Not so convergent
Talking about “convergence” is like talking about “the war on terror.” They’re two incredibly broad terms with unforeseeable outcomes. Convergence has been vogue for a while and I’m a little skeptical about its usage to describe media convergence. At this years SXSW, for the first time, someone summed up what I’ve been trying to understand.
When I think of convergence I do so in terms of the classic media outlets converging with the Internet. There is a lot of convergence rhetoric at my job and in the field of news. Advertising is also experiencing the pains of understanding what the web is and how to leverage it. Convergence seems more like a trojan horse to me, creeping into peoples minds making them think it will deliver harmony between old and new. It’s just not true.
Its not about media convergence. I love that idea, it's something you listen to along time. I don't know how many guys in the movie business and TV business are always telling me that some day the Internet will grow up and be more like TV and movies which are real businesses, unlike the Internet. You know they don't converge. Broadband eats everything. It eats the living daylights out of it.
— Bruce Sterling
While old media tries to “converge” over the next few years we’re going to see more Salon’s, Newsvine’s, and Digg’s take over. They’ll do so because they don’t have to change old minds. The Google / Viacom battle will be nothing short of entertaining. This is how the old always dies off, clinging to what they know and understand.
Remarks
Jeff Croft http://jeffcroft.com
The problem with the term “convergence” is that it means so many things to so many people that it really means nothing at all. Just like “Web 2.0,” it’s nothing more than a buzzword these days, with no real clear meaning.
To me, interactive media is converged media. I like “convergence,” as long as by “convergence” we mean my definition of the word. :)
Nathan Borror http://www.playgroundblues.com
To me, interactive media is converged media.
Most forward thinking Internet properties seem to be born out of the Internet rather than out of old media. So how is interactive media converged media and how do you define convergence?
Jeff Croft http://jeffcroft.com
Most forward thinking Internet properties seem to be born out of the Internet rather than out of old media.
It’s true that most seem to be. But not all. And I think, over time, we’ll find that traditional media properties become more and more adept at the Internet. And, they’ll have their long-standing, trusted brands to build upon.
I’m not saying there won’t be new, Internet-only media companies that become household names — there will be. But, I don’t see any reason traditional media companies can’t be part of, too, as long as they start hiring the right people and listening to what they have to say.
So how is interactive media converged media and how do you define convergence?
To me, “convergence” simply means taking advantage of the broadband/internet medium and it’s unique ability to take all sorts of content (textual, visual, aural, motion, interactive, etc, etc, etc.) and combine them into one storytelling mechanism. Whereby books are primary text, TV is primarily video, and radio is primary audio, I see “converged” media as that which is not primary anything. It’s everything combined, to form an entirely new medium.
James Bennett http://www.b-list.org/
Well, it’s pretty obvious at this point that “big media” doesn’t get it.
It’s gonna take a few of them going out of business to wake the rest up, I think.
Nathan Borror http://www.playgroundblues.com
Agreed. The trick is, as you said, getting the habit ridden old media folks to open up and listen. If they don’t they will get passed up by the incredibly fast pace of the Broadband machine.
Remarks are closed.
Remarks have been close for this post.