Discussion:
"The extinction of mass culture" (Fortune magazine)
(too old to reply)
Joe Gillis
2006-07-13 00:36:51 UTC
Permalink
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/11/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest

The extinction of mass culture

The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences -
and the explosion of choice has left us poorer

By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
July 12 2006: 10:18 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Fortune) --

Quick: Name the biggest star in prime-time television.

Now: Name a star created by the Internet.

Finally: Name a great advertising slogan written in this decade.

Those aren't easy questions, are they? TV's biggest stars are Oprah
Winfrey and Katie Couric, but they don't appear in prime time and
they've been around for years - before the 300-channel universe
fragmented audiences and damaged broadcast TV's hit-making machinery.

The Internet is by nature a niche medium so it has not created any
stars, and probably won't. (Please don't bring up Matt Drudge. People
who don't follow politics have no clue who he is.)

As for advertising, there are no 21st century equivalents to "We Try
Harder" or "Where's the Beef?" or "Just Do It." (Sorry, Microsoft, but
"Where Do You Want To Go Today" doesn't cut it.)

The point is, mass culture isn't so mass anymore. Instead, culture is
evolving into a "mass of niches." So, at least, says Chris Anderson,
the editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, in "The Long Tail: Why the
Future of Business Is Selling Less of More" (Hyperion, $24.95).

His new book, based on a 2004 article in Wired, is generating a lot of
buzz, climbing up the best-seller lists and raising provocative
questions about the future of our culture.

"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."

Mostly, Anderson's book is about business. He makes a persuasive case
that the Internet is exploding the limits of bricks-and-mortar
distribution channels, giving consumers vastly more choice and creating
business opportunities that have been exploited by the likes of Amazon
(Charts), Netflix (Charts), Apple's (Charts) iTunes and Google
(Charts).

Those online media businesses are all driven to a surprising degree,
not by a handful of hits, but by the far larger number of books, DVDs,
music and Web sites with narrow appeal.

"The Long Tail is nothing more than infinite choice," Anderson writes.
"Abundant, cheap distribution means abundant, cheap and unlimited
variety."

The book's title, by the way, refers to the long, stretched-out tail of
the demand curve for most products. You can see what the long tail
looks like and explore the thinking behind the book at Anderson's blog
at www.thelongtail.com.

There's lots to debate here. Anderson downplays the fact that the
explosion of consumer choice predates the Internet. Cable TV gave us
hundreds of channels. Starbucks (Charts) forced coffee drinkers to
learn a new vocabulary. Big box retailers like Barnes & Noble, Home
Depot and Wal-Mart (Charts) drew customers away from mom-and-pop
outlets, not just because their prices were lower, but because they
offered more choice.

And it's hard to argue that hits are diminishing in impact a few days
after Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men's Chest" set an
all-time box-office record for an opening weekend. Fox's "American
Idol" is a megahit, even if it isn't built around stars in the
old-fashioned sense. And goodness knows that Anderson would not have
bothered to write his book if he thought it was going to disappear
quietly into that "mass of niches."

Still, I think his analysis is mostly right. The interesting question
is whether all this choice along The Long Tail is an unalloyed good. "I
think it's a net positive, but there are definite tradeoffs," Anderson
told me, when I called to ask him. "Do we lose something as a society
if we have less in common? How do we define ourselves as Americans if
we are not sharing the same culture impacts?"

He said we may lose some superficial ties to one another as the culture
fragments, but that we gain deeper ties to smaller, virtual communities
made possible by the Internet as we pursue own passions.

I think the explosion of choice has left us poorer in at least two
arenas. The first is journalism. (Yes, as a Fortune writer, I've got a
stake in the health of the mainstream media, which bloggers call the
MSM.) The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the
national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment
and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important
issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished.

To pick a single, timely, example, The Tribune Co. announced just the
other day that its newspapers would be closing foreign bureaus in
Johannesburg, Moscow, Lebanon and Pakistan. This is happening all over
newspaperdom and it happened years ago at the broadcast networks.

Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don't
think we are better informed. Niche media will, inevitably, continue to
weaken mass media.

The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to
journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the
MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.

Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big
one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they
get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree. Anderson
suggests that this could well be a temporary problem, and that if the
major parties continue to move to the extremes and the quality of
debate continues to deteriorate, the Internet could well enable a new
party or parties, to arise.

Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows
and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling
that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the
Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience.

Like Chris Anderson, I think we're better off with Amazon, Netflix,
Google and the cacaphony of the blogosphere than we were with a
neighborhood bookseller, Blockbuster video, Tom Brokaw and Life
Magazine. But it's worth slowing down, now and then, to think about
what we are losing as we retreat into that "mass of niches."
plausible prose man
2006-07-13 00:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."
Interestingly, "Everything Bad is Good For You" argues just the
opposite, and probably with as much falsification; that there's a whole
lot more commonality and water-cooler discussion about something like
The Apprentice than there ever was for something like MatchGamePM, but
in any case its hard to see something that makes TV less like Laverne
and Shirley (and that's far from the worst example I could think of)
and more like The Sopranos is a bad thing.
Paul Ilechko
2006-07-13 01:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by plausible prose man
Post by Joe Gillis
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."
Interestingly, "Everything Bad is Good For You" argues just the
opposite, and probably with as much falsification; that there's a whole
lot more commonality and water-cooler discussion about something like
The Apprentice than there ever was for something like MatchGamePM, but
in any case its hard to see something that makes TV less like Laverne
and Shirley (and that's far from the worst example I could think of)
and more like The Sopranos is a bad thing.
TV? ... Oh yeah, that's the device I use for the express checkout in my
hotel room. What else can it do?
a***@yahoo.com
2006-07-13 12:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ilechko
TV? ... Oh yeah, that's the device I use for the express checkout in my
hotel room. What else can it do?
It can explode
Loading Image...

Google images is wonderful.....
tooloud
2006-07-15 23:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ilechko
Post by plausible prose man
Post by Joe Gillis
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened,
watched and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit
content," Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture
era, when we are all into different things."
Interestingly, "Everything Bad is Good For You" argues just the
opposite, and probably with as much falsification; that there's a
whole lot more commonality and water-cooler discussion about
something like The Apprentice than there ever was for something like
MatchGamePM, but in any case its hard to see something that makes TV
less like Laverne and Shirley (and that's far from the worst example
I could think of) and more like The Sopranos is a bad thing.
TV? ... Oh yeah, that's the device I use for the express checkout in
my hotel room. What else can it do?
Oh, they're absolutely amazing. Interestingly enough, television's best
trick is turning every person that doesn't have one into a self-centered
smug prick whose life seems to revolve around not owning one.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply
Gregory Morrow
2006-07-13 01:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by plausible prose man
Post by Joe Gillis
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."
Interestingly, "Everything Bad is Good For You" argues just the
opposite, and probably with as much falsification; that there's a whole
lot more commonality and water-cooler discussion about something like
The Apprentice than there ever was for something like MatchGamePM, but
in any case its hard to see something that makes TV less like Laverne
and Shirley (and that's far from the worst example I could think of)
and more like The Sopranos is a bad thing.
*Today* really is "The Golden Age of Television"...

I'm of a certain age (50) and I'm an old TV buff. The vast, vast,
majority of TV programming 40 - 50 years was tedious, boring, , static,
witless, lame...and I'm a guy who in some ways is very old - fashioned
in his cultural tastes.

A lot of TV now is no better, but at least we have new viewing
options...

Once you get past the initial "nostalgia factor" in watching much of
that old stuff, it simply doesn't hold much interest...in fact
something like _LaVerne & Shirley_ (as bad as it is) can actually be
more watchable. If you want to see something *really* ghastly, watch
something like the old _Patty Duke Show_ or _Gidget_ - which were big
hits in the day.

True, there were flashes of brilliance, e.g. _The Honeymooners_,
_Burke's Law_, _The Outer Limits_, _The Twilight Zone_, _Thriller_,
etc. But they were the exceptions rather than the rule...
--
Best
Greg
Paul Ilechko
2006-07-13 20:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Morrow
A lot of TV now is no better, but at least we have new viewing
options...
I like the remote control. So now, if I go into a room where someone
left the TV on, I can turn it off without having to touch it.
George Peatty
2006-07-13 21:18:23 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Jul 2006 18:08:01 -0700, "Gregory Morrow"
Post by Gregory Morrow
*Today* really is "The Golden Age of Television"...
[*spews Diet Coke into monitor*]

I'm not one of those who claim the old days were better .. at least, today
I'm not .. but by any standard I understand television today is Newton
Minnow's vast wasteland in spades .. Many shows have good moments or good
individual episodes, but there is not one that I am a fan of, and eagerly
look forward to seeing, and will go out of my way to minimize distractions
so I can watch ..
v***@yahoo.com
2006-07-14 14:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On 12 Jul 2006 18:08:01 -0700, "Gregory Morrow"
Post by Gregory Morrow
*Today* really is "The Golden Age of Television"...
[*spews Diet Coke into monitor*]
I'm not one of those who claim the old days were better .. at least, today
I'm not .. but by any standard I understand television today is Newton
Minnow's vast wasteland in spades .. Many shows have good moments or good
individual episodes, but there is not one that I am a fan of, and eagerly
look forward to seeing, and will go out of my way to minimize distractions
.

Just since 1990: (note my tastes skew towards scifi/fantasy):

Cosby Show
Frasier
Star Trek TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT
Babylon 5
Stargate SG1
Seinfeld (as good as any of those classic 50s comedies; like Abbott &
Costello)
Friends (at least early on)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel
NYPD Blue
e.r.
24
Homicide
Alias (early seasons)
Rome
Sopranos
Sex in the City (female-oriented but still fun for men too)
South Park
The Shield

Well, that's just off the top of my head; I'm sure others can add many,
many more "golden age" television shows from 1990 to 2006.

I grew up during the 70's/80's, and when I go back and review the shows
from my childhood, I think to myself, "Why did I ever enjoy this drek?"
I'm talking about crapola like Mel's Diner and Laverne/Shirley. The
bottom line (for me) is that I can name more good shows since 1990,
than I can between the previous golden age of the 50's and 60's.

.
Cordelia Lear
2006-07-14 18:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@yahoo.com
I grew up during the 70's/80's, and when I go back and review the shows
from my childhood, I think to myself, "Why did I ever enjoy this drek?"
For the same reason people get all shrieky and go ewww when they see
themselves in clothes and hairstyles from back-when. With the
assumption that they look good NOW?

Today's cool hairstyle is tomorrow's God Is That Ugly Or What.

The Sopranos today is HOW LAME WAS THAT tomorrow.

All these ugly starved female stars today with that lanky greasy thin
hair that's absolutely uber-fashionista? Tomorrow the collective
groan will go up, "Why did we think looking like a holocaust skank was
a good idea".

hehh.
George Peatty
2006-07-14 20:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Cosby Show
Frasier
Star Trek TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT
Babylon 5
Stargate SG1
Seinfeld (as good as any of those classic 50s comedies; like Abbott &
Costello)
Friends (at least early on)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel
NYPD Blue
e.r.
24
Homicide
Alias (early seasons)
Rome
Sopranos
Sex in the City (female-oriented but still fun for men too)
South Park
The Shield
Well, that's just off the top of my head; I'm sure others can add many,
many more "golden age" television shows from 1990 to 2006.
I grew up during the 70's/80's, and when I go back and review the shows
from my childhood, I think to myself, "Why did I ever enjoy this drek?"
I'm talking about crapola like Mel's Diner and Laverne/Shirley. The
bottom line (for me) is that I can name more good shows since 1990,
than I can between the previous golden age of the 50's and 60's.
Too bad Yesterdayland isn't around anymore; however, some of its better
pages are archived here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021015000405/www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/decades/primetime_1950s.php

I suggest you have a look:

The Adventures of Superman
Alfred Hitchcock Presents

Bonanza

Dragnet

The Ed Sullivan Show

Have Gun, Will Travel
The Honeymooners

I Love Lucy
The Jack Benny Program

Make Room for Daddy / The Danny Thomas Show
The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis
Maverick
The Milton Berle Show

Perry Mason

Rawhide
Red Skelton Show

Topper
The Twilight Zone

The Untouchables

Wagon Train
What's My Line?
The Wonderful World of Disney

Your Show of Shows
Zorro

Your list can't touch mine, and I love sci-fi/fantasy as much as you do ..
Your Pal Brian
2006-07-15 01:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Well, that's just off the top of my head; I'm sure others can add many,
many more "golden age" television shows from 1990 to 2006.
The stuff I like never succeeded in the past. My TV-viewing life consists of
falling for a show and then a week later seeing it canceled. The Wizard, Sledge
Hammer, Get A Life, Ned & Stacy, Watching Ellie... Nowadays these shows might
make money in niche markets.

Could the big three networks have given us Chapelle's Show? Daria? Good Eats?
Post by v***@yahoo.com
I grew up during the 70's/80's, and when I go back and review the shows
from my childhood, I think to myself, "Why did I ever enjoy this drek?"
I was thinking precisely that thought during a recent Benson marathon.

Brian
d***@mail.ab.edu
2006-07-15 23:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Morrow
True, there were flashes of brilliance, e.g. _The Honeymooners_,
_Burke's Law_, _
--Burke's Law--, brilliant? Surely you're joking.

The Outer Limits_, _The Twilight Zone_,

The Sci-Fi Channel runs marathons of these from time to time. Most
episodes have not worn well. The moralistic voice overs at the ends
in both series grate, to say the least.

J. Del Col
Anim8rFSK
2006-07-16 00:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@mail.ab.edu
Post by Gregory Morrow
True, there were flashes of brilliance, e.g. _The Honeymooners_,
_Burke's Law_, _
--Burke's Law--, brilliant? Surely you're joking.
The Outer Limits_, _The Twilight Zone_,
The Sci-Fi Channel runs marathons of these from time to time. Most
episodes have not worn well. The moralistic voice overs at the ends
in both series grate, to say the least.
J. Del Col
I recall Burke's Law fondly, but it's been a long time.
plausible prose man
2006-07-17 16:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Morrow
Once you get past the initial "nostalgia factor" in watching much of
that old stuff, it simply doesn't hold much interest...in fact
something like _LaVerne & Shirley_ (as bad as it is)
eh, you know, LaVerne and Shirley is far from the worst thing that was
ever on TV. I won't deny I've watched quite a few episodes and find
them, uh...well, watchable.
Post by Gregory Morrow
can actually be
more watchable. If you want to see something *really* ghastly, watch
something like the old _Patty Duke Show_ or _Gidget_ - which were big
hits in the day.
Yeah, you know...I like those, too, but then I like girl-oriented teen
age comedy. Of course, they're both considerably less sophisticated
than something like Mean Girls, not that that's a TV show, but I think
you get the idea.
Post by Gregory Morrow
True, there were flashes of brilliance, e.g. _The Honeymooners_,
_Burke's Law_, _The Outer Limits_, _The Twilight Zone_, _Thriller_,
etc. But they were the exceptions rather than the rule...
Even those were kind of stagy and hokey and shmucky and boilerplated
in a way, uh...Seinfeld or the Simpsons isn't.
Anim8rFSK
2006-07-17 17:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by plausible prose man
Post by Gregory Morrow
Once you get past the initial "nostalgia factor" in watching much of
that old stuff, it simply doesn't hold much interest...in fact
something like _LaVerne & Shirley_ (as bad as it is)
eh, you know, LaVerne and Shirley is far from the worst thing that was
ever on TV.
I think Jeff Altman has to be on a show for it to hold that distinction.
Wayne Brown
2006-07-17 17:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Morrow
Once you get past the initial "nostalgia factor" in watching much of
that old stuff, it simply doesn't hold much interest...in fact
something like _LaVerne & Shirley_ (as bad as it is) can actually be
more watchable. If you want to see something *really* ghastly, watch
something like the old _Patty Duke Show_ or _Gidget_ - which were big
hits in the day.
I liked all three of those shows, though "The Patty Duke Show" is the only
one I'd really care to watch in re-runs today. That one was a favorite of
mine when I was a kid. In fact, I'd bet that my life-long preference for
shy, quiet, intelligent girls who wear glasses (like Fred from "Angel")
probably owes a lot to Patty Duke's portrayal of "Cathy" on her show.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) |
***@bellsouth.net | Þæs oferéode, ðisses swá mæg.
| "That passed away, this also can."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- Deor
Wayne Brown
2006-07-17 17:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by plausible prose man
Interestingly, "Everything Bad is Good For You" argues just the
opposite, and probably with as much falsification; that there's a whole
lot more commonality and water-cooler discussion about something like
The Apprentice than there ever was for something like MatchGamePM, but
in any case its hard to see something that makes TV less like Laverne
and Shirley (and that's far from the worst example I could think of)
and more like The Sopranos is a bad thing.
Except that I liked "Laverne and Shirley" and couldn't care less about
"The Sopranos"...
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) |
***@bellsouth.net | Þæs oferéode, ðisses swá mæg.
| "That passed away, this also can."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- Deor
Cally
2006-07-13 01:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/11/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest
The extinction of mass culture
The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences -
and the explosion of choice has left us poorer
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
July 12 2006: 10:18 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) --
Quick: Name the biggest star in prime-time television.
Now: Name a star created by the Internet.
Finally: Name a great advertising slogan written in this decade.
Those aren't easy questions, are they? TV's biggest stars are Oprah
Winfrey and Katie Couric, but they don't appear in prime time and
they've been around for years - before the 300-channel universe
fragmented audiences and damaged broadcast TV's hit-making machinery.
The Internet is by nature a niche medium so it has not created any
stars, and probably won't. (Please don't bring up Matt Drudge. People
who don't follow politics have no clue who he is.)
As for advertising, there are no 21st century equivalents to "We Try
Harder" or "Where's the Beef?" or "Just Do It." (Sorry, Microsoft, but
"Where Do You Want To Go Today" doesn't cut it.)
The point is, mass culture isn't so mass anymore. Instead, culture is
evolving into a "mass of niches." So, at least, says Chris Anderson,
the editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, in "The Long Tail: Why the
Future of Business Is Selling Less of More" (Hyperion, $24.95).
His new book, based on a 2004 article in Wired, is generating a lot of
buzz, climbing up the best-seller lists and raising provocative
questions about the future of our culture.
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."
Mostly, Anderson's book is about business. He makes a persuasive case
that the Internet is exploding the limits of bricks-and-mortar
distribution channels, giving consumers vastly more choice and creating
business opportunities that have been exploited by the likes of Amazon
(Charts), Netflix (Charts), Apple's (Charts) iTunes and Google
(Charts).
Those online media businesses are all driven to a surprising degree,
not by a handful of hits, but by the far larger number of books, DVDs,
music and Web sites with narrow appeal.
"The Long Tail is nothing more than infinite choice," Anderson writes.
"Abundant, cheap distribution means abundant, cheap and unlimited
variety."
The book's title, by the way, refers to the long, stretched-out tail of
the demand curve for most products. You can see what the long tail
looks like and explore the thinking behind the book at Anderson's blog
at www.thelongtail.com.
There's lots to debate here. Anderson downplays the fact that the
explosion of consumer choice predates the Internet. Cable TV gave us
hundreds of channels. Starbucks (Charts) forced coffee drinkers to
learn a new vocabulary. Big box retailers like Barnes & Noble, Home
Depot and Wal-Mart (Charts) drew customers away from mom-and-pop
outlets, not just because their prices were lower, but because they
offered more choice.
And it's hard to argue that hits are diminishing in impact a few days
after Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men's Chest" set an
all-time box-office record for an opening weekend. Fox's "American
Idol" is a megahit, even if it isn't built around stars in the
old-fashioned sense. And goodness knows that Anderson would not have
bothered to write his book if he thought it was going to disappear
quietly into that "mass of niches."
Still, I think his analysis is mostly right. The interesting question
is whether all this choice along The Long Tail is an unalloyed good. "I
think it's a net positive, but there are definite tradeoffs," Anderson
told me, when I called to ask him. "Do we lose something as a society
if we have less in common? How do we define ourselves as Americans if
we are not sharing the same culture impacts?"
He said we may lose some superficial ties to one another as the culture
fragments, but that we gain deeper ties to smaller, virtual communities
made possible by the Internet as we pursue own passions.
I think the explosion of choice has left us poorer in at least two
arenas. The first is journalism. (Yes, as a Fortune writer, I've got a
stake in the health of the mainstream media, which bloggers call the
MSM.) The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the
national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment
and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important
issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished.
To pick a single, timely, example, The Tribune Co. announced just the
other day that its newspapers would be closing foreign bureaus in
Johannesburg, Moscow, Lebanon and Pakistan. This is happening all over
newspaperdom and it happened years ago at the broadcast networks.
Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don't
think we are better informed. Niche media will, inevitably, continue to
weaken mass media.
The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to
journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the
MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.
Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big
one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they
get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree. Anderson
suggests that this could well be a temporary problem, and that if the
major parties continue to move to the extremes and the quality of
debate continues to deteriorate, the Internet could well enable a new
party or parties, to arise.
Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows
and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling
that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the
Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience.
Like Chris Anderson, I think we're better off with Amazon, Netflix,
Google and the cacaphony of the blogosphere than we were with a
neighborhood bookseller, Blockbuster video, Tom Brokaw and Life
Magazine. But it's worth slowing down, now and then, to think about
what we are losing as we retreat into that "mass of niches."
Power will be unleashed without restraint because there won't be enough
mass to force it back into something containable. With 280 million
Americans split in 280 million ways, people who understand power will
have a very easy time of it soon. Bloggers are essentially nothing
more than reactors against the MSM. When there is no longer a MSM, the
watchdogs of the Constitution will be silenced and the internet will
flail along, crowded with dopes whose sole reason to exist is to vent
against ____ fill in the blank.

I've listened to fanatic anti-anti's since LBJ. And they all think
their view is unique, and correct.
Dilbert Firestorm
2006-07-13 02:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cally
I've listened to fanatic anti-anti's since LBJ. And they all think
their view is unique, and correct.
like yours????
P***@excite.com
2006-07-13 02:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dilbert Firestorm
Post by Cally
I've listened to fanatic anti-anti's since LBJ. And they all think
their view is unique, and correct.
like yours????
I've never been much of a TV watcher. In my experience, whether the
choices are three channels or 350 or 3,500, they're all going to be
"derivative" and "dumb" and accompanied by the kiss-of-death laugh
track.
Howard Brazee
2006-07-13 11:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@excite.com
I've never been much of a TV watcher. In my experience, whether the
choices are three channels or 350 or 3,500, they're all going to be
"derivative" and "dumb" and accompanied by the kiss-of-death laugh
track.
I haven't been a TV watcher in close to 40 years. But I believe in
Sturgeon's revelation (and its implication that 10% is not crud), and
from what I have noticed from what my wife watches, the quality is
actually of the watchable shows better now than when I watched.

My big deal is that TV of any quality owns people, and I don't want to
be owned.
plausible prose man
2006-07-13 22:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@excite.com
Post by Dilbert Firestorm
Post by Cally
I've listened to fanatic anti-anti's since LBJ. And they all think
their view is unique, and correct.
like yours????
I've never been much of a TV watcher. In my experience, whether the
choices are three channels or 350 or 3,500, they're all going to be
"derivative" and "dumb" and accompanied by the kiss-of-death laugh
track.
See, that was true back in the days of Starsky and Hutch and, say,
Silver Spoons or something, but since its now actually profitable to
appeal to a niche audience, and people can and do rewatch shows, the
market is rewarding complexity and "rewatchability."
l***@gmail.com
2006-07-13 04:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dilbert Firestorm
Post by Cally
I've listened to fanatic anti-anti's since LBJ. And they all think
their view is unique, and correct.
like yours????
Usenet is stuffed full of dimwits like you. You are the product of a
school system that robbed you of any curiosity and I find that deeply
pathetic. Your world extends to the limits of your bitten fingernails
and to the screen of your cell phone. "Yap yap, bite, text text, yap,
bite, text, chew, check usenet, text, yap, chew, excrete". Repeat.
Steven L.
2006-07-13 03:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
NEW YORK (Fortune) --
Quick: Name the biggest star in prime-time television.
Jeff Probst.
Seen by 50 million viewers in the U.S. alone, in the finale of the first
season of his show in 2000. Still seen by some 20 million viewers in
the U.S. every single year since. Plus dozens of foreign countries. I
would wager that some 80 million people on this planet know what the
phrase "voted off the island" means.
Post by Joe Gillis
Now: Name a star created by the Internet.
Howard Dean.
A relatively obscure governor who became a national public figure and
Presidential candidate, entirely by websites and blogs. (Prior to the
Internet, how many people in the U.S. could name the governor of Vermont?)
Post by Joe Gillis
Finally: Name a great advertising slogan written in this decade.
Here are two:

[closing line of commercial, after a totally misleading scene]
"But I've got good news - I just saved a bunch of money on my car
insurance by switching to GEICO!"

[listing various items, for example:]
"Tuxedo: $x
Bridal gown: $y
Wedding cake: $z
Love forever: Priceless
There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else,
there's Master Card."
Post by Joe Gillis
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."
Are we?
Here are some of the hot new watercooler topics over the last 10 years:

Survivor (CBS, 2000)
Lost (ABC, 2004)
Grey's Anatomy (ABC, 2005)

And the biggest watercooler topic of them all:

Bitching about bugs and flaws in Microsoft software, and how to fix them
or workaround them. (I've heard such bitching everywhere. It's one
sure-fire conversation topic you can discuss with your spouse, your
friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, your doctor, your dentist, etc.)
Post by Joe Gillis
Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big
one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they
get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree.
Which is still a vast improvement over pre-1980, when we got exactly one
point of view from all the major mass media in the U.S.: Soft-centered,
mushy liberalism. Not crusading liberalism, not socialism, just this
wishy-washy crap.

Europe was correct all along: When you read the Guardian, you know what
you're getting: leftism. When you read the Financial Times, you know
what you are getting: conservatism. And knowing that, you can not only
discount for the slant, but you can compare the same story in both
newspapers and see how the coloring affected how the story is reported.
That's a vast improvement over having just one point of view.

Right now, we know when we listen to Bill Moyers (PBS) we're going to
hear LIBERALISM. We know when we listen to Sean Hannity (Fox News)
we're going to hear CONSERVATISM. That's a vast improvement. Truth in
packaging.
Post by Joe Gillis
Like Chris Anderson, I think we're better off with Amazon, Netflix,
Google and the cacaphony of the blogosphere than we were with a
neighborhood bookseller, Blockbuster video, Tom Brokaw and Life
Magazine. But it's worth slowing down, now and then, to think about
what we are losing as we retreat into that "mass of niches."
It's not at all clear we've lost anything we really had to begin with.
Let's not wallow in false nostalgia for an imagined past that never
really existed.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
l***@gmail.com
2006-07-13 04:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
It's not at all clear we've lost anything we really had to begin with.
Let's not wallow in false nostalgia for an imagined past that never
really existed.
--
Post by Steven L.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
How profound. I wonder if anyone has ever said that before?
a***@yahoo.com
2006-07-13 12:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by Steven L.
It's not at all clear we've lost anything we really had to begin with.
Let's not wallow in false nostalgia for an imagined past that never
really existed.
--
Post by Steven L.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
How profound. I wonder if anyone has ever said that before?
If it weren't for wallowing in false nostalgia, I wouldn't even dream
of going to bed with that girl in college....
Anim8rFSK
2006-07-13 04:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Joe Gillis
Now: Name a star created by the Internet.
Howard Dean.
A relatively obscure governor who became a national public figure and
Presidential candidate, entirely by websites and blogs. (Prior to the
Internet, how many people in the U.S. could name the governor of Vermont?)
So we have Al Gore to blame for Howard Dean????

That bastard.
The Ghost of Asslips
2006-07-13 06:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Joe Gillis
NEW YORK (Fortune) --
"We're leaving the watercooler era, when most of us listened, watched
and read from the same relatively small pool of mostly hit content,"
Anderson writes. "And we're entering the microculture era, when we are
all into different things."
Are we?
Survivor (CBS, 2000)
Lost (ABC, 2004)
Grey's Anatomy (ABC, 2005)
Bitching about bugs and flaws in Microsoft software, and how to fix them
or workaround them. (I've heard such bitching everywhere. It's one
sure-fire conversation topic you can discuss with your spouse, your
friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, your doctor, your dentist, etc.)
You're the white guy that black comedians always imitate.

TGoA
v***@yahoo.com
2006-07-13 14:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Joe Gillis
Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big
one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they
get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree.
Which is still a vast improvement over pre-1980, when we got exactly one
point of view from all the major mass media in the U.S.: Soft-centered,
mushy liberalism. Not crusading liberalism, not socialism, just this
wishy-washy crap.
Right now, we know when we listen to Bill Moyers (PBS) we're going to
hear LIBERALISM. We know when we listen to Sean Hannity (Fox News)
we're going to hear CONSERVATISM. That's a vast improvement. Truth in
packaging.
.

Ding; ding; ding. YES hearing multiple viewpoints from different
sources IS an improvement over only hearing one viewpoint from
NBC/CBS/ABC prior to 2000. Instead of just one megalith of Corporate TV
saying "you should believe this" and everyone believed it, because they
had nothing else to hear....

... now we can switch across multiple liberal and conservative tv
channels, and decide *for ourselves* what to believe.
Post by Steven L.
Post by Joe Gillis
But it's worth slowing down, now and then, to think about
what we are losing as we retreat into that "mass of niches."
It's not at all clear we've lost anything we really had to begin with.
Let's not wallow in false nostalgia for an imagined past that never
really existed.
Ding; ding; ding. You hit the nail on the head again.

.
Lewis Mammel
2006-07-13 04:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/11/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest
The extinction of mass culture
This seems to me to be most evident in pop music. In the
early days of rock, it was experienced and celebrated
as a mass tribal phenomenon, made possible by its
promulgation via "top 10" AM radio. "Video killed the
radio star" but MTV continued the culture with its
promotion of such hits bands as Faith No More and
INXS. Note the catch phrases which still come to
mind like "It's it!" and "Devil Inside", similarly
to the advertising slogans mentioned.

Now all that has pretty much vanished, hasn't it?
Q101 in CHicago ( that just fired Mancow ) advertises
itself as "alternative", but it's really "alternative
oldies" featuring the likes of Smashing Pumpkins and
Pearl Jam.

Lew Mammel, Jr.
Andrew Ryan Chang
2006-07-13 05:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/11/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest
The extinction of mass culture
The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences -
and the explosion of choice has left us poorer
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
July 12 2006: 10:18 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) --
Quick: Name the biggest star in prime-time television.
I'd assume it's one of the stars of one of those CSI shows I never
watch. Or maybe Charlie Sheen, headliner of the most watched sitcom of
the moment.
Post by Joe Gillis
Now: Name a star created by the Internet.
Got me there. The Lazy Sunday guys were plucked off the web, but
it was TV combined with the net that made them stars.
Post by Joe Gillis
I think the explosion of choice has left us poorer in at least two
arenas. The first is journalism. (Yes, as a Fortune writer, I've got a
stake in the health of the mainstream media, which bloggers call the
MSM.) The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the
national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment
and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important
issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished.
To pick a single, timely, example, The Tribune Co. announced just the
other day that its newspapers would be closing foreign bureaus in
Johannesburg, Moscow, Lebanon and Pakistan. This is happening all over
newspaperdom and it happened years ago at the broadcast networks.
I don't think this is because of the 'explosion of choice'. It's
the consolidation of choice combined with the deliberate choice to view
journalism as strictly business, with no sense of the higher calling
Gunther years for. Media conglomerates end up with five news operations
in a town and they realize they could probably cover the town with one big
newsroom, so they amalgamate them.

As for the Tribune, what is the link Gunther sees between the
growth of niche media and closing foreign bureaus? Is it that niche media
is crowding out whatever residual interest Tribune consumers had in those
cities? Or that the Tribune is now too poor to afford them?
Post by Joe Gillis
The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to
journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the
MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.
Smeeesh. Political bloggers are opinionated and partisan, but
they also give a shit about politics, and the responsible ones offer the
sort of insight and context that many mainstream media reporters no longer
can (or are willing to?) do.
Post by Joe Gillis
Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows
and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling
that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the
Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience.
There are still hit shows, big stars, hit commercials, and sports
events. Watercooler talk just last year was all about just how crazy Tom
Cruise was*. Anderson's "Long Tail" theory doesn't mean everything
flattens out into niches only; it just means that niche media is
profitable (for Amazon, anyways; not sure how the publishers see it...)
But the head end remains the place to pick up huge profits by getting
mainstream attention.


* and lemme just say I find it hard to idealize Tom Cruise gossip as the
framework that knits society together.
--
Oakley: Are you absolutely sure that's wise, sir? I mean, I don't want
to sound pretentious here, but Itchy and Scratchy comprise a
dramaturgical dyad.
-- "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"
728huey
2006-07-13 23:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Ryan Chang
Post by Joe Gillis
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/11/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest
The extinction of mass culture
The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences -
and the explosion of choice has left us poorer
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
July 12 2006: 10:18 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) --
Quick: Name the biggest star in prime-time television.
I'd assume it's one of the stars of one of those CSI shows I never
watch. Or maybe Charlie Sheen, headliner of the most watched sitcom of
the moment.
Post by Joe Gillis
Now: Name a star created by the Internet.
Got me there. The Lazy Sunday guys were plucked off the web, but
it was TV combined with the net that made them stars.
Post by Joe Gillis
I think the explosion of choice has left us poorer in at least two
arenas. The first is journalism. (Yes, as a Fortune writer, I've got a
stake in the health of the mainstream media, which bloggers call the
MSM.) The network evening newscasts, big-city newspapers and the
national news magazines once had the money, access, skills, commitment
and power to deliver lots of original reporting and put important
issues on the national agenda. Today, they are all diminished.
To pick a single, timely, example, The Tribune Co. announced just the
other day that its newspapers would be closing foreign bureaus in
Johannesburg, Moscow, Lebanon and Pakistan. This is happening all over
newspaperdom and it happened years ago at the broadcast networks.
I don't think this is because of the 'explosion of choice'. It's
the consolidation of choice combined with the deliberate choice to view
journalism as strictly business, with no sense of the higher calling
Gunther years for. Media conglomerates end up with five news operations
in a town and they realize they could probably cover the town with one big
newsroom, so they amalgamate them.
As for the Tribune, what is the link Gunther sees between the
growth of niche media and closing foreign bureaus? Is it that niche media
is crowding out whatever residual interest Tribune consumers had in those
cities? Or that the Tribune is now too poor to afford them?
Post by Joe Gillis
The second arena where we are worse off is politics. This is related to
journalism, as the moderate and responsible (okay, bland) voices of the
MSM get drowned out by partisan, opinionated cableheads and bloggers.
Smeeesh. Political bloggers are opinionated and partisan, but
they also give a shit about politics, and the responsible ones offer the
sort of insight and context that many mainstream media reporters no longer
can (or are willing to?) do.
Post by Joe Gillis
Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows
and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling
that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the
Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience.
There are still hit shows, big stars, hit commercials, and sports
events. Watercooler talk just last year was all about just how crazy Tom
Cruise was*. Anderson's "Long Tail" theory doesn't mean everything
flattens out into niches only; it just means that niche media is
profitable (for Amazon, anyways; not sure how the publishers see it...)
But the head end remains the place to pick up huge profits by getting
mainstream attention.
* and lemme just say I find it hard to idealize Tom Cruise gossip as the
framework that knits society together.
--
Oakley: Are you absolutely sure that's wise, sir? I mean, I don't want
to sound pretentious here, but Itchy and Scratchy comprise a
dramaturgical dyad.
-- "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"
If anything, this shows that what is mass media or mainstream, and what
used to be considered a niche are blurring together, while at the same
time uncovering and creating more niches in the process. And what
really has the mainstream media scared is the rise of such
customer-centric creations like TiVo, the iPod, iTunes and
peer-to-peer applications that derived from Napster (Kazaa, BitTorrent)
and social networking spaces like MySpace and YouTube, which gives the
consumer the power to customize exactly what he/she wants to watch or
listen to, what time and/or place they want to do so, and who they want
to share it with. Ironically, while the record and movie industries
have been doing their darndest to try to turn back the clock and stop
these innovations from happening, the television industry has jumped in
with both feet and found that not only is it profitable for them, but
it creates new talent and ideas in the process. Case in point, "Family
Guy" was originally aired on Fox from 1998 through 2001 but never got
anywhere near the huge ratings they anticipated from airing it, so
they cancelled the show. The most rabid fans of the show traded
episodes they taped across the Internet for three years and kept
writing to the producers and FOX to put the show on DVD. After
ignoring the fans for the longest time, FOX finally offered to put out
a DVD package of "Family Guy," and the pre-orders for the DVD resulted
in that show becoming the highest-selling episodic series ever released
on DVD. Seeing the huge returns of the DVD sales, and the requests
from fans to bring the show back on the air, FOX eventually brought the
show back on televison, where it has been a solid hit on Sunday nights
since 2005.

Another good example was "24." FOX loved the show and its concept
since they put it on the air in 2001, and critics loved the show as
well. but the original ratings for the show were less than stellar, as
it was constantly being beaten by "Frasier" and whatever show CBS was
putting up against it. FOX nearly cancelled the show but decided to
keep it on for one more season. However, once they put the show on
DVD, they had huge sales, especially from overseas (where the show was
not airing on any TV network), and that allowed them to recover enough
of the money they lost from ad revenue due to low ratings to make the
show profitable for the network. Sure enough, the ratings began to
improve, and the shift to Mondays made the show a top 20 hit.

Anyway, getting back to niches and the mainstream, there will always be
a need and presence for mainstream media like the big four networks,
big movie studios, and big publishing houses, and there will always be
a need for big brands like Walmart, McDonalds, Coke and Pepsi, Home
Depot, Amazon, and eBay, but what the Internet has done was make niches
which previously were ignored into viable entities. Who knew that
there were so many people into do-it-yourself cement statue making? Or
that Hello Kitty or sudoku would explode into a huge phenomenon? Or
that anime and manga would become the most popular form of graphic
novel? (Or that what we used to call comic books would be renamed as
graphic novels?) What the net has done was discover niches which are
not bound by age or geographic region. And as for the mainstream media
closing down bureaus in Johanesburg or Moscow, thanks to things like
blogs and podcasts, we can actually get better news stories reported
from the people in those regions themselves, and with much more depth
and insight than what the MSM could do even with a huge budget.

Everytime a new innovation in communication has come along, it has
created new jobs, new industries, and more choice for people, and
living standards have risen because of that. So why would anyone think
that we are worse off now due to the expanded chocies the explosion of
media has brought to us?
Ed Stasiak
2006-07-13 21:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
The point is, mass culture isn't so mass anymore. Instead, culture
is evolving into a "mass of niches."
Sounds to me like this journalist agrees with the writer of the book
because it strokes his ego, a pissed off ego because he (and every
other journalist from now on) will never have the power of someone
like Edward R. Murrow or Walter Conkrite.
Steven L.
2006-07-13 22:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Joe Gillis
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
The point is, mass culture isn't so mass anymore. Instead, culture
is evolving into a "mass of niches."
Sounds to me like this journalist agrees with the writer of the book
because it strokes his ego, a pissed off ego because he (and every
other journalist from now on) will never have the power of someone
like Edward R. Murrow or Walter Conkrite.
Well, just look at where this article appeared. "Fortune" Magazine
isn't going to have the reach and impact that it once had, before the
advent of MSNBC and cbsmarketwatch.com and all the other
finance-oriented websites.

I've heard similar griping and bitching from other Old Media about the
rise of the New Media. It infuriates them that the New Media has broken
some genuine news scoops before they did. The Internet is nearly
instantaneous worldwide news dissemination. A newspaper or evening news
program with a 24 hour news cycle can't match that. A newsmagazine like
Fortune or Newsweek with a week-long (168 hour) news cycle is in even
worse shape.

That's what is frustrating the hell out of them.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
O***@aol.com
2006-07-15 11:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
I've heard similar griping and bitching from other Old Media about the
rise of the New Media. It infuriates them that the New Media has broken
some genuine news scoops before they did. The Internet is nearly
instantaneous worldwide news dissemination. A newspaper or evening news
program with a 24 hour news cycle can't match that. A newsmagazine like
Fortune or Newsweek with a week-long (168 hour) news cycle is in even
worse shape.
That's what is frustrating the hell out of them.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk<<
So effin' true.
Olompali4...
***@MSM
Undecided
2006-07-15 17:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gillis
The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences -
and the explosion of choice has left us poorer
The new thesis, which I won't credit because I don't want to go look for
it, is The Long Tail. It means with the increasing of niches everyone
will be able to find or create something other than from mainline
sources. There are the blockbusters still, but an amazing amount of the
sales of Amazon, for instance, are the myriads of little-known and
long-unremembered notions from the past and the small presses, the tail
of the dragon.

An epiphany occurred to me some years back when I sat watching The
Postman with my nephew Joey and his lady, both around 18. (I did not
have control of the remote, obviously.) The kids knew both the rocker
up on the ledge was Tom Petty and the name of the character which was
the same as that of Ringo Starr at birth.

I was amazed. I asked them, what musicians today will be so remembered
thirty years from now?

"None," they said. And the reason given by my other nephew Jason is
that it is so easy to present music today that everyone is doing it so
any distinction is lost in the morass.

Which goes back to the Long Tail...
--
Doubting Timus
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
http://tremonius.blogspot.com/
Loading...