Once in a while you may hear the term Digital Convergence. In simple terms, this is the merging of two devices, the computer and the TV. This could also refer to the merging of two distribution models; the mainstream media, specifically TV, and the Internet. If you’re paying attention, you will notice that many networks such as ABC, CBS, FOX and others are beginning to stream their shows on their website. The main difference between traditional mainstream media and the web is that people can communicate and exchange ideas with one another whereas television broadcast is a one way communication. The TV is meant to deliver content from the source to the masses. The viewer cannot respond back nor can they discuss their opinions with others in real time like they can on the Internet. Producers of TV shows rely on focus groups to let them know what the people want to see, but they are not always effective in accurately depicting reality nor delivering the facts.
What effect will the ability for "viewers" to communicate with one another have on people’s opinions of TV programming? The fact that the viewer can offer their opinions and receive feedback from other viewers means that they play a much larger role in determining what the networks choose to air. When the audience in sitcoms do not respond to the punchlines, a laugh-track replaces the silence. This will not be as easily accomplished on the Internet since the "audience" will demand to be heard; they know others are listening. The Internet and the people using it can make more informed decisions when others post their opinions, insights and thought processes. A thumbs up or thumbs down response may be sufficient for some, but others prefer a comment to go along with the vote.
Another thing to consider is whether the content that the mainstream media has to offer is actually "better" than the user submitted content available online. They may find that users submitting content to YouTube are now their competition. They are on the same playing field. When I say better, I mean better in the sense that people find it more entertaining and are willing to spend their time and attention on. It is going to be difficult for an individual to make a better production that a major studio, but it is not impossible. Already, there are music artists who are recording their own records and doing the distribution themselves. Take note of how many Tower Records are closing down and you’ll understand the effects of this phenomenon.
It is much easier for the individual to be in touch with his audience. He can change much faster than the large corporations. If the media conglomerates want to compete with the individual, they are going to have to find a way to be more in touch with their audience and be able to respond accordingly. The alternative is to do what they do best, make large, high quality productions, and leave the other genres and "narrow casting" to the individuals.
What do you think?
