Why Try To Get Out Of Your Box, When You Can Use What's In It?
99% of people only want to listen to what they already agree with.
Learn about cognitive dissonance: people are unconformable with messages that do not comport to their way of thinking.
The writer trying to conform readers is unsuccessful. Let readers (who already love your content and agree with it) conform other readers.
The first era of newspapers which never truly disappeared was the Partisan Press. The term basically implies the press is biased to one party in the information in their paper. The partisan press was very informative and direct, but all was starch and nothing very distinguished. The content surrounded commerce and politics – that was it. While most of the paper discussed prices, advertising, and shipping news, the editorials are what truly stood out. The editorial section was strongly partisan and at times, highly tempered. The editors would use this section to attack other newspapers, political groups, and political characters. Containing this small amount of content variety, rather, lack of variety, the partisan press’s audience was made up of the mercantile and political elites. Partly because the information was directed only at them and partly because the papers were very expensive, costing readers six cents an issue (when the average weeks’ pay was only 85 cents). The other odd thing about the distribution of the partisan papers was that you could not pick up a copy at your local barbershop. The partisan press papers were sold mainly by subscription only. As a result, this created a huge gap between the political and elite with the commoners. However, this wouldn’t last.
The second era of the newspapers was the introduction of the Penny Press, the gap closer between the political and elite with the masses. Due to new fast presses, tens of thousands of papers could be printed off every day at low cost. The excess of newspapers meant the distribution of them had to be refigured. The party press papers began to have an economic circulation rather than a political one, meaning that print provided information that would appeal to people, humans, morals, as opposed to merchants and business men. As a result the average Joe, the community member, basically everyone wanted to purchase a paper. Luckily they could because penny press papers were cheap. Since the penny press papers no longer made the majority of their money through subscriptions, they had to incorporate ads. Advertising became an exchange rather than something which was viewed as subjective and unfair. Prior to the penny press, ads were frowned upon. But since papers had to work a new way to make money, they were able to make money by charging higher prices for advertising since the papers had a strong circulation. Now that the masses were well informed, they sought out entertainment. And they found it.
The third era of newspapers was the most entertaining to say the least. The third era was the era of Yellow Journalism which is a type of journalism that presents very little and rarely genuine researched news or accurate reports. The premise behind it was to sell more newspapers at any expense (of their credibility). Newspapers using yellow journalism (notoriously William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer) relied on using eye-catching headlines and sensationalizing banal news. Those who would go out and obtain these bits of information (if you can call it that, I prefer “story ideas,” not actual information) were called muckrakers. A muckraker is a person who investigates and exposes issues of corruption and venality. As a result, the newspapers content contained crime and scandal stories, gossip, and fraud. While the newspapers would also report on international affairs, they presented the “news” in the same false-glorifying way as news at home. The content was created to provide entertainment, for it to be “aesthetically informative.” In regards to advertising, the more newspapers that are sold, the higher one can charge for advertising. Pulitzer sold advertising at fixed prices this way. He also abandoned the act of penalizing advertisers who used illustrations or broke column rules. This was a major change in the advertising world. Up until now most businesses and newspapers were hostile to advertisers. Since money from newspaper distribution was made primarily from advertisements, Pulitzer also began charging only two cents per issue and giving readers more pages than other two-cent issues that were sold. The goal was to sell newspapers to anyone and everyone through catching their eye, offering it to them at a cheap price, and entertaining them. The era of yellow journalism may not be the last era, but given the introduction of all the new technologies, it was the last most prevalent one in regards to newspapers.
“[…] Then you’re severely limiting your potential as a man. Learning how to approach women and start conversations with women is the most important social skill you will acquire. Otherwise you’re going to have a very difficult time meeting women.”
There’s so much wrong with this.
Quote from an ad that ran while listening to Pandora.
Phase 1: It’s a common misconception that books, movies, music, etc., just make it to the top 10, to the best sellers, to the “most popular” categories – one day you don’t see them there, the next day you do. It’s magic. Phase 1 of the Long Tail is making whatever you make, big: big audience, big profit, and big exposure. 50 Shades is a prime example, it is average price and a bestseller.
For the mass, one day it just showed up and they had to have it.
Phase 2: This is when a slight price reduction takes place. Most commonly found in the form of a sale, a discount, a sweepstake or giveaway. Phase two of the Long Tail is making it (perhaps 50 Shades of Gray) slightly more available. The goal is to reach an even larger audience that without the price reduction would have never been reached.
Phase 3: While phase two slightly expands the range of those who would purchase the product; phase three involves an even larger price drop. By now the production costs are paid, the creator has profited, and the goal is to reach as many people as possible while still making profit – small profit, but profit nevertheless.
Phase 4: By now, one can cut production completely and put the product online for instant download in multiple formats. The last phase is to offer the work for free, to reach everyone (at least with internet access). The goal is to catch even more eyes on the work you have shipped while you are producing new work that starts back at phase one.
This is the progressive and profiting idea of the Long Tail that most people see.
The problem with cutting the Long Tail into phases, though, is the sociological impacts that are created as a result. At each phase, you make those who participated in the phase before it more uncomfortable. “Why do they get it cheaper.” “I should have waited until the price went down.” “Next time I’m just going to hold off until it’s free.” While this has significant effects, there is one in particular that needs to be noted.
This effect directs more of those who participate in the first phase, to dig deep for the interesting, the odd, and the most creative items that are at the end of the tail. After all, everything ends up there anyway, right? In the consumer’s mind, inaction creates price reduction. In the producers mind, inaction prevents them from ever getting a hold of the work. With the Long Tail, the consumers right.
Looking back at all of this, it seems that the Long Tail actually has a negative effect. At least, if you follow it from phase 1, it does.
But, what if I told you that the Long Tail was meant to work in reverse, from phase four, from the end of it. That before 50 Shades found itself in phase 1; the author had been producing shorter creative work, gathering a tribe of followers.
The beauty of the Long Tail is that people are able to go up the tail in short phases. All with the start of a niche product and a small, but close tribe. For most, the box office movies, the best sellers, the “top 10,” were overnight successes. Really, they worked longer and harder than one can imagine getting there.
William McGuire, developer of the Model of Persuasion, says people who are exposed to information that they want to pay attention to, want to comprehend, want to accept, and want to retain, then take action on that exposure. What the model fails to represent is the looping effect; that people then act on finding more information that corresponds with their beliefs. This is the method used by political candidates. Could “actions” also consist of surrounding oneself with other likeminded people, other people who vote the same? Bill Bishop would say yes.
Bishop says that despite how diverse and polarized America has become, the places we live are crowded with people who live, think, and most importantly vote like we do. He goes on to say how the second half of the twentieth century brought social specialization, the displacement of mass culture by media, organizations, and associations that were both segmented and more homogenous. Combine this with historical efforts of gerrymandering, it’s no wonder people live in communities where others have similar views – especially on politics, the hottest button of all beliefs.
The largest turn of trends comes post-materialism. There are two parts to this which Bishop covers. The first is that materialism is viewed as a value-system. Given the industrial revolution and consumerist society, people no longer have to worry as much about survival. As a result, attention is turned toward post-materialistic movements (civic political ideas). The second part of post-materialism is the idea that “every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while simultaneously developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its systemic decay.”
In the end, Bishop notes that, “homogeneity may be a perk of the unprecedented choice our society offers – but it also breeds economic inequality, cultural misunderstanding, political extremism, and legislative gridlock.” Arguing for the middle ground in politics is like trying to write a completely objective article; it’s been pursued but never accomplished. Dare I suggest that Bishop is taking a similar outlook on The Big Sort as does the news on any topic: negative. I believe there is a route that Bishop could take that could exploit The Big Sort in a way that it benefits, not only the community, but the entire nation – despite polarization, despite the changing/declining economy, despite the inequality.
Americans are prone to move forward and construct lifestyles – as well as political realms – that work off their polarizing beliefs. While I’m no economist, I think Bishop copped out. There are two routes of further research and foresight he could make to support (or counter) his theory of The Big Sort. First, if The Big Sort is making a large enough impact as he states, then why not seek ways that America can leverage it? Secondly, if The Big Sort is leading to such turmoil, then what’s next? Sure, Bishop does a brilliant job of explaining The Big Sort, supporting it with endless research, but if I held the cure to cancer, just holding it doesn’t do much good.
I wish I had it recorded but in print will have to do. Below is my introduction to UW Madison Chapter’s PRSSA Conference. You can also find some great tips and cover by searching #PRSSA and #uwconf on Twitter.
I won’t ask you to, but who here can define journalism? If I were to ask each of you, everyone would have a different response, similar, but different.
Almost 100 years ago, journalism emerged and was defined by Lippman as the translator between the public and the policy making Elites. Simple. Straightforward.
Now we have dozens of different definitions and even more subcategories: analytic, backpack, community, enterprise, immersive, mobile, pack, tabloid… you get the idea.
Over thousands of years ago, ethics was easily defined by a few different principals. Aristotle established the Golden Mean principal of ethics, basically it meant that everyone was to strive for the balance between two extremes.
Similarly golden, the golden rule was established. Simple profound, and could be applied to everything in writing and in life.
Unfortunately, long before journalism was established, multiple layers of ethics soon overlapped the golden mean and the golden rule, leaving us with thousands of ethical questions to be asking ourselves.
In this new media age, with so many guidelines, it seems that we can’t do anything without breaking some ethical standard.
We even have people arguing the utilitarian John Stuart Mill and his ethical stance called “the greatest-happiness principle” which holds that one must aim to do that which will produce the greatest happiness among all beings.” How does that not cover it all?
While we have an assortment of speakers here tonight to tell you about new media and a bit about ethics, I would like to express two ideas with you. Think about them throughout the keynote and breakout sessions.
The first is this: have you noticed that we no longer blaze journalists who are the first to report to us? Think to any of the last shootings. Has there ever been a report, the first on a story that was completely correct? That gave the exact number of fatalities? That described the shooter with absolute detail? We have come to trade in ethical standards for being fed information quicker, to being connected, and to being the first to share news with each other.
In a worldwide journalistic mission of getting the story, and getting it first, we sacrifice what historic media interpreters would call professionalism. What were once ethical standards are now breached with the new media methods of being a journalist.
The second note is something that everyone here has heard before, but has yet to be strongly applied to journalism.
With great power comes great responsibility.
We are now more digitally powerful than ever before, most would agree that its beyond governmental control, and definitely beyond the control of one single ethical standard.
With great power comes great responsibility. This means we need to self-regulate ourselves. The age of having ethical standards has passed. There is no right ethical move, or wrong ethical choice, only actions that are popular and actions that are not. It’s up to us to define ethics for ourselves. If we set them correctly, only then will I buy the idea that were journalists.
Now that you have some things to think about and without further ado, I would like to introduce our keynote speaker of the night Theo Keith, reporter for WISC-TV
Businesses, I want to emphasize before I continue, businesses – not people, not small groups, not just customers – but entire businesses are slowly finding ways to connect with people.
Prior to this current era of connection economy (coined by Seth Godin) that we are in, businesses stayed away from political movements, from activist groups, from “the touchy subjects” that spread across America.
Now, we are seeing businesses – who employ thousands of people – take a stance. Most recently for gay marriage. These businesses understand that customers are no longer customers, they are friends, and friends stick together. And when you have a group of friends, friends bring in more friends to the group. Whereas, customers rarely do.
When businesses become more human than industrialistic, not only are profits made, but something miraculous happens – public change.
There has never been a better time for businesses to take a stand for what they believe in, to show they are human, to forget trying to appeal to the mass and connect with the smaller association of people who provide 80% of their profits anyway.
It will probably piss some people off, but anything important and worthwhile usually does.
