This is pretty much what I've been advocating for the new advertising agency business model in my post over here and first aired over here. Its gets simpler the more I see people explain what I'm trying to attempt as it becomes more self evident of where we are heading.
Roughly speaking, ditch the interruptive messaging and get experimental/useful/collaborative across lots and lots of relevant communities in Lo Fi - Also be prepared to fail plenty and as a consequence succeed more demonstrably by embracing the upside of risk. Lo Fi is the new Hi Fi. Collective participation is more authentic than corporate brand synthesis. As audiences get smarter, the big switch comes closer. Its just a matter of time.
By way of the impressive Johnnie Moore
It all sounds terribly persuasive and seductive. It has that realy attractiveness, but Charles, I have a bit of a problem...
ReplyDeleteI don't want the public to choose the news that I watch. The news - what is important enough to make it to the 22 minutes a night of broadcast - is too important to be left to the "wisdom of crowds". Crowds aren't wise, they're often pretty dumb - interesting for we comms folk to predict and lead at best (or follow at worst). But as trustworthy creators and editors of that which is constiuted as "significant news", I'm sorry but I don't but it.
The paper that I choose to read day in day out is full of well-written, well produced, balanced news. I believe most of it (that from a man who works in PR is saying something, I spend my days trying to influence it). But even so, it has been professionally produced to standards of partiality, of balance and fact-check.
Most of the blogging that I read has little of that. Jeff is a great journalist, but there aren't that many out there willing or able to go it alone.
We need to maintain professionalism in our media, not try to do away with it. Yes, it's great when we have a professional media that embraces the opportunities that are offered by community and grass-roots news-gathering and opinion sharing - cf. The Guardian as the best that I can think of.
But burn down the TV stations? No - as there is more opinion expressed, as more ever-more disparate voices have access to media channels, we need the stations to make sense of the noise more than ever, I believe.
How that relates to the point that you are making about the new advertising, I'm not really sure, but I watched the clip that you put up and got quite cross.
That said, I feel better for a vent.
Hello James. Well thanks for that response because I love a few views that are counter to my own. I am however in a really feisty mood so here goes
ReplyDeleteYou say “I don't want the public to choose the news that I watch”.
I guess this means you are content with news that is selected for you. I don’t know what size spoon you need for this but let me tell you I’ve had it with the cult of the professional. I’ll give you a strong example. Why is it that an American life is worth twice the news of a European life? Why is that European life worth twice that of a Russian life? Why that a Russian life is is worth twice that of an Asian life? And why is that an Asian life is worth twice that of an African life? I’ll tell you why because those professionals who spoon feed your news for you are able to distinguish between the news that is worth more but are seemingly unable to distinguish between the news that MEANS more. But hey. If that is how you like your news then who am I to question that. If you don’t understand my point its very simple. I don’t give a flying fuck about a bridge collapsing in the U.S. with a few deaths. I couldn’t care less about a guy shooting a few people in his Finnish school. They are meaningless to me. I do however CARE when a bomb goes off in a market place killing 150 people and it only makes the news for one night. I do care that if I’m buying vegetables in a Baghdad market, the whole world turns into a flying burger patty party. That is the news James.
I don’t accept your point about newspapers being impartial either. I read the Telegraph and The Guardian because I can only work out the truth by understanding the agendas of the two papers. They are both riddled with bias. Worse than that its fine for the chattering classes like ourselves to take the high ground with our news content but most people read the Sun or other Tabloids and as I was listening just this weekend, Rupert Murdoch TELLS his editors what the news will be. Don’t tell me that this guy doesn’t have an agenda outside of money. The only thing he understands is money and power. This is the reason why Murdoch never gives a bean to charity and only figured out when the polar caps are melting that global warming is an issue. The rest of us have been using our senses to determine if we have a problem.
Right. Rant over. I’m feeling better now
Hey Charles. Thought that might get you a wee bit grumpy ...!
ReplyDeleteListen, I agree with what you want to achieve in large part.
And I completely agree with most of your comments about media bias - indeed (and I am no Americ-o-phile), if you solely watched the UK media, you'd think that every Yank was a gun-toting, hamburger munching imbecile. Even the BBC's US editor admitted that the they had got the agenda wrong.
But I also don't believe that, if you throw open the news to the general public (asking the world and its wife what they think is important and deserves time and attention, as suggested in the clip), that you will get anywhere nearer to your vision.
Maybe I don't have the necessary faith in the average consumer of media, but I am just not convinced that sufficient numbers would "vote" for more coverage of bombings in Iraq night after night, over another 20 minutes devoted to that cute puppy in Doncaster that has learnt how to paint ...
Hey James. I'm not suggesting that the people should decide the news, but I do think that a large group of peoples views are just as valid as those editors who are paid to be a mouthpiece or not upset their masters.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside I love the U.S. and its because they have so lost their way that I'm unhappy with what is going on their. Its been a long hard time living with the Bush years. Its made me quite unhappy.