In 1993, author Micahel Crichton predicted the demise of the "Mediasaurus" within ten years. Slate's Jack Shafer noted the failed prediction in 2002, but is graciously eating some humble pie here:
As we pass his prediction's 15-year anniversary, I've got to declare advantage Crichton. Rot afflicts the newspaper industry, which is shedding staff, circulation, and revenues. It's gotten so bad in newspaperville that some people want Google to buy the Times and run it as a charity! Evening news viewership continues to evaporate, and while the mass media aren't going extinct tomorrow, Crichton's original observations about the media future now ring more true than false. Ask any journalist.
Longtime growthology readers know I have been covering this story here and here. I don't pretend to know what happens to the print media in ten years, only why it happens. Consumer choice is being expressed through new disaggregating technologies and new delivery technologies and new matching technologies (algorithms that identify things for individuals that they were not aware they wanted). But does the old medium go exctinct?
In 1993, Crichton predicted that future consumers would crave high-quality information instead of the junk they were being fed and that they'd be willing to pay for it. He's perplexed about that part of his prediction not panning out ...
What keeps the mediasaurus alive? There are at least five reasons I have on my mind:
1. Junk food tastes great. We are imagining a technology that WE want, and imposing that desire on the mass market. Most people probably don't want the super-informative information Crichton wants, and are happy consuming brain candy.
2. Bounded rationality. The opposite side of the long tail is the short mass: one NBA champ, one Olympics, one President. In fact, mass media is under assault not just by disaggregating forces, but by aggregating forces as well. In a digital age, does the local station really need a D.C. correspondent?
3. Cultural canon. I believe people enjoy have common cultural reference points (related to the items above), even trivial things like knowing who won Idol last night. Maybe this is sociobiological?
4. Geography. The weather tomorrow doesn't need very much disaggregating (especially in February or August here in D.C. -- Ugh). Other local interests are also common.
5. What else are you going to read on the train? (Kindle). When the power goes out?
Also, there's a downside to Crichton's vision. Cost. I simply do not believe people will pay for information in the new economy. I believe in free pricing with a revenue model based on monetizing readers through personalized marketing. In ten years.
Why buy a newspaper when you can get your news real-time, or whenever you want it, by going to Yahoo or Google? And if you care about the environment, do you want to chop down a tree to get your news? I can get Post articles, and US News&World Report, and Money, and Fortune articles online - and free. No need to pay for any of that.
Now if only those pop up ads would stop!
Posted by: Remo | June 04, 2008 at 05:55 AM