Guardian column: Network 2.0

Here is my Guardian column this week (and here‘s a nonregistration version). Snippets:

Witness the toppling of the TV tower: this month in the US, primetime viewing of broadcast networks sunk to the lowest level in ratings history: 20.8 million on average. At the same time, the open video-sharing service YouTube revealed that it is delivering 100m shows a day. No wonder BBC director general Mark Thompson just announced a major restructuring, tearing down walls between broadcast and digital for a “360-degree, multiplatform” world. “Much of what we call new media,” he said, “is really present media.” Yes, thanks to the internet, we are watching the end of linear television.

But the internet does more than destroy. It forces the media to redefine themselves, to discover their essence. Broadcast networks thought their value was in controlling precious distribution and content. But in this post-scarcity media economy, the real job of a network is to find us the good stuff. Doing that no longer requires owning studios or transmitter towers. Today, a network is born with every link. When you recommend shows to friends, you’re a channel. When your blog links to good reading online, you’re a magazine. When you share your iTunes playlist, you’re a DJ. Today, everybody’s a network. . . .

Simply put, a good network today will find the right stuff for you: no longer one size fits all, but one size fits me; no longer a prisoner of a 24-hour schedule, but primetime as my time.

As Amazon helps you find the right book, so the new network will be built on experience, trust and relevance to help you find the shows you’ll like. And in a world with unlimited content, there is an unlimited demand for such networks that filter and recommend. . . .

So the old networks – including newspapers, which should start acting more like networks – must transform themselves from closed to open, centralised to distributed, one-way to two-way. They need to learn to find and recommend not just their own good stuff but good stuff from the world, from fellow creators (who need not be competitors). This is a new and valuable service. And they need to learn to support these new creators by sending them both audience and revenue in distributed promotional and advertising networks. Consultant and blogger John Hagel puts it this way: “Audience-relationship businesses take these proliferating content options as an opportunity, rather than a challenge. The more options there are, the more value that can be created by organising, packaging, presenting and adding to these options for specific audiences.” So the big guys need to see themselves not as the owners of a network but as members of networks. For networks are no longer about controlling but sharing. They are not about broadcasting but about finding and being found. They are no longer static. Networks are fluid.

  • Frank Kasava

    Brilliant, concise, on the button. Trusted content needs to be a combination of editorial authority and quality, plus participant guidance. Media owner as network node is the best way I’ve seen of describing this.

  • http://www.sixtysecondview.com David Brain

    Top stuff Jeff, but I wondered where you are on the issue of monetising creative content now that the networks and newspapers are no longer cutting as many cheques for creatives and journalists (see Friday’s Ze Frank for a pretty funny account of how YouTube is asking people to sign-over a number of their rights on upload). Revver (an Edelman client) for example are very open about their terms and split the fees earned for the ads that are tagged on the videos . . . . any other models you see out there that might financially grease the wheels of the revolution?

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » A Dabble do ya

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Exploding public media