tohell

Do you still pay for a cable or satellite TV service?

I don’t. I stopped quite a while ago. The point came when I asked myself: “Why am I paying for people to advertise at me, and to try and fill me with propaganda?”.

Now I look at things as… if someone or a service is going to advertise to me, that is the charge. My TIME is the charge, the opportunity to tempt me is the charge, it is the currency with which I pay. And if the style, length, or annoyance of the advertising is beyond the value of the service or content… see ya!

That’s hardly revolutionary I know… but quitting paying for TV on that basis is the current revolution. It’s the onset of not a new business model, but a freeing up business model. I would pay for TV channels i like, if there were no adverts.

Many of us do… with Netflix. The curiosity is if Netflix ever decide to inject advertising into their subscription service. I for one would dump it in a heartbeat.

I am sick of advertising, desensitized and cynical. I hope we are moving into an age of selection of how we pay - time or cash. Advertised to OR subscription. Google or Netflix. To my mind… both together are not acceptable as it makes the product of little value.

Like you I’m sure, I am tired of lazy internet headlines offering fear dressed up as insight on tired subjects.

I’m going to do a little series of articles about common articles.

That’s right. I am going to get Meta:

Violent Video Games Have Harmful Effects on Children.

This is a pet favourite of mine.

Ever seen this headline?

“Parents That Buy Violent Video Games For Children Harm Children”.

Of course not.

We have had the discussion of violent media since media began, most notably in the 80’s with movies. The result? A system that gives ratings on media as a guide to parents.

The problem isn’t violent video games, the problem is people being stuck in the mindset that video games are solely for kids. The fact that the majority of video game players are in fact in their early thirties, and that’s who most games are designed for, is willfully ignored.

The problem is willfully misunderstood by the media as a whole for attention grabbing fear mongering headlines.

The Internet Is Shortening Our Attention Spans.

Inevitably this article is only a paragraph long and surrounded by advertising banners.

What is killing attention span for articles is the advertising business model. The click through model. You’re reading this, you’re smart, so you already know the results. My point is more that people do want more long form material to get their teeth into, metrics just hasn’t shown that - it’s metrics from one specific playground. When people are surfing, they aren’t as a rule looking for engrossment - they are looking for headlines or a quick laugh or whatever fills the gaps.  People are generally jumping between a few things at once, maybe waiting for something or keeping some dialogues going in different forms… surfing is essentially a fluid experience.

Of course, people do read long form articles on computers - as I said, it’s a fluid experiance.

The form that will change things will be the Ebook style reader. A form factor dedicated to just reading. When you want to be engrossed in reading matter, you reach for it. Then I’m sure people will work out that short form isn’t the only form that people want to consume - it will be a mix.

The other thing is video of course, and the reason video is short on the internet is… bandwith and storage for the first 5 years of the internet was crap, the next five years it has improved. The reason videos are getting longer now is technology is improving. The good news is, same as for journalism and writing, the short form has been revisited and worked upon giving as a greater range of entertainment and information forms.

As a one liner… if the internet is killing attention spans, how come kids are spending so much time playing their favorite violent video game?

The Blog is Killing Journalism.

Like fuck it is. And here is the reason - Market Forces.

Journalism, good journalism is not just wanted, it is a required by society. You will always get the crap, however to assume Journalism as a form will die just because technology has changed is a bit weird. Printing became cheaper and the rise of the schlock journalism and entertainment magazines and papers rose, but to suggest people do not want “real” journalism is patronising. These rags did not kill time magazine, the Wall Street Journal or The Guardian or whatever.

It is true, anyone has a platform. Including me. If you are this far into reading this you are reading something by someone not getting paid to write. No adverts on this page. No contract to write anything… and here is the thing: No editor.

I’m writing this and I have no editor. No one to fact check, no one to bounce this back telling me it sucks. No one correcting my spelling, or researching my facts to ensure I am correct.

You can’t trust me. I don’t have a pedigree. I don’t have a researcher and I do not have an editor. (Disclosure: There is an affiliate link coming.)

I don’t have a pedigree. That’s the thing. Sure people will click on a headline, but people as a whole aren’t stupid. If you want to keep informed on a subject or news as a whole, you are only going to follow a blog or website you trust to get it’s facts right, or consistently provides educated analysis.

It’s wild west right now, but things are evolving, but the rules of journalism still apply even if the way it’s transmitted is changing. People simply do not want to be ill informed.

Google wants to know everything about you.

This comes in a few forms, but it’s always a privacy thing - that’s a great way to keep people paranoid and grab attention for that click. The attention grab is about making Google giving us free stuff for ulterior evil motives opposite to their “Don’t Be Evil” slogan.

Here is the thing though. Google has almost the perfect capitalist business model in the truest sense of the idea of capitalism. Googles business model is based around finding the information you want as quickly and accurately as possible.

If Google gets you to the best page on the subject you are searching for, the better targeted the adverts on that page (Chances are the page is using Google adverts) you find are. If you use their services, they have the chance to serve you ads themselves.

The best information and general take on Googles business model I have found is real journalists Jeff Jarvis’ book “What Would Google Do.”.

Now, Google use broad information to better inform them how to do this.

The latest is Google doing their own DNS service. People are of course worried that Google then have a hold on even more specific information about you.

Two things on this:

1. Do you trust your ISP with this information more than Google?

2. Do you think Google really want specific info on you?

The first is a no brainer. We go back to trust and pedigree.

The second one is not so simple, but I offer this uneducated but observational piece of thinking:

The amount of money, and time it would cost Google in subpoenas would be INSANE if they started holding any detail information on us. Then the pedigree of trust would be destroyed and would kill Googles business. If a government organisation could obtain records of you from google, no matter how honest a citizen you are, do you want that?* More to the point would you trust any company to have good enough security to store that information safely?

They are effectively trapped in the aim of being basically good by their business model.

That OF COURSE doesn’t mean anyone should simply trust Google. They are a corporation looking to make as much money as possible. Usual rules apply. I’m just questioning the levels of paranoia.

To my mind Google is not so much as a possible Cruella De Vil, but more of a possible Cyberdyne Systems.

*
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time… we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act…” —Google CEO Eric Schmidt, in 2009.

@ian_wright

Terry Pratchett (via adtothebone)

Wow. Some news today!

You have probably heard about the death rattle of Favrd.com by now. Unfortunately, the end of this popular website has started a chain reaction through the technorati of personal publishing and then the web in general.

The first casualty I’m sorry to break to you is Twitter. The guys behind Twitter don’t like people outside the original user base clique using the sevice, or the fact Facebook is doing well and attracting many users. So rather than putting some effort in, they are shutting the site down and blaming it on all the people that have a user name more than four letters long.

Next, I’m afraid Tumblr are shutting up shop due to too many people using their service that don’t have the ability to take screenshots on their iPhone. Also they are citing the fact that people use their platform for blogging and gaining recognition… and frankly, people can not be trusted with that.

Twitpic are rumored next to bail, after rumblings that they are unimpressed with young ladies taking pictures of breasts to put on the internet. Soon they are to put a statement out explaining they simply just can’t trust the general public to use their service wisely, and turn the website off.

Google are in high level management talks, sick of the fact that the majority of searches on their popular self titled search engine are in fact for pornography. They feel that people using their service to search for porn is debasing them, and since they don’t respect people for searching for porn, it’s time to close down.

In their closing down statement Google are expected to acknowledge people can search the internet from other sources, but encourage people to ask their friends if they know of a good article on their chosen subject rather than use another search engine… and if they come accross a good article, write the author a little note saying thank you rather than using the comments section. After all, nothing warms the heart of a web author more than having 200+ emails a day saying “Great article - thanks” and explaining why they enjoyed exactly what the person crafted for them to enjoy.

@ian_wright

Elbow… and Guy Harvey, probably the most underrated songwriter the UK has.

Worth skipping the thirty second count for the quality…

You won’t have heard of Terris. They (Weirdly) toured with Coldplay early on in the UK, and stunning live performances and a kick arse demo led to the NME over-hyping them to death before they recorded their first album.  The album came, it was awesome but it was raw.. and didn’t live up to the NME hype.

Nothing could have matched the hype generated by that over respected piece if trash.

Thus they disappeared into obscurity and the second album never came.

Coldplay, of course, managed to take all that was good about themselves and discard it for a vanilla, yet lucrative international music career.

Fugazi. To this day they inspire my awe.

@ian_wright

I don’t really talk or tweet about the whole star and favstar/favrd favoring thing but i have a point of view and a few minutes to wax a little lyrical .

I think they are actually helping the evolution of people placing so much value on how many followers someone has towards how good the content is. It also makes people care who follows them. When it comes to Favstar and the follower/stars ratio, If i don’t block spammers and marketers my follower count artificially inflates… but my ratio’s drop. No doubt people will try and beat the system but there is no point blocking non starring people because the RT still has huge value. Basically, if you take pride in what your doing with twitter there is an element of reward generated by peers rather than just a popularity contest won by cleavage avatars and TV/Movie personalities. There is always going to be a popularity contest, but only if you choose to play, and Twitter seems to be evolving with the stars thing kicked of by Favrd and followed up tenaciously by favstar.

Of course, the already famous coming to Twitter as well as the link-bait bloggers and so on are, or will be, realising the new values and getting followers to star stuff… but the real instinct to hit that key or click the mouse over and over again comes from seeing a something of worth, wether it’s an insight or something that makes you chuckle. Or even better, both. It’s going to be hard for the media douche to consistently get people to do that without sounding needy.

Then of course there is the fact Favstar is aware for the site to continue providing the value it does, he needs to keep the douche nonsense down… fact is, if people stop finding the cool, the clever, the insightful, the informative and the funny but just link-bait and bland TV personalities then it all falls down. Favstar is continually avoiding the latter and is a delight to find great people with.

This bodes, in my not very weighty, opinion of good things for those that enjoy and take pride in the Twitter.

@Ian_wright

Ian Wright