Prompt for the Carnival of Journalism: "What emerging technology or digital trend will upend journalism next?"
My original intent for this post was to discuss my dream of a device that jumps off the screen and brings us to a point that we no longer consider the exact dimensions of a smartphone, tablet, desktop and tv screen. Nothing excites me more than the concept of a small device (smart phone-sized or so) capable of storing and transporting all of the users data that is equipped with the ability to project it's display to any size of image. But that dream will not be the next great disruption to the present models of journalism.
After reading a beautifully sensational headline from the BBC (Social Messaging Apps 'lost networks $13.9bn in 2011), I am far more concerned about the digital methods users have available to obtain access to information and journalistic work.
The juxtaposition of journalism outlets attempting to expand their capabilities to every form of media and the telecomm industry's desire to minimize all costs of transferring data (for the providers, not the users) present great difficulties for the development of digital journalism and communication. While the direct effects of the battle between those who desire that we move less bits across the webs and those who are creating more and more expansive presentations for content will impact on how reporters perform their duties, I see greater implications for users' ability and willingness to afford purchasing journalism and content, in general.
Might users be willing to spend more on journalism content if they spend (or at least feel as if they spend) less on the digital connection to access the content?
I am curious what would happen if we could reduce the amount we pay for the delivery mechanism of media - connectivity - in terms of users' willingness to pay for media. Heavy users commonly purchase access to content through multiple channels - cellular, cable, satellite and/or landline/dial-up services - and are billed for each service. The threat of $14 billion being lost solely to cell phone users using 3g connections to communicate rather than SMS has not gone unnoticed. Telecomm providers have already begun ratcheting up prices on data, throttling the heaviest users and attempting to minimize the necessary expansion in infrastructure to accommodate the added demand.
But what if only one connection to the web were necessary and the user could access all content through one portal and be billed for all of the tv watched, all of the news read, all of the email sent, and all of the calls taken? Surely, users would expect a reduction in the amount they paid in total if they only had to pay for one service, right? And doubly-certain, the telecomm providers would not be willing to concede such proceeds without a battle. But let us consider what users might do if they were able to reduce their bill for connectivity.
I am interested in the convergence of the user's accounts and how they obtain their information. Many friends have traded in their access to traditional cable television in favor of a broadband internet connection and subscriptions to Netflix, XBOX Live and other content providers. Their internet has become their TV.
Next in the convergence of devices through digital technology is the merging of the telephone number and the email account. Telecomm companies have recognized this threat and have been less than accommodating to the new entries to the market. Services like Google Voice and Skype, the line distinguishing the two services is becoming increasingly non-existent.
In the desktop interface. Google Voice's telephone functions appear in the same manner as email and instant messaging services with text messages displayed in a orderly fashion and voicemail transcribed into text form. If desired, copies of messages can be delivered to the user's email address. If a user can connect the computer to the web through the same connection as the smartphone, then why would a user pay separately for the services?
If cell phone users are already saving $14 billion by avoiding SMS charges, how much more would be saved if heavier digital communication users were able to eliminate redundant charges for connectivity? Even if the overall price for such services did not decrease, might users be more prone to spend money on journalism content simply because they have reduced four bills to one?
Whether publications generate revenue from their end users (the readers, viewers, and listeners, not the advertisers or sponsors) through direct payments for content, membership programs, or the solicitation of voluntary contributions, I believe users will be far more apt to make such transactions if they are not burdened by multiple charges for their data connectivity.
My friends' abandonment of cable TV service in favor of content subscriptions through Hulu Plus and Netflix was made because it saved money and was just as easy as the more expensive alternative. The same choice will soon be made as users consider their access to cellular and broadband connectivity. Without a need for a distinction between email and telephone, payment for the latter will surely be questioned when the former is commonly obtained free-of-charge.
This is the opportunity for content creators - journalists, specifically - to create a new norm where paying for content is the common, accepted practice. If users can save money on the way they connect to content, the creators of content have a tremendous opportunity to present a compelling case that they receive a portion of these savings.
At the same time, as users are better able to afford content, they can be more and more selective with their purchases. The quality of content will always drive the development of (paying) supporters of a brand. In addition to hesitation from users to pay, telecomm companies will are already exhibiting great resistance to increase the burden placed upon their networks to transfer bigger and bigger pieces of content.
However, there is no better time to attempt to justify a monetary value for one's content than now. While I do not advocate for an internet full of paywalls, I do support journalists, artists and all creators of interesting work be fairly compensated for their contributions to our society.
Now is the time to use the most creative of methods to appeal to users and present a compelling case for why dollars previously spent on connectivity should now be spent on content. Best of luck to all journalists and content creators!
Then, once we have merged our connections into one channel, we will build a smartphone capable of projecting a movie for the whole drive-in to enjoy!
