It's a chicken and egg thing.
I wonder which changed which. The media landscape has changed greatly through the years and at a very rapid pace, I must say. The audience, too.
I wonder whether media is altering the way viewers think or viewers are forcing to change the way media works. Pardon my very personal case in point. The program which I am part of launched October last year. Since then, it has undergone at least three minor re-formats. I would always protest in silence, "what the hell do they want?"
Take the evolution of the Pinoy "teleserye," for example. Before we know it, it has evolved into a sine-novela, drama-serye, fanta-serye, etc. And who would have thought that you can play around with the presentation of News in a lot of ways. Say what you want about TMZ but reputable news organizations are taking cue from its "interesting" manner of news gathering.
The fragmentation they say is a result of technology. This technology encourages people to narrow their consumption of media so that their specific interests are targeted. Online news sites for example are becoming increasingly popular and increasingly a threat to mainstream news organizations. The audience is now more specific and selective.
There are a couple of disadvantages to that of course. For one, there is a greater chance that other important things are missed and taken for granted, but there is also comfort in knowing that at least the audiences now know what they want.
As the audience becomes fragmented, so does media. And there is wisdom and beauty in this.
In many ways, fragmentation is bringing about varied presentations and perspectives. Because of this, fresh techniques in positioning and marketing are also discovered.
This should be good for media industries in the long run. Though this increases cost, it also widens options and provides more opportunities. There is no single source of everything now. There is no single or right way of presentation.
Fortunately, there are different ways of figuring out what the audiences want. We now have ratings and similar studies, FGD's, social media, etc. Media industries are now aware that they cannot stand still, they cannot be complacent, and they have got to listen.
Which changed which? It doesn't matter, I guess. Change has been good and necessary anyway. It is this change that makes the media relevant and the choices of the audience important.
" Say what you want about TMZ but reputable news organizations are taking cue from its "interesting" manner of news gathering."
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of The Daily Show featuring Jon Stewart. I was able to watch snippets of it and I think it's a great concept. If you haven't seen it, it's kinda like a news program mixed with satire and comedy. If you have, then yay! :D
Anywhooo, what I really wanted to comment on is this:
"This technology encourages people to narrow their consumption of media so that their specific interests are targeted...The audience is now more specific and selective. "
I totally agree with this! Gone are the days when you had to watch what was on TV because you had no other choice. Now, if I wanted to watch a specific show, even if my cable provider didn't offer it, I could just look it up on YouTube or download it somewhere. I can exclusively select the roster of shows I want to watch, much like creating a "personal TV network."
Just as what Sir Beaver pointed out in class, these days, people can survive without television sets. I think fragmentation happens not just in the content, but also in the way in which people want to receive their media products. I know a lot of people who prefer watching shows on their laptops just because this affords them the option of rewinding or fast-forwarding. Same goes with the recent shift of interests from watching movies in the theaters to home cinemas.
'As the audience becomes fragmented, so does media. And there is wisdom and beauty in this.'
ReplyDeleteI agree. Change is inevitable. Media is still relevant because of its never-ending evolution. Other channels of media may cause disrupt to the traditional means of info dissemination and entertainment, but these new means are also creating a healthy competition. Creative minds are challenged, so the audience is given more options.
I must say that rapid changes are simultaneous with regards to viewers' preferences and media. And in this age of information, viewers have so much power to choose which medium are they going to use, thus, production people particularly on TV are all under pressure to come up with the most creative idea to present their media content to pamper the taste of televiewers. Or else, they will switch to other kind of medium...
ReplyDeleteSo as Heraclitus aphorism goes, 'You cannot step into the same river twice' or better put it 'the world is in a constant flux', so to with media landscape that we find them in constant flux. I agree that media a how we perceive them changes and still there are constantly changing.
ReplyDeleteIn television for instance we can see how corporate industries tries to do many means and ways to cater the needs of the audience. StarWorld for instance has branched out further in programming by adding more of their channels in cable, such as Star Movies, Fox Crime, Fox Channel and others. Even the locals are into such trend such as Solar Entertainment corporation branching out more entertainment channels like BTV, ETC, Solar Sports and others in order to have more fan base and maintain good popularity rates.
Even in the internet. Google has Youtube and Orkut. Having variety of sites enables the company to have more people tuning in to their websites. Own more, you get more (people).
Acquiring more forms of entertainment certainly puts you up front from others. Competition is fierce, creative juices flow as most of us would put it. It's never a cakewalk but can be fulfilling in the end once you accomplish your sets of goals.
-MJ Ramos
"Fortunately, there are different ways of figuring out what the audiences want. We now have ratings and similar studies, FGD's, social media, etc. Media industries are now aware that they cannot stand still, they cannot be complacent, and they have got to listen."
ReplyDeleteThis is so true. While "The Force" within media industries are undoubtedly strong, it doesn't mean that they have to bask in this certain glory. You're so correct when you said they must not be complacent and they have to know the wants and needs of their audiences.
Because of the advent of social networking sites, I think this has been quite an easy task for media industries, because just by monitoring the reactions of participants, they are able to find out just what the audiences are looking for.