Quality or Crud: Are you willing to pay?

Anderson references a generation raised on free information.  And while, as a journalist, Anderson's article makes me bristle all over (despite a few very key points), I think that this statement he makes holds some truth: “a generation raised on the free Web is coming of age, and they will find entirely new ways to embrace waste.” But as I shift through the thousands of opinion blog posts and cat videos on YouTube and the millions and millions of uploads of online content, I start to wonder…is the waste worth it? Are we just cluttering our minds and our devices with this flood of free information that has lost all usefulness and interest? We are angry that the perfect result doesn't come up to the top of our Google inquiry. But we demand endless free information. We get angry when we have to see an ad first.  At the same time, we refuse to pay for quality.  And then we expect the companies who provide it for free to be up to the caliber of subscription-based models. Because we are the greedy “generation raised on the free Web.”

I don’t want to beat a dead horse here.  We have had many discussions in this class that yes, “information wants to be free.” But, no journalists will not work for free. Yes, anyone can start a blog or publish online content. Yes, advertising supports it. Yes, companies can offer 24 news reporting and round the clock information. No, that does not mean all of the content out there will be quality or even true.

There is a lot I could say concerning the plight of poorly paid journalists and how sad poorly reported news makes me.  There is a lot I could say about this whole paragraph of Anderson’s on corporate tech companies who I feel robbed by: “Just because products are free doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, isn't making huge gobs of money. Google is the prime example of this.” ...But I think we have discussed that enough.

I think that Anderson himself actually makes a point that I’m not sure he intended to make…or at least a point that I found more interesting and less infuriating than the rest of his article. “There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later.”

We may not want to pay for reputation, but at some point when we get tired of shift through pages of crap after pages of more crap online (excuse my french), we are willing to pay for quality.  At some point, that Spotify user pays for Premium. At some point, someone who wants to read real news pays for a subscription to the New York Times, or another reputable establishment. Because as great as I think community journalism could be, I do not believe that volunteer writers could ever produce the kind of journalism that changes laws, that affects people, that tells the whole truth, and that inspired me to be a journalist. 

And while information is not as hot of a commodity as it used to be because of it’s abundance, reputable and interesting information to cut through all the crap online IS scarce.  And I think that (to borrow Anderson’s own phrase) the long-tail of people who are willing to pay for quality of sit through that ad to get to the information they enjoy, trust or respect--the information that is worth it to them personally-- that will support the massive weight of the rest of the greedy “information generation.”

I agree with Malcolm Gladwell when he states that, "And there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a million subscribers are quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading online." They are making money by charging for content. Gladwell also points out the flaws of many of the champions of "free," champions of our generation, like You Tube which has failed to make Google any money.

So I am not sure what the answer is.  But I surely am not going to work for free.  And I am surely not going to accept mediocre content...just because it is free.

Interactive Product/ Interactive People

In Carlo Rotella's NYT article on tablets in schools, one contradition...paradox if you will...continuously caught my eye. In comparing the traditional, stationary classrooms of old to this new, digitized, tablet-ized world of technology in schools, a source describes the classrooms of the future.  He likened it to industrial shop floors designed for mass production: “People sitting in rows, all doing the same thing at the same time, not really connected to each other.” He contrasted that with a postindustrial workplace where temporary groupings of co-workers collaborate on tasks requiring intellectual, not physical capabilities. “We need a schoolhouse that prepares students to do that kind of work,” he said.  It jumped out at me, however, because that seems counter-intuitive to much of what we discuss in this class: how technology could be destroying our ability to interact face to face, causing us to spend time less efficiently, learn less effectively, etc. As much as I think, in certain situations, technology does foster a unique working environment, we have discussed the ways that in other situations it creates the exact isolated, not-really-connected scenario described as the original "old ways" counterpart. 

The passage that really clarified the confusion for me was this: “None of these studies identify technology as decisive.” Where technology makes a difference, it tends to do so in places with a strong organization dedicated to improving teaching and where students closely engage with teachers and one another. “A device that enhances such interactions is good,” Anrig said. “But kids focused on the device, isolated, cuts into that.”

The proof in the pudding may not be so much in the product...but rather the way it is used.  If you have a teacher who masters the flow of the technology, uses it seamlessly while still involving ever student and utilizing some face to face interaction mixed in with screen time, then of course this is evolutionary.  But that takes time and dedication.  My question is, in underfunded schools with low teacher-retention rates or even just classrooms with a slightly more apathetic instructor, will kids just stare mindlessly at their own individual screens all day...  “People sitting in rows, all doing the same thing at the same time, not really connected to each other.” 

This is not just an evolution of paper and chalkboard to screen.  The surface on which the students write and read cannot be the only "interactive" part of the classroom--regardless if that is a tablet or a good old fashioned textbook.  This has to be a total evolution in the way we teach kids in school if it is going to succeed. 

Rotella continues: Still, if everyone agrees that good teachers make all the difference, wouldn’t it make more sense to devote our resources to strengthening the teaching profession with better recruitment, training, support and pay? It seems misguided to try to improve the process of learning by putting an expensive tool in the hands of teachers we otherwise treat like the poor relations of the high-tech whiz kids who design the tool.

Yes.  Yes it does. 

A typewriting traditionalist comes to terms with change

The article this week delves into the debate about e-books...are they the same as the original? Is it the same sensation as holding and reading from a printed book?  We have had endless class discussions about the nostalgia and inherent power of reading "real," paper books. I think most people in our class, even the most tech-forward and digital-savvy, would agree that there is something special about holding a book in your hand and feeling the turn of the page.  There is no argument there.

But the part of this article that stood out to me was the section where the author commented on the ever-changing nature of preferred mediums of media.  The passage references a writer who still uses a typewriter- and feels it is an act of defiance to the new, speedy preferred technology of the computer.  However, the author points out that even though the man feels he is being "traditional" and "really" writing in a true sense of the word, he is still unknowingly just a cog in the digital machine. His typewriter is electric, which was a byproduct of the mechanical typewriter which was a byproduct of...guess what? Writing by hand! "Mechanical writing deprives the hand of its rank in the realm of writing and degrades the word to a means of communication." It goes on to say that it deprives the reader of the unique personality of handwriting style, making everything look bland and uniform- much of the criticism sounding shockingly similar to that of e-books.  "Bland, lifeless, without personality." But how many of us prefer to write everything by hand? How many of us still prefer to type on a typewriter? Does our writing mean any less? Do our words hold less clout because they are digitized onto a screen.

I can attest, as I have a typewriter which I love and use, it is definitely not practical and took some getting used to.  I use it when I am in the mood to leisurely write and stretch my fingers, but honestly...I prefer typing on a computer.  And I even prefer typing on a computer to writing by hand, as I feel my ideas can flow from my head to the keys even more quickly.  I never had a laptop growing up to learn to type on...but now I prefer it.

Will everyone always prefer reading words on a page rather than a screen?  Some will (ie: trust me, I still use my typewriter).  But most will not.  Our preferences change and evolve. But technology is changing even quicker. So, we often think that because our current preferences haven't caught up, that they never will.  We say, "we ALL with ALWAYS want paper in our hands as we read."  We always think that the old way is the better way...And maybe it is? But I am starting to think it might all just be a matter of preference.

Steak and Swiss Watches? Potato, PotAHto?

You know that feeling, like you aren't quite full even though you just ate a ton of food? That, "I just ate a whole box of Easy Mac and my stomach is bloated... but I could eat more" feeling? That, "I just ate straight carbs and no nutrients" feeling?  That, "Well, at least it only cost me 5 bucks" feeling? Isn't it so much more satisfying when pay day comes, you get to go out to eat, and you bite into a juicy steak with potatoes and broccoli?

Iris Chyi poses this very question, the Ramen Noodles theory, in regards to online news. The theory, in a nutshell (or pasta shell, if you will) goes like this: Online news is an inferior good, meaning that people consume less when income increases because they would rather consume normal goods, like steak. This theory, in my opinion, seems accurate enough.  Take my life as Exhibit A: My personal preference is to hold a newspaper or flip the pages of a magazine or turn on my television and watch the news.  Buuuuut, what do I normally end up doing because I am running late, because it is convenient, because there is an abundance of it, because I am a broke college student? I end up consuming free online information. 

Chyi cites a Harris poll that shows us the 55% of U.S. Internet users believe traditional media as we know it will not exist in 10 years, even though 67% still prefer getting news from legacy media. This misconception, the "print newspapers are dying" narrative, is so prevalent that even the journalists believe it.  But, as the Ramen Noodles Theory goes, the more money/time we have to spend, the more we will indulge in steak...ahem, I mean, tradition media. 

I ran across an article that asked an interesting question: How are traditional, analog watchmakers surviving the digital age?

You know the kind: Rolex, Tag Heuer. Expensive, handmade pieces of craftsmanship that are passed down for generations and become “heirlooms.” They last. But with a phone glued to your hand and time displayed on every screen all around us…what is the point of dropping a grand on a watch?  Steak.  That’s why.  This product, as the author puts it, “tells the time but is timeless.”

 

"These days, nobody needs a watch to know the time. Time is all around us, displayed on every computer, phone and microwave oven. The Swiss watchmakers realize this. They market their mechanical watches as not only accurate but also deeply symbolic. For those willing to spend $30,000, a traditional Swiss watch marks its owner as a man or woman who appreciates quality, artistry and ingenuity,” Clive Thompson for the New York Times writes.

When the Apple watch came out, the industry froze in panic.  Will this mark the end of the industry? they quickly recovered. The author writes “Much of the allure, of course, was Apple’s famously elegant design...the watch is a smaller version of an iPhone, essentially.” The article points out the limitations of the Apple Watch: one being, you have to charge it every night.  Another, the digi-layout suggests that at some point, people don’t appreciate it as much as an expensive piece of wrist candy that lasts longer.  So Swiss watchmakers countered with the opposite: a smartwatch that retains the elegance of a handmade, analog product.

Here’s how it functions: "Instead, it would combine the functions of a Fitbit, a device that tracks physical activity (or more), with a traditional Swiss timepiece, a $1,200 entry-level Frédérique Constant watch.” And “In pursuing an analog design, they hit upon an intriguing concept. Using the phone app, the owner can set an activity goal, like 8,000 steps for a day. Then the watch displays how close you are to meeting it, using the hand on a small, secondary dial: At 2,000 steps, for example, the hand would point to 3 o’clock, signifying 25 percent. Eventually, the dial could quantify all sorts of data: How full is your inbox? How close is your friend to arriving at the restaurant?... This approach is superior to the blunt accuracy of a screen. A watch hand is “glanceable,” as he puts it, because it’s only semi-accurate; we peek at an analog wall clock to get a general sense of the time of day, not a precise one.”

But people, like with the paper vs. online debate, assume that digital watches will take over the world and analog will die.  Swiss watchmakers disagree- they anticipate a spike in profits.  As Apple-Watch-Wearers get more used to checking the time on their wrist, they will learn to appreciate the rich, full, steak-like feeling of wearing a mechanical, analog watch (especially one with additional digi-smart-features.)

Can the same be said for online news? Can well done online news spike a newfound interest in news and current events in Generation Y and Millennials, causing them to appreciate traditional formats?  Something to think about.

The "Top 40's" of News

Child of the Top 40's: Growing up, every child from the Dallas area knew 106.1 Kiss FM.  When the jingle came on and the commercials ended, you knew you were about to hear the newest Brittany Spears song or chart topping Backstreet Boys tune. And in the age where iTunes was only in its infant stages, it was difficult to find music outside of those 40 familiar hits that played on most every radio station on loop. Just as the author of “The Long Tail Economy” states, we were “subjected to brain-dead summer blockbusters and manufactured pop. Why? Economics.”  I was completely unaware of the labyrinth of punk rock and rap and jazz that I would eventually fill my head…until I got an iPod.  From then on out, my iTunes library expanded along with my horizons.  It housed the soundtrack of my life as I grew up. The author continues, explaining that many of us finally wandered “further from the beaten path, they discover their taste is not as mainstream as they thought.” But I never would have thought that my random scattered taste in music would be the main moneymaker.  Didn’t top 40’s hits still rule the music world? That is why they are hits?

Chris Anderson’s article about the “long tail” economy completely caught me off guard. He claims, “If the 20th- century entertainment industry was about hits, the 21st will be equally about misses,” due to one main evolution: we are now free from the chains of physical space. Before, we operated in a world of entertainment scarcity, only watching what the Blockbuster would stock and listening to the CD’s Target deemed high earners. Anderson says, “now, with online distribution and retail, we are entering a world of abundance.” And in that abundance—every under-the-radar book series and underground band—lies the big money.  

Adult in the Online News Age: So as a journalist, my next question was…how do news outlets take advantage of these long-tail profits? If you believe in traditional reporting, our content is not necessarily new or unique but rather cold, hard, unchanging facts. But, similar to the entertainment industry, we are no longer confined to the physical space of newspaper layouts or limited one hour newscasts. Readers can click to the next article endlessly.  They start reading the headline and end up watching a video of a panda bear hugging an elephant baby in a zoo in a far away city. 

The Journal of Media Economics published a study (http://dct.nctu.edu.tw/files/faculty_files/fct_15/Huang_2014a.pdf) that discusses how content diversity, niche content, and filtering drove up traffic on news sites. For example, USA Today has over 459 content categories to choose from. They cited one study that surveyed "five mediums’ top 10 news stories and found that 40% of the top stories on news sites were not covered by newspapers, network television, cable television. (2010, http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/92/3/700.full.pdf+html). 

Is this the same phenomenon as the long-tail in the entertainment industry? Are mainstream news sites covering hits while alternative sites with filters and subcategories and niche content really attracting more readers and viewers? And what does this say about the future of news.  Are people just not interested in what has traditionally made headlines? These were all questions that "The Long Tail Economy" raised. And these are the questions that journalists like myself will have to begin to answer.