prism & New Media Chromodynamics

Index of the Rise of Individuated Media webpages

 © 2014

 

Maelstrom as the Media Flow Changes

Previous webpage: Personalization, Customization, Individuation, and New Media.

A spectacularly obvious but remarkably little noticed aspect of the epochal change underway in the media environment is a reversal of the locus where contents are consumed.

By locus or loci, I don’t mean what prosaic place, such as an in an armchair or on a computer screen or at work or home. What I mean is whether the consumer must go to an edition or channel or other package of contents that a producer of contents has assembled or whether instead all the producers must offer their elements of contents to a place where the consumer himself selects and assembles the package of contents he consumes. The latter has begun to supersede the former, and the shock and turbulence of that change is one of several major forces that are sinking the traditional media industries. Those industries failed to predict this change, despite it being a quite predictable effect of people’s access and choices of contents switching from relative scarcity to surplus.

Here is a hallmark example of the reversal of loci, a change indeed in the flow of media. On the day I write this, approximately 936 million people will visit Facebook.com, and each will open his own ‘home’ page there, where he will see a stream of items posted there by friends who also use Facebook. Many, if not most, of those items will consist of hyperlinks to stories or photographs or videos or audio tracks that his friends either created themselves; or else found on the websites of either traditional content companies or third-parties; or else were placed there as a result of the user ‘Like’ing the Facebook ‘home’ page created by a company, organization, restaurant, team, school, government, political candidate, or other entity or person. All of these items on Facebook will consist of a hyperlinked headline, perhaps accompanied by a small graphic or photograph and perhaps prefixed by a comment from the friend who posted it there. If the use of Facebook ‘clicks’ the headline, the full version of that story or photograph or video or audio will appear in a hypertext browser window that pops into view. In other words, he will be on a specific webpage on the website of the company or person who published that story or photograph or video or audio. Once having consumed that story or photograph or video or audio, the user will very likely then close that browser window and continue reading the stream of items on his Facebook ‘home’ page. Most users of Facebook keep their ‘home’ page open for hours or else revisit it multiple times per day. (The only websites that get more frequent usage and traffic are those of search engines.) Moreover, the ‘home’ page stream of items that each of those nearly one billion people (i.e., the average number of Facebook’s 1.4 billion users who visit it daily) see will be entirely different than the ‘home’ page stream that every other users sees not only at that moment but ever.

You will note three things about this example:

First, this ‘home’ webpage becomes the user’s omnibus loci, his own turf in the media environment. Except perhaps from a search engine, it’s where he goes online daily and likely multiple times per day and for long durations. It’s his online place to communicate with his network of friends, see what they are doing and thinking, and share news, entertainment, and other information. It’s their most convenient gathering place online.

Second, this ‘home’ webpage is almost fully individuated. Rather than seeing the same stream of items that every one of the other 936 million daily users of Facebook see, the item stream that each individual sees is uniquely based upon his own selection of friends and ‘Like’d items. This aspect makes this omnibus webpage more attractive to this individual than any Mass Media webpage can ever be; its mix of items far better matches his needs, interests, and tastes. No Mass Media website provides him with so customized, even individuated, a mix of contents from all possible sources. Even the banner ads on this ‘home’ page are based upon his ‘Like’s and own past postings. (What prevents this ‘home’ page from being fully individuated is that the individual cannot alter the basic framework of the page nor explicitly modify the computerized algorithm governing it and its item stream: the degree to which users of a medium can influence the form or content of the computer-mediated environment.) This ‘home’ webpage becomes that individual’s own daily ‘edition’ or ‘channel’ to the Internet.

Third, this ‘home’ webpage thus largely eliminates its user’s needs to visit many, if not most, traditional media companies’ or other organizations’ websites and to search for stories there that might interest him. He may still directly visit some or many of those websites. However, he can instead now largely, and perhaps increasingly, rely upon his network of like-minded friends to visit those websites and bring interesting stories to his attention. The direct result is that he visits such other websites much less.

The overall result is that Facebook, Renren (283 million users), VK (formerly known as VKontake, 280 million users), Twitter (236 million users), and other high customized or virtually individuated website have very quickly proven to be the most popular media companies in the world. (It is important for media companies to realize that all these individuate Social Media services, although commercially viable, are still embryonic forms of Social Media and Individuated Media. Such services aren’t going to disappear this century but evolve into much more potent and efficient forms for both media consumers and media producers, primarily the former. And while it is true that the Social Media company itself might be said to control what media its users consumer, which some might construe to mean an intermediary company still controls the consumers, that proprietary role will cease to become tenable later this century as ongoing efforts to develop a viable Open Social Media protocol on the Internet come to fruition — an inevitability.)

This also is why such Individuated Media have begun superseding Mass Media as the predominant means why which people obtain and consumer news, entertainment, and other information. Traditional media executives or other who believe that the greatest change underway in the media environment is merely that people switching media consumption from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’  (or the more recent but parallel misconception that the greatest change is ‘desktop’ to ‘mobile’) have proverbially failed to see the forest because of all its trees. Consumers’ switch in consumption from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’ is superficial; the switch from Mass Media to Individuated Media is profound.

I ask my postgraduate students of New Media Business to examine two components of this profound switch: packaging and motility.

Who decides which item of media contents the consumer receives?

In Mass Media, the answer is the editor or producer or publisher or broadcaster. He selects items from his available inventory of contents and decides what stories, photos, audio recordings or songs, or videos comprise the edition, program, album, or performance. In other words, he decides what’s in the package. That specific selection is then delivered to everyone who subscribes or purchases or otherwise obtains that edition, program, album, or performance. This is the way that Mass Media has been even before the Industrial Revolution phenomenally extended Mass Media’s reach.  The producer, publisher, or broadcaster (or else their deputies) decides the selection of items, rather than the consumer himself. The one who vends decides for the many who consume. Some pundits call this ‘one-to-many’ media. It’s the Mass Media with which we and our ancestors grew up, before the rise of computerization created any viable alternative to it.

By contrast, Individuated Media allows each consumer to decide for himself what items are in the package of contents that he sees.  Software, either in his computerized device or else on an Internet service he visits, allows him access to an immensely wide inventory of content items from which he—rather than an editor or producer or broadcaster—can select what he wants. This inventory generally is not any one publisher’s or broadcaster’s or producer’s items, but items from many, most often a great many, and potentially all producers, publishers, and broadcasters, spanning all brands.  Plus, within the subcategory of Individuated Media known as Social Media, the consumer will also see items contributed by his friends and acquaintances, most of who will share many of the same needs, interests, and tastes as he. No daily edition or program or album or performance any Mass Medium company or alliance of Mass Media companies will be able to provide him with a selection of contents more focused on his needs, interests, and tastes. That inherent selection (‘packaging’) characteristic gives Individuated Media an overwhelming advantage over Mass Media.

Motility refers to who moves the most over the course of the transaction: the consumer of media or the producer of media. Although media producers obviously produce media contents and today distribute those contents to consumers, the facts are that throughout most of history consumers have needed to go to somewhere to obtain those contents, a need which has given the producers tremendous power of what, when, and how those contents have been consumed. The media producers’ power had once been absolute, but that absolute power began to slip out of their hands when technologies began reducing the motility required of consumers to obtain the contents.  This slippage in media producers’ power over consumers began slowly some 550 years ago, began to accelerate during the 20th Century, and reached a tipping point approximately ten years ago.

Briefly examine the history of media. Prior to the Industrial Age, it was oratory, poetry, music, and drama. Anyone who wanted to experience such had to go when to where it was produced and performed. Access and choices of media contents were scarce, a scarcity that gave its producers great power what, how, and when media contents were available and transacted. In the unlikely event that the consumer was literate and wanted to read a text, he’d have to make a pilgrimage to one of the world’s few libraries where he could read a cuneiform tablet or papyrus scroll or ask a scribe to make a copy for him. Even when books were invented 1,600 (China) to 1,200 (Europe) years ago, books were scarce and had to be copied by hand. Unless an emperor, king, cardinal, or bishop, the consumers had to go to where the media contents were, not vice versa.

However, producers began to lose their nearly absolute control of media when some 550 years ago the moveable-type printing press was invented. That technology could quickly easily produce multiple copies of texts (including musical notations). Choices of textual content stopped being very. Moreover, consumers soon didn’t have to go directly to the printer to purchase a copy, but could begin obtaining texts from booksellers and other intermediaries; plus, libraries became more numerous. As printing technologies advanced, printing different editions daily became possible, leading to development of newspapers and magazines. As those became more numerous and economical to publish, editions could be delivered directly to offices or homes, virtually eliminating the need for their consumers to go anywhere to consume those, thus greatly reducing the motility involved in the transaction.

The invention of audio recording technologies around 140 years ago added the sounds of music, drama, oratory, or instruction to the types of media contents. Consumers no longer had to go to theaters, music halls, or public places to consume audio contents; they could at home consume recordings of such contents. The end of 19th Century saw the invention of cinema, which added moving visual contents (visual recordings of theater, news, and travel from around the globe) which consumers could consume without going any further than their local cinema theater.  The 20th Century brought first the invention of audio broadcasting, which gave consumers the ability to experience live (and later pre-recorded) audio contents without even needing to leave their homes or offices, and then the invention of television technologies, which added visual contents to the convenience of that reduced motility.

All these media technologies of the Industrial Era greatly increased media consumers’ access and choices of contents, shifting the balance of control somewhat towards them and less in the hands of media producers; although the latter group certainly still controlled when media contents became available, how those were packaged, for what prices, etc.  That was also true during the first ten after the Internet was opened to consumer usage (the Web 1 era): consumers still had to go to media producers’ website to obtain the contents there. Using those websites required motility by the consumers.

Yet media producers control over those all those factors wouldn’t last. By the beginning of the new millennium, the ever accelerating pace of technologies brought the balance of power between media producers and media consumers to cross a tipping point.

Thanks to Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ laws, the majority of consumers in post-industrial countries gained broadband access and began using it ‘always-on’ characteristics, which radically changed how much and how often they utilize the Internet.  Moreover, the advancements of those same technological laws began radically reducing the costs and difficulties of the hardware and software for consumers to create and publish or broadcast their own contents in multimedia online and made all that easy-to-user.  Millions of individuals began publishing their own personal websites. As those laws’ continued advancing, turnkey online publishing software and hosted sites (such as WordPress.com, Blogger.com, Tumblr.com, etc.) were created, with hundreds of millions of people blogging. Simultaneously, turnkey Social Media services (such Facebook, VKontakte, Renren, Twitter, etc.) were developed for people who didn’t want to operate an entire website or blog but just wanted their own ‘home’ page with which to express themselves, share content with friends, and individuatedly aggregate and ease all their online needs.

Gone are the days when consumers had to visit theaters, scribes, printers, booksellers, newsstands, or kiosks to obtain media content. It not only now comes to them instead of them to it, but they can now get the item of contents from all sources and vendors in one locus, one ‘portal’, their own ‘home’ page on an Individuated Media service.  Consuming media via individuated services requires virtually zero motility, just view your own, almost constantly opened and present, ‘home’ page. Rather than the consumers having to go to every edition, program, album, or performance, whatever items they individually want within those pages come to them. The consumers used to flow to the producer’s package of contents, but now the producers must flow to each consumer’s own unique package of content. The direction has reversed: rather than consumers flowing to the content producers’ edition, programs, albums, or performances, the pertinent items in those packages flow to the consumers.

This reversal in flow, entropic motility, and switch in who assembles the package of contents that each consumers sees are all predictable results of people’s access and supply of contents having shifted from relative scarcity to surplus. Such shifts aren’t unique only to media, but are normal whenever the supply of something consumed shifts from scarcity to surplus.  As people’s access and choices of contents has switched from scarcity to surplus, the balance of power between media producers and media consumers has likewise shifted, giving the consumers more power, which reduces their need to go where each individual media company wants them to go (i.e., a newsstand, kiosk, website, broadcast channel, etc.) to obtain contents that were packaged the way that that company choses.

The swiftness of this reversal in flow is causing massive turbulence throughout the media environment, a maelstrom which the traditional media industries failed to foresee, a catastrophic oversight which will sink most traditional media companies during the next ten years. Those industries’ myopic misperception that the major change underway is simply a change in consumers’ media consumption from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’ augmented their failure. During the nearly 20 years in which traditional media companies have published on the World Wide Web (plus an earlier ten years in which some published on proprietary online services), the contents they placed online were still the contents of their Mass Media printed editions or broadcast programs. They simply shoveled those traditional packages into online, packages (now called ‘web editions’) in which the publishers, editors, broadcasters, or producers choose which items of content all recipient consumers will simultaneously receive. Those years of producing traditional ‘analog’ packages now in ‘digital’ formats lulled them into believing that such production and packaging practices would continue to be pertinent forever. Thus, now that the technological advancements of Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ laws led to the rise of Individuated Media, those traditional media companies’ production practices and business models are not only ill-suited to the future but the companies are even more flummoxed, having thought that online was merely a ‘digital’ version of their traditional ‘analog’.

In this new world in which billions of consumers have begun receiving each of their own customized or individuated packages of items from many, most, and soon all content producers’ itemized feeds, traditional media companies that each instead produce uncustomized or unindividuated packaged of items in which they, not the consumers, choose the mix of selections, will ever increasingly find themselves left out. Their business practices and business models practices aren’t tooled for the right production, packaging, and transaction in a world in which the content items in aggregate are now worth more than the producer’s package of content items as a whole.

Individuated Media have fundamentally and forever changed how media content is created and consumed, an epochal change in the direction in which people expect their news, entertainment, and information to flow. This flow moreover will be an integral aspect of the Semantic Web (‘Web 3’, the so-called ‘Web 3.0’) during the 2020s.

Next webpage: Why Web 3 will Sink Traditional Media Industries

Index of the Rise of Individuated Media webpages

 © 2015

Personalization, Customization, Individuation, and New Media

Previous webpage: Social Media and Early Platforms for Individuation.

Many media executives and media academicians inadvertently conflate the differences between the terms personalization, customization, and individuation. The terms differ in meaning. Here is a primer about correct usage:

Personalization is a form of address or motif. Let’s imagine that your first name is John. You receive an unsolicited commercial postal letter (i.e., ‘junk mail’) that begins with ‘Dear John’ and that tries to entice you to purchase a product or service. Meanwhile, untold thousands of other people also receive the same unsolicited commercial letter, except that theirs begins with ‘Dear Susanne’ if their name is Susan or ‘Dear Mark’ if their name is market or ‘Dear Judy’ if their name is Judy, etc. That is a personalized letter. It’s a mass mailing of nearly identical content to thousands of people, with the only differences between the letters being that salutation in each uses its recipient’s name. Likewise, you might have or could receive a personalized gift such as a key fob embossed with your initials, or cuff links engraved with your initials, or golf balls on which your initials have been printed. Those gifts are basically identical gift that thousands of other people might have received, except for the initials.  These are examples of personalization, the hallmark of which is mass production of otherwise identical products, on each of which a recipient’s name or initials. The practice of personalization began mainly in the final century of the Industrial Era, when Mass Marketers began to realize that personalized (or customized or individuated) products are more attractive than impersonal or generic or common products of approximately the same price. Online products that use mere personalization aren’t per se innovative but merely online repurposing of marketing practices much older than their online producers. Although some might claim this is New Media, there is nothing new about it.

Customization differs from personalization in that some or much of the substance of what is received, not just its salutation, was specifically designed for that individual’s specific needs, interests, and tastes. This almost always starts with a common product that is then adjusted, generally by adding or removing parts or components, for whomever is to receive it. An off-the-rack dress that then is adjusted by a tailor for the purchaser’s body is an example. A home kitchen that is designed for that home owner, but which uses ready-made cabinets and mass-produced appliances, is another. Or a row of identical new homes, each of which is painted a color which that individual home’s new owner chooses, is another. Degrees of customization span a spectrum bordered on one end by personalization and on the other end by individuation. Customized products have existed for existed throughout the Industrial Era, if not earlier.

Individuation involves products that from the onset were specifically designed, or have immediately evolved to, the recipient individual’s unique needs, interests, and tastes. A bespoke suit or dress. A house designed and built to serve a specific individual. A sculpture fabricated for an individual purpose. Those are individuated, in contrast to merely personalized or customized, products. The term individuation comes from Jungian psychology in which it denotes the process by which the individual self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious. In media, the term is used to describe the production of a product that is uniquely differentiated from any other according to its recipient’s individual mix of needs, interests, and tastes. Individuated products have existed since the beginning of tool-making humanity.

Many, if not most, Mass Media executives and mass marketers nowadays mistakenly use the terms personalization or personalized when they instead mean customization or customized.

Furthermore, the respective lengths of time in which people have been producing personalized, customized, and individualized products are counter-intuitive.  Humans have always had individuated products, starting with the first flint knives during the Neolithic Era. Customized products predate the Industrial Era, perhaps dating from hand-copied books, each of which might have been embellished with calligraphic designs and illustrations designed to fit its individual owners interests and tastes. Yet personalized products do date from the Industrial Era because the underlying basis of those are mass produced.

What has changed now that the Informational Era has begun is that individuated products can now be mass-produced.

Nevertheless, a trichotomy (three-part division) appears when the limitations of media during the Agrarian, Industrial, and Informational eras are examined:

  1. The primary mode of communications that existed during the During the Agrarian Era, (as well as earlier during prehistoric times, was Interpersonal. This is the aboriginal mode of communications, arising were basic animal communications, and predate humans and their technologies. It evolved into human language(s) in the form of human conversation. The Interpersonal mode is still the most basic and common medium of communication. Technologies have increased its speed and reach, via such vehicles as postal letters, telephone calls, electronic mail, text messaging (SMS), etc. The hallmark characteristics of the Interpersonal mode of media are that each participant has equal and reciprocal control of the content conveyed and that the content can be individualized to each participant’s unique needs, interests, and tastes. However, that equal control, as well as individualization of the content, degrades into cacophony as the number of participants increases beyond two. Although some marketers nowadays mistakenly refer to any online media as ‘one-to-one’ media, the only truly one-to-one modes of media are Interpersonal mode, such as those listed in the middle of this paragraph. A website that is communication with many users simultaneously is obviously engaged in ‘one-to-many’ communications.
  2. A second mode of communications also developed during prehistoric times and the Agrarian Era was the Mass I disagree with most media academicians that Mass Media originated during the Industrial Era; I use a much stricter definition of a mass. Mass Media predates mass production and even all technologies. The earliest forms of mass communications were the utterances and speeches of tribal leaders, kings, and priests. They communicated directly with their masses. Like the Interpersonal mode, the Mass mode isn’t necessarily dependent upon technology. For example, an actor or speaker can perform directly before a mass audience without any technologies. What technologies have done is extend the speed and reach of the Mass mode of communications. Forms of the Mass mode include oratory, sermons, edicts, scriptures, theater, books, newspapers, billboards, magazines, cinema, radio, television, bulletin boards, most webpages and streaming media. The Mass mode generally conveys content from a single person’s viewpoint (the orator, the actor, the author, the broadcaster, etc.) to many people simultaneously. Thus, the hallmark characteristics of the Mass mode are that exactly the same content goes to all recipients simultaneously and that the one who sends it has total control over the nature and substance of that content. The disadvantages of the Mass mode is that its communications cannot be individualized to each recipient’s unique mix of needs, interests, and tastes, and that the recipients have no control over that content.Note that the Interpersonal and the Mass modes have reciprocal advantages and disadvantages. For millennia until recently, people were limited to only those two modes of media. A person could communicate customized or individualized contents but generally just to one person at any time. Or else the person could communicate to many people simultaneously but not customize or individualize the contents for each individual recipient. There was no way to deliver truly individualized contents to many people simultaneously. That dilemma of media and marketing—customization/individuation versus reach—existed for millennia.
  3. Yet technology has not shattered that dilemma. The rise of computerization has made it possible to produce mass customization or mass individuation. This is the Individuated It combines the advantage of the Interpersonal and Mass modes but without their reciprocal disadvantages. The hallmark characteristics of Individuated mode is that highly customized or truly individualized contents can simultaneously be delivered to a potentially infinite number of people and that the consumer and the producer shares equal and equal or reciprocal control over those contents. Unlike the Interpersonal or Mass modes, the Individuated mode is entirely dependent upon technology, which is why it arose quite recently. It arose only during the Informational Era.[4]

Much as media and marketing companies have learned that personalized contents are more attractive to people than otherwise impersonal or generic or common products of approximately the same price and that customized products are even more attractive, it becoming obvious that truly individuated products are the most attractive.

Individuation is the true definition of the New Media plus a key to the future of marketing. For too many media executives, marketers, and academicians, the phrase New Media has become conflated and confused. Some use it simply as the combination of an adjective and a plural noun: there are new media. Online media are new media at the turn of the millennium, just as the telegraph and telephone were new media during the 1800’s. In that usage of the phrase, the meaning of New Media simply becomes a matter of chronology and those media to which it refers were be new media and then not new media. This meaning shouldn’t be capitalized: it should merely be new media rather than New Media. The meaning of New Media as capitalize must be more distinct and refer to a mode or a hallmark characteristic or attribute that is distinct from merely the passage of time or any past, present, or future technologies that eventually become historically ephemeral. That is why the definition of New Media mustn’t be tied to semaphore flags or telegraphs or radio or television or digital transmissions or electronic computers or any other technology that could obsolesce and become ephemeral in history.

For those reasons, I state that the definition of New Media is an entirely new mode of communications in which highly customized or even individuated contents can be delivered simultaneously to a potentially infinite number and that these consumers and the producers of the contents share equal or reciprocal control over the nature and transaction of those contents. This differs from Interpersonal Media (conversation, postal letter, telegraph, telephony, text messaging, etc.), in which both parties share equal and reciprocal control over the nature and transaction of the contents but in which the number of people to whom the contents can be communicated without cacophony is limited (normally no more than two and practically no more than a congress), and from Mass Media (oratory, edict, scripture, theater, book, billboard, newspaper, magazine, cinema, radio, television, most webpages, etc.), in which the producers of the contents hold virtually total control over the nature of the contents and preponderant control over the transactions of those contents.

As civilization evolves, it inevitably reaches a technological level at which communication that has mass reach but also simultaneous customization or individuation of that communication becomes possible. That level has been reached, a new era of communications begun.

Next webpage: The Maelstrom as Flow Changes

Index of the Rise of Individuated Media webpages

 © 2015

Why Web 3 Will Sink Traditional Media

Previous webpage: The Malestrom as Flow Reverses

Much like how marketers affixed unnecessary decimal points to the terms Web 1 and Web 2, they’ve begun to misuse the term Web 3.  Some term Web 3 (or ‘Web 3.0’) to be anything they happen to be doing, attempts to cloak themselves somehow in an aura of cutting-edge trendiness. However, Web 3 does have an actual definition.

Web 3 is a third stratal era in Internet history. Another term for it is the Semantic Web. It is stratal because its technology is built atop the earlier Web 1’s and Web 2’s eras technologies: earlier technologies that provided Web publishing and Web broadcast (Web 1) and then abilities of anybody to publish or broadcast online as easily (Web 2) as could large organizations during the Web 1 era. It is stratal just as Jurrasic geologic era’s stratum lays atop those of the Triassic and Permian geologic era’s strata.

Web 3 will be semantic because its technologies focus on how computers and other machines find, understand, and process information, rather than how humans do those things. For examples, people using Web 1 and Web 2 technologies know how to find, understand, and process information online, but the computers themselves don’t.

The example I teach in class is to imagine that you plan to travel to New York City overnight for business, during which you wanted to take a client to dinner, plus see if any of your other friends happened to be there that day and fit in some time for sightseeing. You could probably find online all the information necessary make those plans and arrangements. However, you’d need to visit multiple different websites and Social Media services, then coordinate the information you find there. What if instead you could simple speak or type into your computer…

 “Find a convenient and relative inexpensive airfare from here to New York City’s airports. Make an overnight hotel reservation at one of the types of hotels I like. Arrange round-trip transportation between the airport and the hotel. Find the best Italian restaurant in Manhattan and make dinner reservations for two people there at a time convenient for me and my client. See if any of my friends are in Manhattan that day. And find time in my schedule to see the Statue of Liberty.”

…and your computer would find and coordinate all that information (even checking with your client’s and your friends’ computers) and present it to you for your approval? That is Web 3, an era when our computers and computerized devices understand the semantics of what we want them to do. Your computer acts as an intelligent assistant or concierge for you, rather than as a mere information machine.

In 2001, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web and the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which oversees the Web’s continued development, wrote a seminal article in Scientific American magazine explaining the concept. Work has been underway ever since and more needs to be done. Semantic Web coding however, already underlies websites on more than 4 million Web domains.

For the Semantic Web to operate, information needs to be accompanied by such underlying code about the information (in other words, data about the data, which is called metadata). Moreover, what information that the Semantic processes isn’t the ‘Web edition’ or other online version of a printed media edition or a broadcast program, but the actual items of contents that make up those traditional packages. When a Semantic Web device proposes a coordinated itinerary for your trip to New York City, it doesn’t say, ‘Here is the airline’s complete schedule, look at it. Here is a list of Italian restaurants, look at it. Etc.’ It is more specific and articulate that than, which is what you really want from it.

There are some minor differences between the exact definitions of Web 3 and the Semantic Web. However, those differences are almost entirely ones of scale. For example, major appliance companies are developing refrigerators that can sense what foods they store. These refrigerators can sense and record highly inexpensive radio frequency identification (RFID) chips printed onto the foodstuffs’ price tags. The refrigerators can then inform the homeowner or cook about what refrigerated foods might be beyond spoil dates, what staple refrigerated foods have been expended, and what recipes can be made from the foodstuffs stored. These Web 3 technologies, aspects of the ‘Internet of Things’, don’t deal with people or understand information as quite intelligently as do full Semantic Web technologies, but nonetheless are built upon the same technological foundations: semantic encoding.

Traditional media companies that aren’t encoding Semantic Web code (more than just Web search keywords) into all of their stories and other items or broadcasts won’t survive the rise of this era. Likewise, those media companies that focus more on the production and the distribution of the editions or programs or albums (or other package of information) rather than on the production and the distribution of the individual elements that comprise those traditional packages. All Semantic Web services are highly-customizable or even individuated for their consumers. The content items in aggregate are now worth more than the producer’s package of content items as a whole. So, any traditional media company that hopes to be distribution items of content in Semantic Web era needs to radically alter its production and distribution systems and business models.

The initial step for such companies is to employ someone who has practical expertise in coding content for the Semantic Web and has theoretical expertise in individuating contents. Web 3 in general and the Semantic Web in particularly depend upon content providers utilizing standard Dublin Core metadata or approved industrial variants, something that only about one percent of media companies today use. Google, most of the international news services (except the Associated Press), and most of the world’s scientific publishers, and most of the world’s consumer electronic device manufacturers and software manufacturers already use Dublin Core extensible Markup Language (XML) to process, distribute, and display information. All media companies that want to survive the next ten years must.

Now, let’s focus specifically on how the all the colossal changes underway that are ultimately caused by Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ laws are affecting how people use media and the media industries. Go to the next chapter in this.

Next webpage: The Spectrum of Change

Index of the Rise of Individuated Media webpages

 © 2015

When Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ Laws Interact on Media

Previous webpage: Butters’ Law Acting on Media

Alone, neither Moore’s Law nor Cooper’s Law nor Butter’s Law would have led to the world we know today and the one we will know in the future. During the past 50 years, Moore’s Law, without the bandwidths of fiber optic doubling approximately every nine months and of wireless doubling approximately every three years, would have resulted merely in very powerful computers barely able to communicate and network with each other at much more than teletype speeds. Butter’s Law without computer chip power doubling approximately every two years would have led to no reason to use fiber optics; the world would still be using woefully slow copper wires for its long-distance communications and have been unlikely to ever been able to support the deployment of local, regional, and long distance mobile telephone communications, etc. The three laws’ interactions are the ultimate cause of the tumultuous changes and progress underway.

As these three laws interact, their blended speed of technological changes increasingly accelerates (not as quickly as Butter’s Law but neither as slowly as Cooper’s Law), resulting in the momentum of changes increasing geometrically faster than its own increasing acceleration. The force of these technological changes grows cubic to the pace of changes, according to Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

Moreover, as more and more traditional devices (automobiles, airliners, refrigerators, bicycles, student and teacher desks, bar tops and counter tops, furniture, ski goggles or eyeglasses with heads-up displays, etc.) are replaced by internally computerized and photonically or wirelessly networked replacements, the interactions of Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ ‘laws’ gather even more amplified momentum than just their accelerations render, an effect due to a fourth ‘law’, Metcalf’s (named after the co-inventor of Ethernet, Robert Metcalf), which observes that the power of any networked item is proportional to the square of the number of devices connected to the network.

Thus, the force of technological changes very quickly becomes inexorable, creating pressures that the traditional practices and traditional technologies within any industry cannot withstand, a concept that many traditional media executives, who are used to linear changes, tend to find either confusing or incomprehensible.

In developed countries, the effects of Moore’s Law have been visible for a few decades; those of Cooper’s Law for only a few years; and those of Butters’ Law are only beginning to be seen. All will soon be readily apparent. Media analysts and academicians who talk only of Moore’s Law as a means of understanding the changes underway see only a one-dimensional of the perspective rather than the fully-formed three-dimensional situation created by the interactions of Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ laws.

The observable dynamics of Moore’s, Cooper’s, and Butters’ ‘laws’ are the ultimate causes of all the changes underway in the media environment.

Now, let’s examine the ramifications — the proximate effects — of the three ‘laws’ interactions in the media environment. In other words, no longer why the media are changing but the more practical topic of how the media are changing.

Next Webpage: Web 1 to Web 2

(However, if you’d first like to read about some corollary effects of the three laws’ interactions that go beyond just the media industries, go here.)

Index of the Rise of Individuated Media webpages

 © 2014