Whatever...

RIP BB

By Fiona Halkerston

As one of the last remaining fans of Big Brother, I was somewhat saddened, but not at all surprised, that Channel Four has axed the original annual “reality” TV show.   Media coverage of this year’s show has been over shadowed by the news that ratings have fallen and the public has lost interest in housemate antics.  Even the ever-faithful tabloids failed to be attracted to this year’s offering of page three hopefuls and TV presenters-to-be.

 

So, does the death of Big Brother truly indicate the beginning of the end for reality shows or are the Heat readers of this world just after a little more for their money?  Big Brother contestants are rewarded with their 15 minutes of fame for effectively doing nothing for an entire summer, and allowing us to watch them.  But surely they have to work harder than that to maintain public interest?

 

Reality shows that focus on “talent” seem to be systematically gaining momentum.  Last week, the X Factor debut episode pulled in audience figures of almost ten million, which is almost twice as many as Big Brother at its 2002 peak.  Celebrity talent shows also continue to be hugely popular as they offer ailing celebrities the chance to regain the affection of their once adoring public – but they certainly have to toil for it.

 

With this in mind, no matter whether you love it or hate it, Big Brother has changed television forever.   The boundaries of the term “reality” TV have been consistently stretched year on year and to mirror this, TV scheduling now offers an extensive range of society documentaries.  Whether the topic of choice is unhealthy eating habits or unpleasant illnesses, it would seem that the British public is obsessed with the escapism offered by watching someone else’s exaggerated reality. 

 

So, as Channel Four moves on and seeks its next big prime time money maker, I (for one) will still be tuning in to find out what the Big Brother producers pull out of the bag before the format itself is finally evicted. 

That's 'communitainment'

By Ingrid Daschner

The world is awash with the latest buzzword 'communitainment', a term that originated in a report entitled 'The User Revolution' by the analyst firm Piper Jaffray.

 

The exchange of content, ideas and entertainment in a Web 2.0 or social‑networking context, this concept can also be tailored to the corporate world and/or corporate culture without Web 2.0 as identified by Dr Wilhelm Greiner.

 

In Germany, communitainment doesn’t always come that naturally.  Here, the prevalent attitude is that information should be conveyed neutrally, objectively and soberly, however, from my practical experience, employees (especially techies) would much rather have a bit of humour, parody and satire than yet another dry Powerpoint presentation.

 

A very clear example is a white paper produced by Google about its Chrome browser. This was created by the famous comic artist Scott McCloud and takes the form of a 38‑page comic.  This is a prime example of communitainment, and is aimed at users who are interested in technology and are seeking a browser that is technically superior to and cooler than the usual one.  Not only do McCloud's illustrations help depict Chrome’s technical capabilities, but thanks to his unusual presentation, they also support Google’s 'cool’ image, a key differentiator when competing with Microsoft.

Will users be content paying for content?

By Laura Mead

I’ve recently been reading about the newspaper 'pay wall’ debate that seems to have struck a real nerve on both sides of the Atlantic.  Should newspaper publishers charge for online content, and is it a feasible revenue model for them? 

As a PR and avid online reader, it's both a fascinating and scary question.  With print subscriptions dying out and online advertising not generating the revenue the industry was hoping for, it’s obvious that things need to change – of course the question of how remains. 

Rupert Murdoch and the Financial Times seem to be leading the way, with the FT looking to introduce a unique charging model based on frequency for online users by 2010.  I remain unconvinced that this model, or indeed any pay model, will succeed.  What’s worse, I question whether it will have the opposite effect and drive readers away instead. 

Today’s ‘Google generation’ has been brought up online, and most consumers are now used to and have come to expect instant and free access to information – the news is certainly not immune to this.  The rise of social media – from Facebook to Spotify – has fashioned a way to share information and collaborate with other users in an easy, free way that wasn’t possible before.  The web has also spawned limitless opportunity for bloggers to share news, information and their opinions with anyone willing to read it.  This all makes me think the ‘pay wall’ model is not the answer the industry is looking for – won’t readers just look elsewhere for their news?

As media critic Dan Kennedy rightly points out, some of today’s leading online news sources – the BBC, CNN and MSNBC to name a few – offer a free service, which shows no sign of abating given their sole purpose is to promote and drive viewers to their sister TV channels.

With consumers now so spoiled for choice, there will always be alternative routes to get the news for free and so long as there is, I don't think they will pay for this online content - no matter how valuable it is.      

The blogosphere – to regulate or not to regulate?

By Lucy Smart

 

The credibility of bloggers worldwide was brought into question last week when Wall Street Journal blogger and reporter Ben Charny misinformed readers that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would headline the Consumer Electronics Show in 2010.  With scant evidence to back up these claims, and no reliable source, rival bloggers were quick to dismiss the post, while readers were left wondering what to believe.

 

While it’s often an extremely fast paced, insightful form of news, blogging is largely unregulated, leaving many readers to question the reliability of what they are reading.  Indeed, as David Gelles reports in his FT Tech Blog, the lines between advertising, marketing and editorial are less defined in the blogging world and while a few posts are falling under increased scrutiny, the majority of bloggers are failing to disclose their relationships with the companies and individuals they mention.

 

The Federal Trade Commission is currently considering appropriate guidelines that would hold bloggers liable for untruthful statements made on blogs or social media sites.  Other self-regulating sites, such as Womma, have published ethics codes, while the new self-policing group Blog with Integrity is encouraging bloggers to reassure readers by claiming their incorruptibility.  

 

But is it too soon to regulate blogs and other forms of new media? A set of rigid rules from the FTC could be too premature and too severe for an industry that is still developing.  Half the attraction of bloggers is they often offer a fresh view on topics because they are free to express themselves openly.  While it’s obviously wrong to publish outright lies, bloggers may become reluctant to publish their opinions if they fear being sued.

 

There is no doubt that there are regulatory issues that need to be addressed in the blogosphere – but while it is possible that blogs could be regulated by self policing bodies, it is questionable how effective these will be.