"What's New (CENSORED) Cat?"
Okay guys -- this week we have a video absolutely guaranteed to take up eight
minutes and 45 seconds of your life should you choose to watch it. This is a
"video response talk show," the premise of which is that the characters respond
directly to the text comments and video responses they get from viewers. The
content of the show includes a ludicrous amount of pun-based juvenile "adult"
humor. It's safe for work if you happen to have a lenient boss/permissive work
environment.
Toward the end there are a few minor technical glitches, including one brief
moment where a character's mouth remains closed while he speaks. The
reason I haven't pulled the video and re-edited it further is that my goal with
Fictional Universe is to never let perfection become the enemy of "good enough."
Whether you enjoy this or not, please leave a comment here on FTTW or on
YouTube. Video responses are especially appreciated. Hep Cat or one of his
friends will acknowledge all feedback in aperiodic future installments of the show.
Kory is really Hep Cat's alter ego. And all this time you thought he was people.
Comics, music, and even TV are mediums that won't die but they will always morph.
Music has been around longer than recorded history. People may get tired of a particular music product (ragtime, jazz, rock and roll) and there will be a decline in the demand.
I don't think TV will die as a medium. But it will certainly undergo significant change. You're seeing it already. With programs like LOST and Heroes that have active input from the viewing audience. In the case of LOST, it's not turning out so well, but it's going much better for Heroes.
The emphasis on reality TV programming is another huge change. I mean, you get your crap like Jackass and The Real World, but there are some great shows like many of those on Discovery.
I don't know that user-created content will ever overtake mainstream video like it's being predicted. Just like I don't think that non-studio music will overtake mainstream music.
And the reason I don't think it will is three-fold. First, they have tons of money to do pretty much anything. Second, they will eventually catch on and begin putting out studio versions of the internet "viral videos." Last, a lot of what's being developed through open source sucks. That's not to say that there isn't really good stuff out there, but the suck far outweighs the good.
Oh, and a fourth point -- the YouTubers aren't getting paid. Or, the ones that are getting paid are getting it through internet advertising and it's nothing compared to the money in traditional media. How long can quality product continue without significant investment?
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I did really like your video. I just disagree with your thesis.
Thanks for the well-reasoned comment, Cullen. Some of it I'll address in a subsequent video, but not necessarily in a serious and scholarly way.
I edited the original script for this to the point that the argument became virtually meaningless... not that the original thesis was necessarily more correct, but it was better supported (and less interesting for a mass audience). I'm going to have to do the same thing with any future episodes most likely.
My argument may suck, but the scope is more than simply the product life cycle. Looking at a product life cycle doesn't address issues like why three major TV studios emerged in TVs 2nd wave or two major comics companies emerged in comics' second wave. In both cases the 3rd wave were characterized by an explosion of companies involved, leading to a glut and gradual decline in interest in the media as a whole. Comics are certainly further along in their decline than TV tho.
To clarify -- I am somewhat misusing the term "medium" on purpose. Even so, "music" is not a medium in my estimation. "Radio" would be, but my misuse takes it down to a level something like "Radio Dramas." Of course music won't die, but the vast majority of genres that had their radio hey dey have.
Part of my concept here is specifically *not* that ordinary user created content will take over -- I'm guessing user created and establishment sponsored content (like lonelygirl73 for example) will share time on youtube or it's follow on sites (I'm guessing two-four competing sites). Youtube will probably be replaced as the dominant forum for online videos.
The drive to compete for sponsorship and simple peer pressure will gradually drive up the quality of all content in internet video.
TV is doomed, in my opinion, but not until the same level of broadcast quality hits the internet, probably in conjunction with things like the rollout of IPV6.
The majority of content sucks right now, but there's some context to that. Think of what you would have seen on TV before the majority of Americans actually had TVs in their homes. Normal people aren't anywhere near the point of discussing the youtube video they watched last night over the water cooler at work.
The money angle will work itself similar to network television in the near future, I think. Eventually the most popular youtube users will all be sponsored by individual companies at first and then run a litany of commercial content as they discover that's more profitable... i.e. "This program is sponsored by Ovaltine" to begin with, then a slew of blipvert type commercials later. The Youtube user Mr. Safety (formerly sponsored by Golden Palace.com) was a good example of the model, but his arrangement hit some snags recently.
Along with sponsorship, users will sell their own show based merchandise to bridge the gap financially. The Ask a Ninja guy is a good example of both approaches integrated. Big business has the money to compete, but not really the desire to produce content. For the same reasons they didn't take over the TV studios, they won't take over production of videos. It's far easy to make investments than a daily corporate entertainment vlog.
Comics in the sense of sequential art that tells a story and has certain narrative conventions, like word balloons, are not dead. However, as I see it, monthly comics in the form we knew them in as kids are virtually dead, btw. No one could be more sad to see that take place than me. More and more the monthly books don't show profit until compiled and marketed as trade paperbacks. It's only a matter of time before the trade paperback replaces the standard monthly comic.
Similarly with TV, the makers of TV shows are bound to do the math on how many people watch their shows in their original runs and how many view them in DVD box sets.
Another part of my argument is self-justifying... having not seriously watched a (regularly scheduled) TV program since about 1997 or so, I prefer to think of myself as an early adopter instead of a freak.
But primarily this video was an effort to appeal to a mass audience, bring in subscribers, develop a youtube entourage, etc etc. The lofty mechanism I used to back the effort was primarily jokes about penises and such. The result was about 11 subscribes in the past four days and a rising rate of views about 300% of normal (compared to our other videos).
I could hardly call that "cracking the code," but it's progress at least.
This pilot and Space Pirates are so far the only two things we've tried that are likely to have follow on episodes in more or less their current formats.
In fairness, I guess I did say "let's see the theory applied to popular music..."
What the President meant to say was "pop music broadcast on the radio"
Please think of it as giving up accuracy to achieve a wider audience, like how the news media calls all the various types of intelligence officers by the single word "spy"
I meant to address comics ... of all the media you mention, I think that's the first that will go purely electronic.
Remember Big, with the floppy-disc comics? They should have done that years ago.
I agree that the TPB is probably the future.
As for TV, I guess I should ask if you mean TV programing as we define it now, or the actual technology? I do believe the programing will morph, like I said. The technology won't go away though.
People will always want those huge screens (getting bigger and cheaper all the time). But those too have morphed to include computer technology. So I can have my plasma, LCD or SDMI TV hooked up to my PC.
Music, I guess, would be an art form. And I agree that Radio is a medium. You say:
Of course music won't die, but the vast majority of genres that had their radio hey dey have.
But radio hasn't died and it's not seeing any signs of losing strength. It is changing with time though. Programming has adapted to new audiences and technology has changed its presentation. With satellite radio, we're seeing greater variety in programming.
And radio is probably the biggest reason I don't think there will ever be a user-led "internet revolution" that will overtake TV or anything like that. Look at pirate radio, public band radio, heck CB radio. At best, they filled a niche audience.
To me, that's all You Tube and the like is. Today's CB radio. It will fill a niche, and continue to do so.
That is not to say that a revolution in how we watch TV isn't coming. I fully believe that "internet driven" video is the future. I just don't think it will come from the user. I truly think studios will flood the market.
But broadcast TV still has many years left in it. High Def TV is still in its infancy and that will keep viewers in TV land for decades to come.
One of the main things you're neglecting when thinking about TV is DVR. With the ability to record a program for viewing at your convenience, viewers are actually catching more programs. And, unlike a VCR recording, studios consider a TIVO'd program the same as regular viewership.
I certainly feel that there's a disconnect between studios and the internet right now, though. I cannot believe that they're not putting more of their content online. It's only inevitable.
If they put something online in watchable, but not high quality, I seriously think they're not going to lose profits on DVD sales.
I could go on. But the simple truth is that until advertisers start pulling their money out of TV and start putting it somewhere else (en masse), TV will continue nonplussed.
Well... TV will probably still be recognizable as TV to us in the future, but eventually I'm pretty sure it will be delivered via the internet to most homes rather than broadcast separately. Huge screens and good broadcast quality are simply technical issues -- those will always work out eventually. There's an advantage with convergance in that eventually people will be able to have a modular set up allowing portability and a massive home theater environment. At my house our individual laptops pretty much fulfill the role TV used to... could be atypical tho.
"Death" may be too much a generalization. Radio isn't dead, but it is no longer particularly innovative or the most effective vehicle for industry outsiders to achieve stardom.
One thing I had in mind as an indicator of crossing into the 3rd wave was the point where it becomes prohibitively difficult for outsiders to consider breaking in and becoming successful. Kind of fell by the wayside, I guess...
Also, more and more I think perhaps a focus more on genres than media would have been a better argument. Still, a "Theory of all genres" suffers from sounding too highbrow... I really felt a need to keep my argument stupid, if that makes any sense.
Pirate and hobby radio stations are different from the internet in a large number of ways. One is you don't have the FCC hunting down would-be internet entertainers. Another is that effective broadcast of radio content is tied to a specific time and limited by things like antenna gain, orientation, etc -- in a million ways. By contrast, if you post content online it has a degree of permanence -- a potential viewer can stumble on it next week, for example. Also, there are dedicated search engine bots web crawling to ensure your content eventually gets indexed and made available to people searching for related terms.
Also, the majority of hobby radio was/is used more like a chatroom than as an entertainment medium.
Another question I have is if youtube videos are simply filling a niche, why is the content visibly evolving? Contrast earlier youtube celebs like Renetto with more recent efforts like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SrJohnBosco
Hardly the highest form of art, but obviously a drastic difference in terms of actual content and production values.
Another factor to bear in mind is that technological progress is a wholistic thing. The same progress that leads to advances in the media available also leads to advances in (and more importantly reductions in the cost of) the technology necessary to produce material.
For instance, the major limitations I have in producing videos at the moment are skill and time available. The actual technology I have to create the videos is comparable to a full fledged animation studio like Hanna Barbera in its prime. Of course I lack the ability to present it online at that level of quality with a reasonable download time... at the moment. Still, my real point with this part is that another factor to mitigate cost for would-be content producers is that costs for a high production capability will get cheaper and cheaper over time.
"But broadcast TV still has many years left in it. High Def TV is still in its infancy..."
Yes. Viewer interest will last for quite a while yet and the fact that companies are investing in a new standard for delivery will keep them tied up in it for even longer. Still, the bottom line will eventually force sponsors toward supporting internet videos. It will eventually be far cheaper and easier to target your intended demographic specifically by sponsoring many online video producers with small investments than to make one large investment in a TV commercial that reaches a generic audience.
DVR is a point -- but if it had to compete with the ability to search online for videos of the same quality, I think the online search would win. That competition is years in the future, but must eventually happen. Still... there are all these pop culture references to TIVO, so it must more acceptable to the world at large than it is to me personally.
Yes, studios in general are amazing dumb and naive about internet content. A lot of their efforts to get involved have come across as extremely patronizing, which is probably worse for them than merely "boring."
I'll be cordinating with Hep Cat on the follow-up to this interesting subject. I think the research into the evolution and decline of media and their created genres IS a fasinating pursuit.
I encourage everybody to watch the mysterywalker channel and this website.
My own channel is at http://www.youtube.com/betofYT
I dont mind telling you that I am the first candidate for the first YouTube President in all history. Please vote, since I'm running (normally I will tell you - dont vote for any of those bastards)
Ah yes... I forgot to mention the ability to collaborate with other users. Essentially a production studio could form spontaneously online as people with different talents get together. That wasn't really feasible for amateur radio
Radio ... is no longer particularly innovative or the most effective vehicle for industry outsiders to achieve stardom.
Well, that's where I have to disagree. Radio is still one of the best places for a band to achieve recognition. Three Doors Down, from our neck of the woods, only got a record deal because of the massive amounts of radio play they got on the Coast.
You see underground bands getting more and more recognition through radio programs on Sirius and XM. It's a huge market.
And again, by virtue of your argument, I think your describing the product life cycle. Where a comic, is a product. Popular music, is a product. Sitcom TV programs are a product. And they are beginning to play out their lifespan.
Regardless of the influences that affect their eventual demise, the fact is that they all follow the same effective curve.
Okie... I'll defer to you on the issue of radio and music. You know what a musical idiot I am.
The product life cycle is not irrelevant to the discussion by any means, but the intended scope of the concept is more than that. If it was confined to rules governing products, then the logical replacement product would just be a different kind of product in the same media. But it's more than reality television replacing sitcoms or cop dramas replacing cowboy shows. Instead, people who once watched sitcoms transition to a new medium and instead read myspace blogs to get their entertainment fix. (or whatever replaces whatever, it's not my best example) New forms of media gradually replace or else largely supercede older forms.
I'll ruminate and try to address some of this in the next installment -- not necessarily intelligently, as I said earlier...
Stumble It!
Comments
I liked it alot. But then again, I have been using alot of spray paint today so even "America's Most Wanted" is giving me giggles. go figure.
great job again
Posted by: turtle | December 1, 2006 12:30 AM
Kory, what you're talking about is the Product Life Cycle.
Comics, music, and even TV are mediums that won't die but they will always morph.
Music has been around longer than recorded history. People may get tired of a particular music product (ragtime, jazz, rock and roll) and there will be a decline in the demand.
I don't think TV will die as a medium. But it will certainly undergo significant change. You're seeing it already. With programs like LOST and Heroes that have active input from the viewing audience. In the case of LOST, it's not turning out so well, but it's going much better for Heroes.
The emphasis on reality TV programming is another huge change. I mean, you get your crap like Jackass and The Real World, but there are some great shows like many of those on Discovery.
I don't know that user-created content will ever overtake mainstream video like it's being predicted. Just like I don't think that non-studio music will overtake mainstream music.
And the reason I don't think it will is three-fold. First, they have tons of money to do pretty much anything. Second, they will eventually catch on and begin putting out studio versions of the internet "viral videos." Last, a lot of what's being developed through open source sucks. That's not to say that there isn't really good stuff out there, but the suck far outweighs the good.
Oh, and a fourth point -- the YouTubers aren't getting paid. Or, the ones that are getting paid are getting it through internet advertising and it's nothing compared to the money in traditional media. How long can quality product continue without significant investment?
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I did really like your video. I just disagree with your thesis.
Posted by: Cullen | December 1, 2006 7:45 AM
Thanks for the well-reasoned comment, Cullen. Some of it I'll address in a subsequent video, but not necessarily in a serious and scholarly way.
I edited the original script for this to the point that the argument became virtually meaningless... not that the original thesis was necessarily more correct, but it was better supported (and less interesting for a mass audience). I'm going to have to do the same thing with any future episodes most likely.
My argument may suck, but the scope is more than simply the product life cycle. Looking at a product life cycle doesn't address issues like why three major TV studios emerged in TVs 2nd wave or two major comics companies emerged in comics' second wave. In both cases the 3rd wave were characterized by an explosion of companies involved, leading to a glut and gradual decline in interest in the media as a whole. Comics are certainly further along in their decline than TV tho.
To clarify -- I am somewhat misusing the term "medium" on purpose. Even so, "music" is not a medium in my estimation. "Radio" would be, but my misuse takes it down to a level something like "Radio Dramas." Of course music won't die, but the vast majority of genres that had their radio hey dey have.
Part of my concept here is specifically *not* that ordinary user created content will take over -- I'm guessing user created and establishment sponsored content (like lonelygirl73 for example) will share time on youtube or it's follow on sites (I'm guessing two-four competing sites). Youtube will probably be replaced as the dominant forum for online videos.
The drive to compete for sponsorship and simple peer pressure will gradually drive up the quality of all content in internet video.
TV is doomed, in my opinion, but not until the same level of broadcast quality hits the internet, probably in conjunction with things like the rollout of IPV6.
The majority of content sucks right now, but there's some context to that. Think of what you would have seen on TV before the majority of Americans actually had TVs in their homes. Normal people aren't anywhere near the point of discussing the youtube video they watched last night over the water cooler at work.
The money angle will work itself similar to network television in the near future, I think. Eventually the most popular youtube users will all be sponsored by individual companies at first and then run a litany of commercial content as they discover that's more profitable... i.e. "This program is sponsored by Ovaltine" to begin with, then a slew of blipvert type commercials later. The Youtube user Mr. Safety (formerly sponsored by Golden Palace.com) was a good example of the model, but his arrangement hit some snags recently.
Along with sponsorship, users will sell their own show based merchandise to bridge the gap financially. The Ask a Ninja guy is a good example of both approaches integrated. Big business has the money to compete, but not really the desire to produce content. For the same reasons they didn't take over the TV studios, they won't take over production of videos. It's far easy to make investments than a daily corporate entertainment vlog.
Comics in the sense of sequential art that tells a story and has certain narrative conventions, like word balloons, are not dead. However, as I see it, monthly comics in the form we knew them in as kids are virtually dead, btw. No one could be more sad to see that take place than me. More and more the monthly books don't show profit until compiled and marketed as trade paperbacks. It's only a matter of time before the trade paperback replaces the standard monthly comic.
Similarly with TV, the makers of TV shows are bound to do the math on how many people watch their shows in their original runs and how many view them in DVD box sets.
Another part of my argument is self-justifying... having not seriously watched a (regularly scheduled) TV program since about 1997 or so, I prefer to think of myself as an early adopter instead of a freak.
But primarily this video was an effort to appeal to a mass audience, bring in subscribers, develop a youtube entourage, etc etc. The lofty mechanism I used to back the effort was primarily jokes about penises and such. The result was about 11 subscribes in the past four days and a rising rate of views about 300% of normal (compared to our other videos).
I could hardly call that "cracking the code," but it's progress at least.
This pilot and Space Pirates are so far the only two things we've tried that are likely to have follow on episodes in more or less their current formats.
Posted by: Kory | December 1, 2006 2:29 PM
In fairness, I guess I did say "let's see the theory applied to popular music..."
What the President meant to say was "pop music broadcast on the radio"
Please think of it as giving up accuracy to achieve a wider audience, like how the news media calls all the various types of intelligence officers by the single word "spy"
Posted by: Kory | December 1, 2006 2:39 PM
I meant to address comics ... of all the media you mention, I think that's the first that will go purely electronic.
Remember Big, with the floppy-disc comics? They should have done that years ago.
I agree that the TPB is probably the future.
As for TV, I guess I should ask if you mean TV programing as we define it now, or the actual technology? I do believe the programing will morph, like I said. The technology won't go away though.
People will always want those huge screens (getting bigger and cheaper all the time). But those too have morphed to include computer technology. So I can have my plasma, LCD or SDMI TV hooked up to my PC.
Music, I guess, would be an art form. And I agree that Radio is a medium. You say:
Of course music won't die, but the vast majority of genres that had their radio hey dey have.
But radio hasn't died and it's not seeing any signs of losing strength. It is changing with time though. Programming has adapted to new audiences and technology has changed its presentation. With satellite radio, we're seeing greater variety in programming.
And radio is probably the biggest reason I don't think there will ever be a user-led "internet revolution" that will overtake TV or anything like that. Look at pirate radio, public band radio, heck CB radio. At best, they filled a niche audience.
To me, that's all You Tube and the like is. Today's CB radio. It will fill a niche, and continue to do so.
That is not to say that a revolution in how we watch TV isn't coming. I fully believe that "internet driven" video is the future. I just don't think it will come from the user. I truly think studios will flood the market.
But broadcast TV still has many years left in it. High Def TV is still in its infancy and that will keep viewers in TV land for decades to come.
One of the main things you're neglecting when thinking about TV is DVR. With the ability to record a program for viewing at your convenience, viewers are actually catching more programs. And, unlike a VCR recording, studios consider a TIVO'd program the same as regular viewership.
I certainly feel that there's a disconnect between studios and the internet right now, though. I cannot believe that they're not putting more of their content online. It's only inevitable.
If they put something online in watchable, but not high quality, I seriously think they're not going to lose profits on DVD sales.
I could go on. But the simple truth is that until advertisers start pulling their money out of TV and start putting it somewhere else (en masse), TV will continue nonplussed.
Posted by: Cullen | December 1, 2006 3:29 PM
Well... TV will probably still be recognizable as TV to us in the future, but eventually I'm pretty sure it will be delivered via the internet to most homes rather than broadcast separately. Huge screens and good broadcast quality are simply technical issues -- those will always work out eventually. There's an advantage with convergance in that eventually people will be able to have a modular set up allowing portability and a massive home theater environment. At my house our individual laptops pretty much fulfill the role TV used to... could be atypical tho.
"Death" may be too much a generalization. Radio isn't dead, but it is no longer particularly innovative or the most effective vehicle for industry outsiders to achieve stardom.
One thing I had in mind as an indicator of crossing into the 3rd wave was the point where it becomes prohibitively difficult for outsiders to consider breaking in and becoming successful. Kind of fell by the wayside, I guess...
Also, more and more I think perhaps a focus more on genres than media would have been a better argument. Still, a "Theory of all genres" suffers from sounding too highbrow... I really felt a need to keep my argument stupid, if that makes any sense.
Pirate and hobby radio stations are different from the internet in a large number of ways. One is you don't have the FCC hunting down would-be internet entertainers. Another is that effective broadcast of radio content is tied to a specific time and limited by things like antenna gain, orientation, etc -- in a million ways. By contrast, if you post content online it has a degree of permanence -- a potential viewer can stumble on it next week, for example. Also, there are dedicated search engine bots web crawling to ensure your content eventually gets indexed and made available to people searching for related terms.
Also, the majority of hobby radio was/is used more like a chatroom than as an entertainment medium.
Another question I have is if youtube videos are simply filling a niche, why is the content visibly evolving? Contrast earlier youtube celebs like Renetto with more recent efforts like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SrJohnBosco
Hardly the highest form of art, but obviously a drastic difference in terms of actual content and production values.
Another factor to bear in mind is that technological progress is a wholistic thing. The same progress that leads to advances in the media available also leads to advances in (and more importantly reductions in the cost of) the technology necessary to produce material.
For instance, the major limitations I have in producing videos at the moment are skill and time available. The actual technology I have to create the videos is comparable to a full fledged animation studio like Hanna Barbera in its prime. Of course I lack the ability to present it online at that level of quality with a reasonable download time... at the moment. Still, my real point with this part is that another factor to mitigate cost for would-be content producers is that costs for a high production capability will get cheaper and cheaper over time.
"But broadcast TV still has many years left in it. High Def TV is still in its infancy..."
Yes. Viewer interest will last for quite a while yet and the fact that companies are investing in a new standard for delivery will keep them tied up in it for even longer. Still, the bottom line will eventually force sponsors toward supporting internet videos. It will eventually be far cheaper and easier to target your intended demographic specifically by sponsoring many online video producers with small investments than to make one large investment in a TV commercial that reaches a generic audience.
DVR is a point -- but if it had to compete with the ability to search online for videos of the same quality, I think the online search would win. That competition is years in the future, but must eventually happen. Still... there are all these pop culture references to TIVO, so it must more acceptable to the world at large than it is to me personally.
Yes, studios in general are amazing dumb and naive about internet content. A lot of their efforts to get involved have come across as extremely patronizing, which is probably worse for them than merely "boring."
Posted by: Kory | December 1, 2006 4:56 PM
I'll be cordinating with Hep Cat on the follow-up to this interesting subject. I think the research into the evolution and decline of media and their created genres IS a fasinating pursuit.
I encourage everybody to watch the mysterywalker channel and this website.
My own channel is at
http://www.youtube.com/betofYT
I dont mind telling you that I am the first candidate for the first YouTube President in all history. Please vote, since I'm running (normally I will tell you - dont vote for any of those bastards)
Posted by: Mr. Ey | December 1, 2006 4:57 PM
Oops, here's the correct hyperlink for my YT Channel
http://www.youtube.com/BestofYT
Thanks for getting involved. Its good for ya!
Posted by: Mr. Ey | December 1, 2006 4:59 PM
Ah yes... I forgot to mention the ability to collaborate with other users. Essentially a production studio could form spontaneously online as people with different talents get together. That wasn't really feasible for amateur radio
Posted by: Kory | December 1, 2006 5:16 PM
Radio ... is no longer particularly innovative or the most effective vehicle for industry outsiders to achieve stardom.
Well, that's where I have to disagree. Radio is still one of the best places for a band to achieve recognition. Three Doors Down, from our neck of the woods, only got a record deal because of the massive amounts of radio play they got on the Coast.
You see underground bands getting more and more recognition through radio programs on Sirius and XM. It's a huge market.
And again, by virtue of your argument, I think your describing the product life cycle. Where a comic, is a product. Popular music, is a product. Sitcom TV programs are a product. And they are beginning to play out their lifespan.
Regardless of the influences that affect their eventual demise, the fact is that they all follow the same effective curve.
Posted by: Cullen | December 1, 2006 8:13 PM
Okie... I'll defer to you on the issue of radio and music. You know what a musical idiot I am.
The product life cycle is not irrelevant to the discussion by any means, but the intended scope of the concept is more than that. If it was confined to rules governing products, then the logical replacement product would just be a different kind of product in the same media. But it's more than reality television replacing sitcoms or cop dramas replacing cowboy shows. Instead, people who once watched sitcoms transition to a new medium and instead read myspace blogs to get their entertainment fix. (or whatever replaces whatever, it's not my best example) New forms of media gradually replace or else largely supercede older forms.
I'll ruminate and try to address some of this in the next installment -- not necessarily intelligently, as I said earlier...
Posted by: Kory | December 1, 2006 9:14 PM