Gerrit's MCDM Blog

Does does not equal free – scarcity does

gerritmcdm — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:48:46 +0000

Harper’s Senior Editor Bill Wasik’s believes that shorter content will always be free. While it is true that shorter content will more likely be free I believe that it is scarcity, not size, that will ultimately determine whether something is free or not.

Whenever there is demand for something that cannot be gotten elsewhere for free people will charge. The larger the content, whether a media production or an edited assemblage of text and multimedia into a quality e-book, the more likely it is to be scarce and thus Wasik’s generalization. But there will always be instances where longer content is common and thus will be free and shorter content is scarce and will be charged for. There will also likely be a threshold of quality in both large and small content above which people will be willing to pay.

So its scarcity, not size, that will ultimately create value measurable in dollars.

Should Hulu charge

gerritmcdm — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:13:19 +0000

Who and what will people pay for quality content and what should broadcast outfits like CBS provide for free? these are questions currently being debated and for which there is probably no single answer that will define the future. As teh world of the internet and cable TV delivery inevitably collide these industries will be in a constant state of flux with both content providers and service providers vying for shares of the final outcome. Content providers would do well to focus on monetizing their share of consumers attention as much as possible as the playing field moves further and further toward a level state. Rather than focusing on future models companies should look at what will work today and be constantly at the ready to change things tomorrow as the market dictates. Content providers should look at each of their products individually and determine a strategy for each rather than trying to build a model that works for everything. In that vein, if Hulu can make money TODAY by charging for content they shoud, as it may become less and less likely that they will be able to in the future as more and more free options become available. People are probably much more likely to pay for a show they are attached to than one they have to pay for and have never seen. In order for broadcast companies to charge in a future where teh television and internet merge it seems inevitable that they will at least have to build brand (show) loyalty by offering free content and then try to charge for it. Until then they should look at each product individually and make the most of it – charge or not – in the changing landscape.

Images and narrative

gerritmcdm — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:05:58 +0000

How often does some one tell a story or describe an amazing event and follow with “I guess you had to be there” when their audience is less than impressed. With images you CAN take someone there in a way that you cannot with words. Just like pictures cannot tell the whole story, the written or spoken narrative is missing something as well – it is left to your mind to create the picture. We think in pictures and in words. Ryan quotes Varga’s statement that, “The image is not a way of telling the tale, but of evoking it”. I argue that telling a tale is also a way of evoking an image. Each form provides details that the other cannot. Each from has holes within which your imagination provides the details. In the same way that illustrations can evoke preexisting narrative, narrative without illustrations can evoke preexisting images or illustrations.

I recently produced a multimedia piece utilizing still images to tell the story of a disease that is decimating bats in the eastern United States. The story could not be told in words or images alone without losing something. Both pieces were essential. The story could not be effectively communicated with one medium or the other.

You can see the video here. Could this story be told as effectively without images?

Digital Media and Me

gerritmcdm — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:34:59 +0000

This is a work in progress…

My interest in the UW’s MCDM program originally stemmed from two things: The place that I work doesn’t know what they’re doing when it comes to new modes of communication and presenting information. And my long ambition of becoming a full-time conservation photographer which has become exponentially more difficult in the digital age.

I work for the Cornell Lab of Ornithology which is a large non-profit biodiversity conservation organization that is part of Cornell University. We have a plethora of web sites and different portals for an array of programs – some of which are excellent and others that are not. Some are excellent but no one can find them. We are largely a trusted, world wide provider of information and thus need to be at the cutting edge when it comes to how best to present information. What I have seen over the years is that no one in the leadership positions seems to have a good strategy for this – not because they are not smart hard-working people but they just don’t know where the answers are – no one seems to.

In the world of non-profits resources are generally too precious to throw at problems and hope something works but I see non-profits doing this repeatedly. I felt like someone needed to look at this problem and thought I’d give it a go. I see real potential for building a non-profit that basically serves other non-profits in this area and leverages combined resources of multiple non-profits facing the same issues.

Another facet to this is the use of media, particularly still photographs. Since photos have become virtually free from Flikr and staff, non-profits are increasingly using poorer quality media to promote their messages. For me this has been a problem as a photographer but I also think its a problem in general because stronger media (I think) has a more powerful effect on viewers. I’d like to look at the role that quality plays in influencing and inspiring people.

In the realm of creating a non-profit communications organization that caters to this audience I also think their are great opportunities to pool resources of groups working on similar issues to produce quality content for them as a group. Right now groups tend to produce media individually on the same issues with limited resources and poor results.

So where does this take me? Hopefully my education helps me to understand if my ideas have any real basis and helps me to build a business model. I’d also like to know where the photography industry is heading and if that is still viable in some way. My thought is that putting these ideas and skills together might create a model that works.

I was also recently named an emerging member of the International League of Conservation Photographers. Through this affiliation and my education in digital media I hope to learn how to best combine photography and digital media strategies to promote conservation.

Web video on High Country News

gerritmcdm — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:24:16 +0000

The High Country News is a nonprofit newspaper “For people who care about the West.” They support on-the-ground reporters, and produce original-content journalism about the West’s changing landscapes and communities. At first glance it appears that their site does not incorporate web video but after scrolling to the bottom of the page I found a video piece advocating for “original journalism.” It begins with the statement “Newspapers are dead” and ends asking people to support nonprofit independent journalism. As a development tool, the short video is professional and compelling but I found it odd that it appears so far beneath the fold that you’d have to be searching for a video link to notice it. It does have good social media sharing tools but unfortunately those don’t include any embed code or I could have shared their message more easily here. An opportunity lost for them. Instead I pulled a thumbnail from their site and linked it to the video so you can view it:

After watching the video I was struck by the lack of video story/news content above the fold or anywhere that I could find on the front page. I would expect an organization promoting original, on the ground journalism to be moving rapidly into this medium and featuring it prominently.

I continued my review of the High Country site and located several more videos utilizing their search engine. Many of them are crafted superbly and provide great storytelling. Others are simply embedded Youtube pieces. What they all seem to have in common is that they are embedded from other sources and are not hosted by High Country News. This is easier for them but limits their ability to present their video content in a consistent environment that they can control. It has resulted in their video content being embedded in written articles that are buried in their content management system. Perhaps that is the way they prefer it – as a viewer, and someone who is interested in seeing web videos, I would like to see a front page player and associated archive of all their web video stories.

One piece I especially liked was produced by The Story Group on the various feelings surrounding the reintroduction and spread of wolves in Wyoming and neighboring states. I was frustrated though that I had to stumble upon the piece and that the video content was not indexed somewhere and hosted by the High Country News website in a front page player with a historical presentation of web video content. If I were the High Country News I’d incorporate a dedicated, above the fold slot for web video content pronto. It would help to support nonprofit independent JOURNALISTS in their move toward the future. If I hadn’t been searching for it, I wouldn’t have known they had video content at all.

The Free debate

gerritmcdm — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:57:58 +0000

[Warning: This is a rambling mess of thoughts. Like a free economy you must wade through the crap to find anything of value.]

There are too many variables at play for me to cogently argue for or against Chris Anderson’s premise. I am an agnostic at this point and I think we should all be to a large degree. Sure, there are instances where reasonable arguments can be made for or against different pieces of the puzzle, but to make definitive statements about the future of free seems unreasonable to me at this time.

As I have never read Chris Anderson’s book and there are so many ways to look at this topic, I can only throw my thoughts out there as they are spinning wildly in my head. Perhaps Anderson has addressed some of my thoughts satisfactorily but most of my thoughts revolve around thinking that we can’t account for all of the variables in what a changed world will look like. Though I do believe the world and the way we communicate are profoundly changing (and that many things currently appear to be free) and that there will be many casualties (ie. newspapers) I also think many of the casualties may just be victims of uncertainty, a wild west mentality, and the paradigms of previous generations, which will undoubtedly change. I don’t believe they are necessarily signs that things want to be free or that that’s where we’re ultimately headed. We are living in the middle of a big messy glitch that will eventually sort itself out – and when it does I am certain that people will be making money.

On that note, I have compiled a pile of messy thoughts to ponder:

1. Publisher’s Weekly states that Andersen “illustrates how savvy businesses are raking it in with indirect routes from product to revenue with such models” as freemiums (offering Flickr for free while selling the superior FlickrPro to serious users). In order to make this argument Anderson must make the assumption that someone else won’t come along and offer a free service analogous to FlickrPro. This implies that there is a limit to free and that that limit lies in the quality of the service. I believe that quality will rear its head again one day, in disciplines like journalism and photography, and that quality will have value.

2. I wonder if we are partly experiencing the effects of the generations of people, most of whom have never had an outlet to be heard as individuals (and many jockeying desks in careers they may not be happy in), now seeing a chance to express themselves and are thus “doing it for free” because it is so attractive to them. How motivated will generations that grow up in the digital world, and are born with that outlet for expression, be to create meaningful, quality content for free? I don’t think we know but I do think the novelty of “seeing yourself published” will decline and the perceived value of “exposure” (which is often offered as compensation rather than money to content providers) will lessen.

3. Publishers are having a field day utilizing “free” media, which is often of lesser quality, as supposed to purchasing the highest quality media. They currently have the upper hand in negotiations with content providers because the threat of getting something of lesser quality for free is out there and quality content providers have not yet been able to demonstrate the value of quality. I believe quality will again be recognized in all arenas when things shake out and that quality will not be free. I believe there will be increased awareness amongst a large segment of organizations and institutions that to be perceived as “quality” they need to present the best quality.

4. Will unions form around groups of people that provide quality?

5. How many of the people providing content for free actually have aspirations of monetary reward or career change? If it becomes generally recognized over time that that only happens to a very few talented people will masses of people still keep trying? And will those who succeed not expect remuneration for their work?

6. Will institutions have to hire their own storytellers to get their news out? Is that where the professional journalism jobs will go? Will professional journalists be embedded in institutions? I don’t think an institution like NASA will invite Betty from the neighborhood blog in to report on a new discovery. If journalist are embedded in institutions will their reporting be suspect? In any case – will this reporting be done for free? I don’t think so.

7. What if currently there were no reputable serious news outlets? Would we accept that? If we took them all away today what would happen? Would the crowd identify quality free news sources? As those quality sources become recognized will they continue to operate for free? Will people write for them for free?

8. Institutions may collapse in this initial transition but others will emerge as the dust settles. Particularly as overhead from analog distribution is eliminated.

9. I believe that people are greedy by nature and will always, eventually, find a way to make money off of things of value.

This is exhausting…

Class Project Topic – Local Recreation

gerritmcdm — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:09:43 +0000

A quick survey of web definitions for recreation produced this, my favorite: “Refreshment of one’s mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play.”

I suggest recreation as our topic and specifically local recreation.

Many of us are new to the area and are excited about the various opportunities for recreation that this area provides. For those of you who are residents this topic would be an opportunity to show others what you love doing in Seattle. Whether it be sea kayaking, visiting art galleries, searching for the best coffee shop, or taking a ferry ride, the subject matter is there for the taking and each of us will have the opportunity to explore and document something that we are interested in (while at the same time recreating!). We will also get to know and share something with each other (and future students) about our community. This topic also has the potential to be broken down nicely into sub-categories (ie. food, sports, outdoors, music, museums, nightlife, etc.).