avatar

trock.lucasmicrophone

Gold Finger

Posts: 411 Member Since: 11/10/2013

Lead

Jul 17 17 1:17 PM

Tags : :

Was reading in the Automation some questions on marketing yourself, your studio, music etc

Just thought I would start a new topic to delve into this for everyone.

As an artist mainly I have used the basic website (not much going on here), FB artist page, and using FB tools to promote (this has done pretty well and I have about 7K "fans"), Twitter (once i got the hang of it it was ok), Don't or haven't used instagram but alot of people do. At the very least having these sites linked into groups, emails, forums with like minded people can generate results.

I read some comments about people hesitating to tout their wares so to speak. I think that is ingrained in alot of us, I was horribly shy and felt stupid trying to promote the album, but had alot of help and gradually got alot better at posting things that didn't sound like I was braggin or whatever (I never was but it is hard to say "Hey check out what I did and do", sometimes without it coming across that way when being read)

Anyway, my personal feeling on this is ALL of you should use these tools, most are free and you can reach a huge audience, and if done right, I think you can expand your business and your "fame". 

If it's an anti corporate thing or whatever we sometimes seem to have, or we are just shy and fell odd promoting ourselves all I can say is you're probably better than someone out there who is doing it and getting the business, and from who I have met here I would say pretty much all of you are!

That being said, take it away with your experiences!

Last Edited By: trock Jul 17 17 1:20 PM. Edited 1 time

Quote    Reply   
avatar

spiritwalker

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,714 Member Since:14/02/2011

#1 [url]

Jul 17 17 2:11 PM

Well, from a band perspective we had a;

Web page - practically useless and now dead.
ReverbNation page - Meh, maybe it's better now or maybe it's just the driving people to it thing
CBC Radio three page - Meh again, the only thing we use it for is hosting our songs so we can point people to them when applying for things.
Facebook - it works but once again getting people interested is slow for us. What tools are you using to get your numbers up?

The only things consistent for us are, we continue to write quicker than we can record and our desire to sample tequila's

OK it's cold here

Last Edited By: spiritwalker Jul 17 17 2:14 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

seth

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,684 Member Since:26/01/2011

#2 [url]

Jul 17 17 10:44 PM

I'm absolutely the worst, not a clue how to market myself. I never have had a clue. I've been fortunate that my work seems to speak for me, because I'm hopeless.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

chrisj

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,008 Member Since:22/02/2011

#3 [url]

Jul 18 17 4:31 AM

seth wrote:
I'm absolutely the worst, not a clue how to market myself. I never have had a clue. I've been fortunate that my work seems to speak for me, because I'm hopeless.

That's actually a good strategy when you can manage it. The trouble is, there's not room for everybody to grow: maybe one in a hundred.

When you focus on only doing the work and have a few little narrowly constrained ways to communicate that, the message it sends is 'I'm too sincere and dedicated to this to spend my time PR-ing'. If, IF you're noticed at all by doing that, it's a useful angle and it's true that it saves you time and energy that would be wasted in trying to pretend to be a good PR type.

It's also a big limitation: I don't think that can be avoided.

I use a thing called IfThisThenThat: https://ifttt.com/ which mostly watches for YouTube uploads, and then echoes them to places like Facebook and Twitter and a Reddit subreddit. It's supplementary, mainly when I have a new thing I post the same blurb that goes on my web page to the purple forum and KVR. I don't try to promote here because I feel I am working too fast, because I don't feel this crowd is particularly eager to 'tell the world about stuff they found in order to seem important' (rather the reverse, at times!) and because for me it's more of a personal hang-out: I don't expect any 'networking usefulness' out of here, it's just good for my soul to make 'heavy friends' ;)

In terms of marketing, it's a lot more useful to do a consistent and recognizable thing over a long span of time, and be doing it in a big pool with a bunch of people who are worse than you. Learning to love the hoi polloi is super important: I can't speak for being a working musician/songwriter as I never have been and never will be acceptable there outside of a possible tiny niche of weirdos, but in terms of being a gear-maker I have to care about what the Fruity Loops crowd actually wants, and can't sneer at 'em or ignore 'em.

Fixing some bug real fast, or answering a criticism by adding some doohickey that I thought unnecessary, is at least as valuable as thinking up the most amazing audio DSP thing. Marketing means the quality of my work or performance comes a struggling third, in terms of whether I make money and gain attention. Second is always whether I'm engaging with people (CUSTOMER people) nicely and seem like I ought to be supported. And first is just luck, and I can never control that at all.

So, most of my effort goes to quality of work, but most of my DISCIPLINE goes to engaging with people and whether I'm staying okay with that, and the rest is just hoping for some kind of lucky break, and being persistent.

Chris Johnson, airwindows.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#4 [url]

Jul 18 17 6:30 AM

I'm not the best at it, either. Or, to be more precise, I find it hard to do much of it in a way that feels true to myself.

But I've been around a lot of people who manage to parlay "internet fame" into real work, and I've seen a little bit about how they do it. It's like any other kind of hustle... it just happens to have replaced many other kinds.

As with most other pursuits, being on the front of the curve is important. When Instagram was brand new, a few musicians actually got well known by uploading videos of themselves performing (very often the gimmick of "split screen, I'm singing 20 parts" or "split screen, I'm playing several instruments." I can think of half a dozen or more that parlayed this into ACTUAL careers, where they're in demand as touring performers. Jacob Collier, Dwayne Thomas (MonoNeon), Alissia Benveniste, etc.

In every successful case, there was some sort of "hook" that increased the share-appeal. MonoNeon had his weird aesthetic and the fact that he never showed his face (a la "Buckethead"). Collier had his freak-dense harmony, etc. etc.

But the result of that is that a whole bunch of people then thought "WOW, UPLOADING VIDEOS OF MYSELF PLAYING COVERS ON INSTAGRAM IS A SURE-FIRE TICKET TO FAME," and IG became a giant talent show, of sorts, and now it almost looks pathetic/amateurish to do that. And by the time that happens, the window of opportunity is already closed.

The reality of the digital music economy is that it's not enough to be talented; it's not enough even to be a musical innovator. To some extent, it's also those who are innovators in this sort of online marketing who have the most success. Building a great brand seems as (or more) important than building a great band.

What's a little bit easier is, if you already have a brand people care about, maximizing that. If you have a fan base of even 100 people, it's easier to grow that with a social media presence. Facebook and Instagram "live" events (which have largely replaced the old "periscope" app) are a great way to engage fans and give them some "behind the scenes." I've barely experimented with that myself, but I've seen others use it to GREAT effect... even setting their phone up and doing a "facebook live" of their concerts.

One thing that's a big one is just the mindset-- in many ways we're at a place in youth culture the polar opposite of when Gen X were young. There's absolutely nothing square about promoting yourself now-- it actually seems to give you cred, rather than take it away. The word "selling out" is completely gone from the lexicon. Commercial success or notoriety are no longer seen as mutually-exclusive with artistic integrity. Kids who came of age in the 90s like I did will still struggle with current social media "common practice" for this reason-- the more "indie/punk/DIY" ethos we carry with us, the more unnatural and objectionable it will all seem, most likely.

One final thing that I believe is sadly true-- social media culture is profoundly dishonest. Everyone shows their "good side." If you're honest about having difficulty in your career, that makes you LESS appealing due to human "Lord of the Flies" nature. Everyone wants to work with the person everyone else wants to work with. It's probably not good for my mental health, but I try to never talk about my rough patches online for precisely this reason-- I feel it actually makes the problem worse. The illusion of success tends to breed more success. 

brad allen williams

Last Edited By: soapfoot Jul 18 17 6:33 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

dr funk

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,643 Member Since:24/12/2011

#5 [url]

Great post, Brad. I definitely fall into the 'I'd like my work to speak for itself' camp, but it is a 'new reality' now, and I think I see hashtags in my future.

Hopefully they won't be appearing in sentences like "it's not F hashtag minor"...

Quote    Reply   
avatar

barkleymckay

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,363 Member Since:22/01/2011

#7 [url]

A lot to chew over in that post Brad, cheers. 
I'm guilty of venting some of my frustration on my personal page on Facebook- good point . 
I think the idea of promoting activity is a good one. I realised that I'm always tinkering,fixing, experimenting of sorts in my studio so have been attempting to keep some form of blog as a living CV. Be it some of the recordings I have done recently or even a feature about the piano being maintained. I even remembered to update some of my higher profile work from over the last few years. It does seem adverse to me to promote ones achievements- but at times there is therapeutic value in reminding oneself of them- why not give yourself a shoutout!
A narrative I guess to be seen, when there is no real scene to be seen in - ya dig?
I'm actually canvassing opinion re blogs over at FB right now - a post as a result of feeling like it's all just an echo chamber - yet people are stating that they do read my blogs - and I've had one indirect enquiry as a result for sessions.

one thing, my grammar is atrocious. I only seem to notice a couple days later...

(I shouldn't use a phone to type this!)
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#8 [url]

It's very interesting how all of this changes constantly, too-- there's a social media set of etiquette that's evolving, and which is different depending on age group.  

For example-- most millennials I know go as full-on social media as possible. But I have a niece who's about to turn 14, and among her group of friends it's considered gauche to have more than 10 pictures on your Instagram account... like you're "trying too hard" or something. So those kids, they "curate" aggressively-- every time they upload a new photo, they delete an old one! A totally foreign concept to me.

So it's constantly evolving. But speaking of "trying too hard--" I think that's the most common mistake my peers (some of whom almost approach being native to social media, some of whom are not at all) make. In many ways, this is "same as it ever was" in youth culture-- EVERYONE is making an effort, but the people who make it LOOK casual are the ones who look cool; the people who reveal that they're actually trying to look special fall flat. Human nature is strange. 

One related mistake I see people make is trying to solicit gigs-- "Hey musician friends! Summer is looking kind of slow for me, if anyone needs a drummer, let me know... passport ready, will travel!" doesn't work. It just doesn't. In many ways, this is ALSO same as it ever was-- in Thelonious Monk's famous famous list of advice he gave to Steve Lacy, one of the bullet points was "Don't sound ANYBODY for a gig. Just be ON THE SCENE." That advice remains true in the world of social media, as well--in fact, it's probably MORE true in the world of social media than anywhere.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

barkleymckay

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,363 Member Since:22/01/2011

#9 [url]

Haha I used the Monk "be seen on the scene" reference - I hope you spotted my adaptation of it!
It's very true.
If one runs a promotional to gather more work, it is hard for it to be not construed as "quiet here, studio available for cheap" I guess. That is my fear. So what then...
All my work has been by word of mouth, but as my clients find it harder to justify recording due to cost and no profitable return, it is diminishing - and the sting is that I encounter fewer people by word of mouth as my own well runs dry.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#10 [url]

Ha! I missed that, somehow.

One thing I think manifests in the millennial generation (perhaps stronger than in prior generations due to the relative prosperity of their upbringing)-- younger individuals prioritize experiences over material goods. This is very important, because it's sort of the root of all social media "draw."

The way to be fancy in the 1980s and 1990s was to own an expensive car and a huge house and designer clothes. That's how you flexed your wealth and your success so that everyone knew.

In the 2010s, the way to be fancy is to have experiences-- to travel, to be involved in "happenings" like big music festivals, to get invited to exclusive events, to have working relationships with famous or important people. That's why Instagram is such social currency-- it's a way to sort of document and show off your experiences, when those experiences signify success and prosperity.

That's why you see a lot of "from the stage looking over a huge crowd" shots, or "in the studio with Quincy Jones and Herbie Hancock" shots, or "2 days off on tour... staying at this beautiful mansion in the south of France" shots. Those things have literally replaced the Ferrari and the mansion in Beverly Hills.

In other words, the photo montage of of you having the experience of four different fittings for the bespoke suit has become more important than the bespoke suit itself, as a signifier for how special and important you are.

The thing is-- this INCLUDES photos from big, fancy purpose-built studios. The things that seem old hat (or like "a day's work") to most of us here are actually exotic signifiers of success and uniqueness to those a bit younger. If you happen to be doing a date in a large tracking room, or a control room with almost any large-format analog console... that plays very well now, actually, because that's an experience most millennials (even most millennial musicians) have never had. It seems "special." And "special" is currency in 2017.

brad allen williams

Last Edited By: soapfoot . Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

trock.lucasmicrophone

Gold Finger

Posts: 411 Member Since:11/10/2013

#11 [url]

On the FB tools page, you can promote to a targeted audience for as little as 5 bucks a day, and it works pretty well.

I'd have to go back and see the exact steps but there are good articles on using the tools FB provides to promote a business or artist page. Soyou have options vs just throwing up a page and inviting your friends to see it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#12 [url]

I think the sponsored Facebook links thing works a bit better as part of a broader strategy than as a strategy in and of itself.

One thing to be aware of is that when you do that, it's revealed as "sponsored" with a bit of text under the post. To some audiences, this can actually be a turn-off rather than a turn-on... particularly if it's made to try and seem "organic."

I saw one a few months ago that was, in effect, "I'm so humbled that this record I worked on won a Grammy-- I never would've expected this would've happened!" and then it had the "sponsored" text under the post header. So obviously transparent and fake... a major turnoff (to me, anyway).

Related: one thing I think-- and MAYBE this is just me, but I think it's a broader trend-- is that honest bragging plays much better on social media than fake humility. 90s babies have keen bullshit detectors FAR more sophisticated (and far earlier) than my 80s-baby one ever was at their age.

For instance, a post saying "I'm extremely proud of the work we did on this project--congrats to the whole team on our Grammy win!" will be better-received than one that says "I feel so #humbled and #blessed by this Grammy, which totally literally blindsided me out of nowhere!"

Fake humility and humblebragging will be spotted every time, and met with a chorus of eye-rolls.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jesse decarlo

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,571 Member Since:24/03/2013

#13 [url]

I totally roll my eyes when people talk about being "humbled" by something good that happens to them. It doesn't even make any sense. "Humbled" isn't when you win an award and feel grateful - it's when you're feeling good about your bass playing at a nightclub gig and Marcus Miller walks in the door.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

chrisj

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,008 Member Since:22/02/2011

#14 [url]

soapfoot wrote:
For example-- most millennials I know go as full-on social media as possible. But I have a niece who's about to turn 14, and among her group of friends it's considered gauche to have more than 10 pictures on your Instagram account... like you're "trying too hard" or something. So those kids, they "curate" aggressively-- every time they upload a new photo, they delete an old one! A totally foreign concept to me.


That's very interesting. Seems like it's a natural outgrowth of the normalization of promotion: yeah you're allowed to dump yourself all over everywhere, that's a given, but you're expected to make an effort.

I suspect what's going to work next is generosity: I'll let you know how well that works, that's pretty much where I'm at. Thanks to living in the middle of nowhere and some lucky breaks, I have the option of leading with generosity and trying to give people as much as I can while mostly ignoring any aspects of my own survival. I'm just happier that way, there's a part of me that (after a decade of struggling away in the world of capitalism) would happily lay down and die, rather than pull in harness any longer.

It cheers me up to support others, and that's brought a renaissance in outlook for me, but I can't think too much about the future as it's very chancey.

One thing that occurred to me reading these posts is, maybe I need to pick out what I think are my most useful plugins and do Facebook ads with a message of 'Here, I'll pay some money just to tell you that I think this free thing I made is good and might help you'. I have arranged things so that it's easy for me to give the impression of just some free-giving person who is never compensated by anybody.

It might be worth doing that with, say, my 'NewUpdates' zip file, which has the whole collection of my free stuff, and which has little in the way of Patreon-begging in it. If my guess is correct, there might be benefit in the notion of 'I am paying Facebook to be allowed to tip you off about something I think is good' when it's legitimately no-strings.

Just brainstorming, 'cos all this is my problem too: I'll try not to lie down and die, even if you could make a good song about it ;)

Chris Johnson, airwindows.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

trock.lucasmicrophone

Gold Finger

Posts: 411 Member Since:11/10/2013

#15 [url]

I think if you an find your voice and be real, and come across that way people respond.

i dislike greatly FB because for the most part people will post

Oh, what an amazing day at the beach with the kids, love love love this!

in reality what really happened was the kids fought, didnt want to go, the brother hit the sister, the mom tripped, the dad forgot to pack the sandwiches and they argied, and they staggered to the beach all stressed out, then got sunburnt.

then everyone repsonds

oh love love love
thats so great!
love it!

and half of them are jealous they arent at the beach, or secretly picking apart the suits, or what was packed or whatever

gah

so, i think sort of what chris is sayin, just be real, maybe put some humor in, and showcase what you DO and the reality, you can be a big hit

I certainly wasn't the best at it but I tried.

although a post i wanted to put would def get corrected at times by Blake who was a genius at this stuff lol

mine would read

yeah, so I have played this song now 1,345 times, I HATE it now, I can't fret the third chord worth a S***, i sang out of tune and tuned it so I suck there, the bass isn't what i wanted but i was so sick of the song by then i could care less....however its decently catchy....hop you like it

the middle ground would become

Hi, here is a new song that I personally like quite a bit. lots of work went into it, lots of things went wrong to get it to where it is lol, but hopefully you will enjoy it as well. thanks

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,288 Member Since:20/01/2011

#16 [url]

This is an interesting look at it from the other side, I just got Tim Wu's book "The Attention Merchants" and it's interesting and thought provoking.

Here is an interview from The Atlantic:


theatlantic.com

Tim Wu's 'The Attention Merchants' Asks, Does Advertising Ruin Everything?

Derek Thompson

Harvesting was perhaps the original U.S. industrial activity. Economic growth relied on the reliable conversion of plants and animals into salable products, like cotton and beef. But the 21st century’s most successful industrialists, like Facebook and Google, harvest another commodity as abundant as wheat or crude oil. In the new industry, the fields are media and entertainment, the harvesters are advertisers, and the crop is attention.

In his new book, The Attention Merchants, the Columbia University professor and writer Tim Wu traces the history of the advertising business from its origins in the 19th century to the modern phenomenon of ad-blocking software on websites. Wu is widely known for his previous book The Master Switch, a history of media companies, and his coining of the term “net neutrality.” We spoke earlier this week about advertising as the modern iteration of religious evangelism and the effect of advertising on journalism and television. This transcript has been edited for concision and clarity.


Derek Thompson: An important part of attention is focus, so let’s zoom all the way in. What is this book’s thesis?

Tim Wu: The descriptive thesis is that there is a strange business model called advertising-supported media that was once restricted to a small area of our life, like newspapers, but now it is taking over every area of our life. I wanted to understand the history of advertising, because it didn’t simply always exist this way. You typically would just pay for stuff, like newspapers or movies. The idea of selling a captive audience had to be invented.

And the normative question is: What are the costs of everything being free? Are we paying in other ways? There is a covenant that, in exchange for free stuff, we expose ourselves to advertising. But is that covenant broken?

Thompson: The idea that advertising is a strange idea is, frankly, a strange idea. I unlock my phone, and I’m swimming in ads. I walk outside: ads. I turn on the television: more ads. The first popular radio news programs were in the early 20th century, so literally nobody alive today can recall a period where they were not being constantly bombarded by commercial messages.

Wu: I think that most people think there has always been advertising, that it is a fact of nature. But modern advertising had to be invented. Somebody had to develop the techniques of getting people’s attention and then driving them to a product they wouldn’t otherwise want.

The history of advertising is not well known. Many of the early ad men specialized in selling medicine. Many were former preachers or related to preachers. In the 19th century, advertising drew from traditions of religious propaganda, and the idea that our advertising culture draws from religious practice is fascinating to me.

Thompson: You trace the origins of advertising to the story of an 1830s newspaper man named Benjamin Day. What was his genius?

Wu: Newspapers were once a sleepy business. They often sold for a relatively high price. Then in the 1830s, this fellow Benjamin Day, his paper was the New York Sun, and he was perhaps the first true attention merchant. Day had a brilliant idea to dramatically reduce the price, amass a large readership, and convert his customers into a product, which he could sell to an advertiser. This insight spread across media to become the dominant form of selling the news.

His story shows both the promise and the ethical challenges inherent to the advertising business model. Because once your goal is to gather the largest audience possible, that puts you in a race toward the more lurid, spectacular, and attention-getting media. Day’s paper included lots of violence crime and death, but it also very quickly got into fabricating stories.

Thompson: I can imagine some readers drawing a straight line from Day’s sensational 1830s papers to online clickbait today, concluding that advertising encourages a race to the bottom to maximize attention on a per-unit basis. But it’s also the case that advertising democratizes news and information, making freely available to the many that which used to be open only to the rich. And that sort of business model is good because it pays for more reporters and journalism.

Wu: I think it’s all there in the story of Benjamin Day. The potential and the risk of advertising. To Day's credit, he brought the news to everybody. Newspapers were a very elite product before the opening of the penny press. There is a democratizing element to advertising that makes these products cheap and available to the masses. That is is good. But it should be done very, very carefully. A business model that relies above all else on attention is always prone to the sensational.

Thompson: What is the most controversial idea in the book?

Wu: A subtle thesis of the book is that business overtook religion in the 20th century. For most of human existence, who told you what to think? Preachers did. Religion did. But I think that, through advertising, business has displaced religion as the primary instructor of human deliverance.

I tell the story of Claude Hopkins, who is famed as one of the inventors of modern advertising. He was a funny guy with a lisp, and he was socially awkward. He was a baptist preacher as a teenager, who quit and took his talent to copywriting and virtually invented the idea of the copy writer as a genius in the early 20th century. He invented the Don Draper figure. His strategy was very closely related to the protestant-preacher style of deliverance. He imported ideas of religious conversion directly into the advertising world. His autobiography, My Life in Advertising, is full of falsehoods. You can't decide if he was one of the most evil people of the 20th century or a lovable genius.

Thompson: Right now, we’re at an interesting inflection point in ad-supported media. On the one hand, you have Facebook and Google, two enormous ad-based companies that are collectively worth about $900 billion. On the other hand, you have structural decline in the broadcast-television business as more young people watch subscription television, like Netflix and HBO Now, where there are no commercials. So audiences, and especially young people, are simultaneously running away from advertising on television while running toward it on their phones. Is this a golden age for advertising? Or the beginning of an Ice Age? Or an unstable and unsure moment?

Wu: We are in a moment of revolt against major forms of advertising. You can see it in the decline in NFL ratings, the abandonment of traditional television. But some things are growing that are ad-based. Revolutions are confusing in real time. They’re often only clear in retrospect.

I would say that heavy advertising load hasn’t arrived at some of the social media yet. Snapchat and Twitter are still in their relatively early days, and the full load hasn’t arrived, unlike the barrage of ads you see in the fourth quarter of a football game. There is always this delay factor. Young people will always be running to these apps before they add advertising. YouTube got people hooked before they turned up the ad load. But you look at YouTube now, and I think the terms have gone beyond TV, where it feels like a third of the time spent on YouTube is watching ads. That is why there is this move among people who cannot stand advertising and are going to Netflix and Amazon Video.

Thompson: Yours is a testable hypothesis. If investors are reading this interview, they might say, “Tim Wu is seeing a cultural shift against ads that spells the long-term demise of ad-sponsored businesses.” Then they would place a huge bet on an ad-free media portfolio, including Netflix and Amazon and against Facebook and BuzzFeed. But how would websites survive that future? How would The Atlantic survive?

Wu: I have a personal theory about traditional media, like newspaper and magazine sites, which is that they are crazy to go it alone and try to build their own little army. They should be more focused on getting readers to subscribe to a one-pass for everything that’s worth reading before Facebook essentially does this for them.

Thompson: For example, you’re talking about a hypothetical product where readers could subscribe to The Atlantic, The New Yorker, the New York Times all at once with a discounted price and have special access to those print products and sites.

Wu: Right. Something like that.

Thompson: The whole idea that news should cost money has been a casualty of the Internet and the new abundance of free—or, ad-supported—sites. If The Atlantic puts up a wall, maybe readers will just go somewhere else.

Wu: Yes, and that’s why a part of my message is to consumers. We have to get over our addiction to free stuff. Suck it up and pay. A lot of people say, “I hate ads, I’m sick of ads, I’m sick of clickbait, I’m sick of this race to the bottom.” If you say that, you have to put your money where your mouth is. We have to get over our addiction to free if we’re going to save the web. That’s us, the users. We can’t expect everything to be free and to be good.

Thompson: Unlike cable television, which is very expensive but also very good.

Wu: The history of the last 10 years of the Web is a bit like the first 10 years of television. There were all these great hopes for what TV would be. But then it became an ad battle, and the only programs that succeeded were game shows and cowboys. Television only got better with the rise of paywalls [like premium cable].

Thompson: What if game shows and cowboys succeeded because people like game shows and cowboys? Perhaps the ultimate culprit here is that large audiences might have worse taste than you or I would prefer.

Wu: I realize that not everybody has the same taste as me. But if you go through American media history, you see that there are times when the programs clearly get better and where the offerings are more diverse. There have always been shows that no critics liked. But television has been terrific over the the last 10 years, and I think that the economic structure of premium cable and subscription television has been an enormous factor.

Thompson: One irony of the superabundance of advertising on the Internet and on our phones is that, per the principle of inflation, there is so much competition that each individual advertisement is worth less. I wonder whether advertising itself is in a race to the bottom on the Web. It’s impossible to predict the future of anything, but what’s a smart way to think about the future of advertising and media?

Wu: The attention-merchant business model is in constant need of growth, and the way it has grown historically is either to find new times and space where we’re not occupied or to more subtly exploit the time that is already there. That suggests that all the periods you now regard as refuges or escapes from your crazy life will inevitably become targeted, because that’s where the growth activities are. For example, there has been a move to bring more ads to national parks, inside public schools, and into other sanctuaries that were previously walled off. As people are harder to reach, the efforts to advertise to them became more disguised, more intrusive, and more manipulative.

If I were in charge of the universe, I would say we need a new covenant—a new deal between advertisers and consumers, to make some times and places off limits. Where we want to be is where many print magazines are right now. The ads are beautiful and often very interesting, but looking at them doesn't ruin the magazine. That would be peace in our time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

seth

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,684 Member Since:26/01/2011

#17 [url]

We tend to make the self-centered assumption that the "product" in all of this "new media" is what gets delivered to us. That we are in control by ignoring the advertising or going somewhere else if it gets annoying. The truth is we are the "product", being delivered to advertisers en masse by social media. Internet advertising is so cheap compared to broadcast media or cable TV that there is almost no downside to blanketing us with crap. It's the same with robocalls, even though they're often illegal. Makes one nostalgic for books and letter-writing.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help