How Awkward Is It When Old Media Tries To Get New Media?

from the shuffle-uncomfortably-now dept

While Terry Semel gets credit for successfully making the jump from an "old media" guy to a "new media" guy -- he really had to leave that old media environment for it to happen. It seems that those who are trying to reinvent older media companies into new media companies may still have some work to do. We've already noted that Rupert Murdoch may be getting a bit too much credit (or at least premature credit) for crafting a new media strategy, but he's not the only one. Part of Murdoch's strategy, clearly, is to try to build a new MTV online, but the old MTV is trying to do that too. Business Week is running a cover story, which talks about how Murdoch's purchase of MySpace woke MTV up to the fact that they needed to change for the digital era. While it seems a bit late for them to realize that, it's not clear that their early steps are in the right direction just yet. The guy who's been brought in to make MTV digital comes up with this bit of wisdom: "The Internet is no longer about text. It's about video. We produce and own more video than anybody." It's not clear the internet was ever about text. It was, and has been, all about communication between people. Not about broadcast style media -- whether text, video or something else. If MTV's new focus is just on providing broadcast-style video online they're missing the point of the internet. Update: The same guy is quoted on a panel today talking about how media and tech companies are completely different and will never be the same.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 4:37am

    All about video?

    I hate this new video video video trend. I can read an article faster than I can watch a video. Sure video is good for some things, like buying a video on iTunes for my iPod. But I hate people trying to pin down one thing that the internet is all about. it's about getting information quickly and easily. I don't need some crappy movie that takes forever to load or uses some codec I don't have to do that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Paul, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 4:42am

    Re: All about video?

    I agree and also think it's about shear extreme laziness. People wanting to do even less than they already do. Why spend that pesky time reading when you can just click a link and sit back and watch it instead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Wolfger, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 5:21am

    Re: All about video?

    Amen to the codec complaint. There is so much (too much?) video on the net these days, that it's absolutely ridiculous for there not to be one standard video codec that is compatible with all browsers and operating systems. But we're a long way off from that pipe dream, and moving in the wrong direction. As old-media moves to the internet, their #1 concern, it seems, is not getting content to the consumer but rather using proprietary and DRM-laden protocols to make things far more difficult than they ought to be. CBS trying to rent 24-hour downloads is a prime example of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Johnnie Knoxville, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 5:43am

    well screw you all

    Well screw you all, I think video rocks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    martin, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 5:52am

    Re: well screw you all

    well you would johnnie

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Tyson, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 7:17am

    Re: All about video?

    Amen to the codec complaint. There is so much (too much?) video on the net these days, that it's absolutely ridiculous for there not to be one standard video codec that is compatible with all browsers and operating systems. But we're a long way off from that pipe dream, and moving in the wrong direction. As old-media moves to the internet, their #1 concern, it seems, is not getting content to the consumer but rather using proprietary and DRM-laden protocols to make things far more difficult than they ought to be. CBS trying to rent 24-hour downloads is a prime example of that.

    I have to agree. When are these companies going to realize that no matter what they do, once something is in a digital format, it can be pirated. No matter how smart or creative your DRM is, someone is always smarter and will be able to hack it. Companies need to work towards making their products convenient (ie standardized codecs, easy download access, etc) and cheaper. If it is easier for me to pay for the content (and it is reasonably priced) than it is for my to pirate it, then of course I would buy it.

    Companies need to realize that the Internet, and digital content, is here to stay and they need to find ways to use it to their advantage. This is a much better alternative to pissing all of your customers off *cough* Sony *cough*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    BWGunner, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 7:33am

    Wake up, already

    It isn't Codecs, folks, and it isn't players. It's the Flash plug-in and that's all there is to it. www.youtube.com is allowing my company to do what we could never do internally (host video with any real bandwidth or expertise) and the format issue is gone. I upload whatever, and it comes back as FLV, which runs in any browser with a newer Flash plug-in, from their server, embedded in my pages. Problem solved. Google video holds similar promise in defeating Codec issues and providing the service for free.

    Video is just as important as layout design and good writing...none are replacements for the other, but each augments the other.

    To the writer: The word "Internet" is a proper noun. Capitalize it or stop trying to write about tech. I don't believe you if you can't follow the known conventions of the medium. A quick primer: email not e-mail, website not web site or Web site, and Gif pronounced Jif. :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Don Gray, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 8:13am

    Re: Wake up, already


    Wow. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

    I went to your website. The mid 90's called. They want their design back.

    Oh and nice .mov files on your site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    hexjones, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 8:14am

    Re: Wake up, already

    BWGunner, You had an interesting point until you started lecturing on Proper Uses of Internet Nomenclature.

    english is a living language

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Feb 10th, 2006 @ 8:40am

    Re: Wake up, already

    To the writer: The word "Internet" is a proper noun. Capitalize it or stop trying to write about tech. I don't believe you if you can't follow the known conventions of the medium. A quick primer: email not e-mail, website not web site or Web site, and Gif pronounced Jif. :-)

    Actually, there's quite a bit of disagreement over whether or not internet should be capitalized -- and, in fact, certain publications (such as Wired) recently changed their own stylebook to have it lowercase.

    So, to say that everyone must follow your way of writing English is a bit silly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Joe Snuffy, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 9:02am

    Re: Wake up, already

    i like enternet

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    The Buggles, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 9:26am

    No Subject Given

    New media killed the old media stars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    BWGunner, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 9:40am

    Re: Wake up, already

    Why in the world did I put a URL for an old and worthless site that doesn't apply to the conversation? Stupidity. But the 90's comment was dead-on. [blush]

    I stand corrected on the internet and have updated my style guides, thank you.

    Google's video features are pretty amazing, all. We've been testing all week and see no reason to pay for streaming hosting anymore. Crazy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 9:59am

    Re: Wake up, already

    ^^^ ZOMG!! Jew just got pOw3nd by teh inter-net's alphab3t p0l1c3!

    (notice how I capitalized "Jew", as it is a proper noun-abbreviation for "Jewish")

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Wake up, already

    "I don't believe you if you can't follow the known conventions of the medium... website not web site or Web site..."

    Hmmm? So according to you, Tim Berners-Lee has been wrong all these years? Damn. Let us know how he takes the news...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Agonizing Fury, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Wake up, already

    Yes do please wake up. I for one am unable to play flash movies. Why? Because I keep that stupid stuff off my browser. It never fails that as soon as I cave in and install Flash again, I go to a web page trying to read the content and this huge flash with no close or minimize covers up the text and moves every time I move the screen. If there is ever a flash plugin that has the option of forcing a flash document to stay within it's boundaries as described by the webpage, then I might think about using it again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2006 @ 10:29pm

    Re: Wake up, already

    Actually you can complain about floating ads with no "close button". Just send an email to the company. Floating ads are supposed to always have a way to close it.

    BTW, flash is a great tool. Don't blame the tool, blame the designer. Also, those ads keep the pages you read free of cost for you so stop whining.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Gaines, Feb 13th, 2006 @ 4:30am

    Re: Wake up, already

    Actually, it wasn't the tool he was blaming so much as the player and it's lack of control over how it plays content. For some reason he doesn't feel he should be at the mercy of the site's designer.

    To try to dismiss his complaints as "whining" is petty. What keeps those ads paying for the pages we read is...the fact we see the ads. It's actually to everyone's advantage that issues such as this are discussed because as long as people avoid installing flash, they do not see the advertisements and the advertiser has less incentive to support the site with revenue.

    Summary: constructive criticism = better tools = more usage = more ad exposure = more site revenue

    unproductive posts and insults = ...absoulutely nothing helpful

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Polo Outlet, Aug 6th, 2011 @ 1:34am

    Polo Outlet

    Your article swept me away with its vast information and great writing. Thank you for sharing your views with such passion. I like your views.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This