A high-level view of the scale of mobile, tablets, ecosystems and mobile social and the dynamics that shape them.
Grossartige Präsentation von Benedict Evans, in der man alle Zahlen zur mobilen Revolution kompakt aufbereitet findet.
By empowering dissenting insiders to break the insider/outsider boundary, digital tools help “collapse the context.” That’s the phrase scholars use to describe how digital infrastructure brings together people, information and ideas that used to survive through an ecology of separation.
Context collapse is why Facebook has become so stressful for teens after their parents signed up. Things that used to be separate are now on the same timeline. There’s Mom telling you to wear a warmer sweater on a comment thread about a party. There’s that uncle with a rant about Obama’s birth certificate.
Context collapse is everywhere. It’s not just teenagers on Facebook whose ordinary adolescent boundary-testing actions are viewed by finger-wagging adults; it’s not just a variety of institutions that have found their internal communications meant for friendly eyes are exposed to the world; it’s not just academics whose scholarly studies are being dug up by various constituencies as fodder for outrage. It’s everywhere.
The outsiders are peeking in and moving in, and they are here to stay.
If, as an institution, keeping your balance relies on outsiders staying outside while you talk in jargon and acronyms with your fellow insiders, it’s time to look for a safety net and a harness. A fall is coming, sooner or later. In this world, “this is what we have always done” is not going to cut it.
Grossartiger Text von Zeynep Tufekci.
Nicht nur die archetypischen Listicles von Buzzfeed haben sich in den letzten Monaten viral in meinen Timelines verbreitet, sondern auch Meldungen zu Neugründungen, die in irgendeiner Form das Erfolgsmodell von Jonah Peretti kopieren. Nicht immer hat man dabei das Gefühl, dass die zugrundeliegenden Mechanismen wirklich verinnerlicht wurden. Um das Netz vor dem Ersaufen im falsch verstandenen Boulevard 2.0 zu bewahren, habe ich deshalb die wichtigsten Artikel aller Zeiten zur Strategie und Funktionsweise des Unternehmens zusammengestellt:
«The end is in sight. There are thousands of imitators out there, and more growing every day. What you produce isn’t art. It’s intellectual fast-food. BuzzFeed makes minds fat.»
«It’s almost as though they’ve tried to link back in the most lame-assed way possible, thanks for taking those 4.2 Million views and adding hardly a single one to my own page. At least if you’re going to do it, do it right.»
«The goal of Buzzfeed is not to make people “bookmark” them in their browser. In some ways, having one’s own website, in the Perettian way of looking, is only important at the level of monetization: The models aren’t quite there yet for monetizing a 100 percent distributed brand. So in the meantime we have a “website.” But the main goal is to rule Facebook, not to rule with its own homepage.»
«A lot of Mr. Peretti’s strategy has to do with appealing to people’s vanity: You want them to feel good about themselves for discovering a thing and proud to be the first one to show it to their friends. That means that some things aren’t “shareable”—sex tapes, nasty stories and celebrity dross, for instance, which Mr. Peretti calls “guilty pleasures.” Those tend to be spread by email and word of mouth, which are much less contagious than social media.»
«Another aspect of modern media consumption is the mashing together of content. With Facebook and Twitter people are sharing all different types of media from humor to cute kittens to Internet memes to serious substantive reporting. BuzzFeed, as a publisher, brings all this together. The argument that cute animal posts dumb down your audience has never made sense to me. I like to think of a smart Frenchman at a cafe reading Le Monde and smoking a pipe. A lot of French cafes have dogs, so he pauses to pet the dog. When he’s petting the dog, he doesn’t get dumb and when he goes back to Le Monde, he doesn’t suddenly get smart. Humans are complex and there are all these different interests that don’t have to be perfectly resolved.»
«Why BuzzFeed Is Succeeding Right Now?»
«Despite the struggles of the traditional media, there remains an insatiable desire for great reporting, entertaining content, and powerful storytelling. Facebook, Twitter, and the other Silicon Valley-based social sites are amazing distribution platforms, but user generated content alone isn’t enough to fill the hole left by the ongoing decline of print newspapers and magazines. The world needs sustainable, profitable, vibrant content companies staffed by dedicated professionals; especially content for people that grew up on the web, whose entertainment and news interests are largely neglected by television and newspapers.»
«We have a lot more technology than most people realize. BuzzFeed started as a technology company and it’s still in our DNA. We see our technology as giving our reporters and writers superpowers. There are three main roles for our technology: make it easier to create great content, make it easier for content to spread on the web, and make it easier for people to find content they’ll love.»
In some respect, BuzzFeed is putting the toolkits of Big Data and crowdsourcing to logical use — assuming that it doesn’t really see itself as being in the news business. BuzzFeed’s goal, after all, is to get the maximum number of shares and likes on social media—for it’s the shares and likes that determine how much money the site is making. In this, BuzzFeed thinks more like a Silicon Valley startup rather than a traditional journalistic entity, with its outdated civic concerns that go beyond the need to maximize and monetize traffic.
Eine absolut zentrale Feststellung, die Evgeny Morozov hier macht. Wer BuzzFeed als Boulevard 2.0 betrachtet, der im Kern nach traditionellen journalistischen Mechanismen funktioniert, blendet einen wichtigen Teil des Phänomens aus, wie ich im SRF-Medientalk (ab Minute 18:00) bereits ausgeführt habe. Hier geht es darum, Technologie-Knowhow aus dem Silicon Valley auf Inhaltserstellung und -verbreitung anzuwenden, wobei dieser «Inhalt» sowohl redaktionell als auch von Werbetreibenden bezahlt sein kann. Die Resultate – in Bezug auf die Leserzahlen, oft aber auch in Bezug auf die Inhalte selber – sprechen für sich.
Es tut sich was im Schweizer Markt für Online-News: Mit watson und einem von Ringier angekündigten Buzzfeed-Verschnitt buhlen im nächsten Jahr zwei neuartige Player um die Gunst des Publikums. Darüber habe ich mich mit Nick Lüthi von der Medienwoche und Moderator Salvador Atasoy im SRF Medientalk unterhalten:
«It is becoming more likely than unlikely, that the media institutions you are working for today will not exist anymore in ten years.»
Wolfgang Blau unterstreicht in dieser Rede vor Absolventen des International Masters Program for Media Managers in Wien eindrücklich, weshalb er einer der Posterboys der internationalen Mediarevolution ist.
Der von mir hoch geschätzte Science-Fiction-Autor Charles Stross hat bei Foreign Affairs einen Aufsatz zum Thema Überwachungsstaat veröffentlicht. Darin liefert er eine schlüssige Erklärung für die aktuelle Häufung von Whistleblowern und weshalb das die Staatsgewalt über kurz oder lang in grosse Schwierigkeiten bringen könnte.
Generation Z will arrive brutalized and atomized by three generations of diminished expectations and dog-eat-dog economic liberalism. Most of them will be so deracinated that they identify with their peers and the global Internet culture more than their great-grandparents post-Westphalian nation-state. The machineries of the security state may well find them unemployable, their values too alien to assimilate into a model still rooted in the early 20th century. But if you turn the Internet into a panopticon prison and put everyone inside it, where else are you going to be able to recruit the jailers? And how do you ensure their loyalty?If I were in charge of long-term planning for human resources in any government department, Id be panicking. Even though its already too late.
Alan Rusbridger, Chefredaktor des Guardian, betont seit Jahren, wie wichtig der Netzwerk-Gedanke für Journalismus im Internet-Zeitalter ist. An der Konferenz «Paidcontent live» war das nicht anders, wie im nachfolgenden Quote zu lesen ist:
“‘Open’ is a kind of catchword. It is journalism that wants a response. It is journalism that is itself responsive. It is journalism that doesn’t just sit on the web as though it has no connection with the web, that acknowledges that the web is the most extraordinary revolution in publishing where lots of people will be publishing extremely worthwhile and informative information. And so you can produce better things by not ignoring it or building a barrier between yourself and that but incorporating it and linking to it. It’s journalism where you can be a platform for people who know more about things than you are. It is journalism that is inclusive and wants other people to help you build the stories and challenge the stories. That’s what I mean by open journalism, think you can do a better job of describing the world by doing all that.”
Aber nicht nur Rusbridgers Gedanken sind sehenswert, die Konferenz glänzte durch eine Menge weiterer hochkarätiger Panel-Teilnehmer, darunter Vertreter von BuzzFeed, Zite oder Vox Media. Hier findet sich eine lange Liste entsprechender Videos.
Im Herbst 2012 veröffentlichte eine Forscher-Gruppe um den Journalismus-Professor Clay Shirky einen viel beachteten Text mit dem Titel «Post Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present». Darin werden die inhaltlichen und ökonomischen Probleme der Medienbranche sehr detailliert aufgezeigt – die Lektüre sei jedem ans Herz gelegt, der sich für die Zukunft des Journalismus interessiert. Wer keine Zeit/Lust auf den knapp 100 Seiten langen Text hat, sollte sich dieses Interview mit Shirky zu Gemüte führen, in dem die wichtigsten Ideen des Textes diskutiert und einige weiter führende Gedanken gesponnen werden. Kleiner Auszug:
There’s no question that the market can never supply as much journalism as democracy demands. We happened to have found a subsidy that worked well for several decades – it worked so well that journalists convinced themselves that it wasn’t a subsidy – but to be frank, advertisers don’t care about whether their money keeps the Washington Bureau open. They wanted full-page ads, and publishers happened to offer a convenient way of doing that. The great thing about the ad model was that advertisers barely ever cared about the news. Every now and again you’d do something that they didn’t like, but in 99 percent of cases, the logic was: ‘Just print the pizza ad right side up and I don’t care what’s printed next to it.’ But to get back to the Scientology ad: Clearly that was a mistake by “The Atlantic”. But the really unforgivable part of that behavior was when they censored user comments. You could have said: ‘Look, advertisers can now publish on the same platform, just as on TV or on radio.’ What you cannot do is give advertisers the right to censor subscribers and users. That was a huge, catastrophic breach of the Chinese Wall between editors and advertisers. But even with that catastrophic choice, you cannot say that advertorials are always bad. If the ACLU – in some alternative universe – had wanted to run sponsored content or advertorials, nobody would have blinked.