“I’m on Vodafone, so lucky me, I’m one of the punters that this week can download a new track from her album every day. Yeepee-Hey. ‘Candy Shop’ is the first available jewel, and it’s not bad, so I set it as my ringtone of choice. Tomorrow, we’ll see what we get. Am I not going to buy the album? Oh no. The album will be bought, and downloaded to my iTunes, and then onto my iPod. So why did I pay £1.5 for the priviledge? Because Mobile Music is Marketing Magic Moves these days. I basically paid to sample the music. Of course, I could do that on the Radio, but it’s not the same. I got the track First. I got the ringtone First. It’s all about the NOW.”
[Inma Martinez on her shift6 blog, 21 April 2008.]
28 April 2008
24 April 2008
The music industry finds its own solutions
In my previous post, I talked about the new threat of ‘illegal downloading’ (colloquially termed ‘piracy’) which is changing the business of music, globally. For one thing, most music lovers are switching from buying CDs to digital music, downloading them piecemeal (i.e. track by track) from the Net onto their personal computers.
Of greater concern is that most of this downloaded music is not paid for. It is passed on by friends, or downloaded from peer-to-peer music/video sites (known as ‘illegal file sharing’). The music industry is losing sales and, therefore, unhappy. So, how is the music industry responding to this new threat?
Well, most recording companies are worried, being slow to embrace the digital technology as quickly as their consumers have. However, according to the industry representative, the IFPI, the music industry has not been left behind:
“Music sales via online and mobile channels have risen from zero to an estimated US$2.9 billion – 15 per cent of industry sales – over the last five years, making music more digitally advanced than any entertainment sector except games.”
Online retail music stores like Amazon.com or Apple’s iTunes Store have been sampling and selling music in digital formats for a while now. According to the IFPI report I quoted from earlier, “There are more than 500 legitimate digital music services worldwide, offering over 6 million tracks – over four times the stock of a music megastore.” According to an IFPI survey, legal digital music sites (e.g. iTunes Store) offer a wider choice of music/tracks per artist and better quality music than illegal sites.
At the moment, the music industry’s strongest initiative seems to be talking to Internet Service Providers and governments of individual countries for cooperation – to put an end to illegal downloads and copyright infringing services (e.g. Limewire).
This apart – and to answer a query raised in the comments to my previous post – the musicians themselves are innovating ways to reach their fans online – and on mobile. Here are some examples from a recent article on BBC news:
“Bristol band Portishead will release their new album on a music streaming service a week before it goes on sale in the shops. All 11 tracks from the album, Third, will be available from 21 April on Last.fm. It will be free to listen to the tracks online, but users will have to pay to download the tunes to their computer or digital music player. The music industry hopes free streaming will cut illegal downloading.
REM launched their new album, Accelerate, on the music streaming service iLike last month.
Madonna has signed a deal with Vodafone to make her new album, Hard Candy, available on mobile phones from 21 April, a week before its official launch in the shops.”
I’m sure we’ll see more innovations in the future. For the time being, digital technology and mobile communications have come to the musician’s rescue. And, the music industry seems to have entered its second life.
R.E.M. iLike page here.
Portishead ‘Third’ Last.fm page here.
Madonna-Vodafone story here.
[Citation: 1. IFPI Digital Music Report 2008. 2. Portishead launch album online, Jim Reed, BBC news, 14 April 2008.]
Of greater concern is that most of this downloaded music is not paid for. It is passed on by friends, or downloaded from peer-to-peer music/video sites (known as ‘illegal file sharing’). The music industry is losing sales and, therefore, unhappy. So, how is the music industry responding to this new threat?
Well, most recording companies are worried, being slow to embrace the digital technology as quickly as their consumers have. However, according to the industry representative, the IFPI, the music industry has not been left behind:
“Music sales via online and mobile channels have risen from zero to an estimated US$2.9 billion – 15 per cent of industry sales – over the last five years, making music more digitally advanced than any entertainment sector except games.”
Online retail music stores like Amazon.com or Apple’s iTunes Store have been sampling and selling music in digital formats for a while now. According to the IFPI report I quoted from earlier, “There are more than 500 legitimate digital music services worldwide, offering over 6 million tracks – over four times the stock of a music megastore.” According to an IFPI survey, legal digital music sites (e.g. iTunes Store) offer a wider choice of music/tracks per artist and better quality music than illegal sites.
At the moment, the music industry’s strongest initiative seems to be talking to Internet Service Providers and governments of individual countries for cooperation – to put an end to illegal downloads and copyright infringing services (e.g. Limewire).
This apart – and to answer a query raised in the comments to my previous post – the musicians themselves are innovating ways to reach their fans online – and on mobile. Here are some examples from a recent article on BBC news:
“Bristol band Portishead will release their new album on a music streaming service a week before it goes on sale in the shops. All 11 tracks from the album, Third, will be available from 21 April on Last.fm. It will be free to listen to the tracks online, but users will have to pay to download the tunes to their computer or digital music player. The music industry hopes free streaming will cut illegal downloading.
REM launched their new album, Accelerate, on the music streaming service iLike last month.
Madonna has signed a deal with Vodafone to make her new album, Hard Candy, available on mobile phones from 21 April, a week before its official launch in the shops.”
I’m sure we’ll see more innovations in the future. For the time being, digital technology and mobile communications have come to the musician’s rescue. And, the music industry seems to have entered its second life.
R.E.M. iLike page here.
Portishead ‘Third’ Last.fm page here.
Madonna-Vodafone story here.
[Citation: 1. IFPI Digital Music Report 2008. 2. Portishead launch album online, Jim Reed, BBC news, 14 April 2008.]
23 April 2008
Cyber-frantic
The demand for, and consumption of, digital music is going through frantic change. Digital technology may have made distribution of music easy, through online and mobile channels, but unfortunately for the music industry, most consumers have opted for a free download rather than a paid one. According to a recent IFPI report, “Tens of billions of illegal files were swapped in 2007. The ratio of unlicensed tracks downloaded to legal tracks sold is about 20 to 1.”
In the 15 April 2008 issue of The Moment, Rosecrans Baldwin reports in The Digital Ramble: A Tour of Art and Space, “In an interview in Wired, David Byrne foretells the future for the music business, and perhaps all media, when he says the artists and the audience are now in charge, and everybody’s cyber-frantic.”
There’s wisdom in David Byrne’s words, for the music industry, globally, has indeed turned topsy-turvy. The recording companies and their labels have lost their hold on the market and the consumers. It looks like nobody’s buying CDs/albums anymore, preferring to go digital, downloading music piecemeal in MP3, iTunes, Real Media or other digital formats – mostly without paying for the music.
[I had blogged about this a year ago.]
Illegal downloading is rampant. Just download Limewire or a similar software (available free on the Net) onto your computer, choose your music, and download for free from your peers across the world. Millions of music enthusiasts are doing exactly this every day (or night), helping to bring the legitimate music business crashing down.
Would this mean the end of the music business? Perhaps. Perhaps not. David Byrne explains the situation rather lucidly:
“What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that’s not bad news for music, and it’s certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists.”
[Citation: 1. IFPI press release, 24 January 2008. 2. The Digital Ramble: A Tour of Art and Space, Rosecrans Baldwin, The Moment, blogs.nytimes.com, 15 April 2008. 3. David Byrne’s Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars, Wired, 18 December 2007.]
In the 15 April 2008 issue of The Moment, Rosecrans Baldwin reports in The Digital Ramble: A Tour of Art and Space, “In an interview in Wired, David Byrne foretells the future for the music business, and perhaps all media, when he says the artists and the audience are now in charge, and everybody’s cyber-frantic.”
There’s wisdom in David Byrne’s words, for the music industry, globally, has indeed turned topsy-turvy. The recording companies and their labels have lost their hold on the market and the consumers. It looks like nobody’s buying CDs/albums anymore, preferring to go digital, downloading music piecemeal in MP3, iTunes, Real Media or other digital formats – mostly without paying for the music.
[I had blogged about this a year ago.]
Illegal downloading is rampant. Just download Limewire or a similar software (available free on the Net) onto your computer, choose your music, and download for free from your peers across the world. Millions of music enthusiasts are doing exactly this every day (or night), helping to bring the legitimate music business crashing down.
Would this mean the end of the music business? Perhaps. Perhaps not. David Byrne explains the situation rather lucidly:
“What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that’s not bad news for music, and it’s certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists.”
[Citation: 1. IFPI press release, 24 January 2008. 2. The Digital Ramble: A Tour of Art and Space, Rosecrans Baldwin, The Moment, blogs.nytimes.com, 15 April 2008. 3. David Byrne’s Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars, Wired, 18 December 2007.]
21 April 2008
Personal and private
I can think of only one reason for this recent surge of personal interaction/communication between youths – both online and on mobilephones. The reason is the personal and private nature of the interaction/communication that today’s technology allows.
When my generation was growing up during the seventies and eighties, the address for any communication – letters, postcards, telegrams (remember those?) – was the home address. It was the only address we had – and it was shared with the whole family. When the postman delivered the mail, everyone in the family came to know what arrived, and for whom.
With telephones, it was the same story. There was only one telephone at home, and when calls came in, whoever was nearest to the phone picked it up and then passed it on to whoever the recipient of the call was. There was no privacy. The home address and telephone number were ‘public’ as far as the family was concerned.
In fact, our parents warned us about giving away the home address and/or telephone number to strangers. So, we were both cautious and reticent in offering it to others. When it came to socialising with friends, particularly with friends of the opposite sex, we preferred to meet them face-to-face, and would find opportunities to do so. For, that was the only way we could have personal and private interactions.
Today, emails and mobilephones have changed all that. We have our own personal and private email addresses and mobilephones through which we interact/communicate with our friends… in a very personal and private manner. And, we certainly don’t need our parents’ permission to share these addresses and numbers with others. Wherever we go, our email addresses and mobilephones travel with us.
If our email addresses and mobilephone numbers were ‘public’ in the sense that our home address and telephone number were ‘public’ thirty or forty years ago, how would we behave today? Would we interact/communicate/socialise as frequently, as heavily or as randomly as the youths do today using the new technology? I think not.
When my generation was growing up during the seventies and eighties, the address for any communication – letters, postcards, telegrams (remember those?) – was the home address. It was the only address we had – and it was shared with the whole family. When the postman delivered the mail, everyone in the family came to know what arrived, and for whom.
With telephones, it was the same story. There was only one telephone at home, and when calls came in, whoever was nearest to the phone picked it up and then passed it on to whoever the recipient of the call was. There was no privacy. The home address and telephone number were ‘public’ as far as the family was concerned.
In fact, our parents warned us about giving away the home address and/or telephone number to strangers. So, we were both cautious and reticent in offering it to others. When it came to socialising with friends, particularly with friends of the opposite sex, we preferred to meet them face-to-face, and would find opportunities to do so. For, that was the only way we could have personal and private interactions.
Today, emails and mobilephones have changed all that. We have our own personal and private email addresses and mobilephones through which we interact/communicate with our friends… in a very personal and private manner. And, we certainly don’t need our parents’ permission to share these addresses and numbers with others. Wherever we go, our email addresses and mobilephones travel with us.
If our email addresses and mobilephone numbers were ‘public’ in the sense that our home address and telephone number were ‘public’ thirty or forty years ago, how would we behave today? Would we interact/communicate/socialise as frequently, as heavily or as randomly as the youths do today using the new technology? I think not.
19 April 2008
Mobilephone relationships
The new relationships that we – or, at least, the youth today – are establishing using the latest mobile, telecom and Internet technologies are quite fascinating. My personal knowledge in this field is limited, but I’ve learnt a lot about the impact of technology and social media on today’s youth from reading published papers of Danah Boyd. Although most of her work concerns the American youth, Ms Boyd recently posted a story on her blog on how teen Palestinian girls are maintaining clandestine relationships with their boyfriends through mobilephones.
Ms Boyd’s post is based upon a published paper on this very subject, Playing With Fire (October 2007), by two scholars, Hiyam Hijazi-Omari and Rivka Ribak, from the University of Haifa, Israel. She states that the authors of the paper “examine how the mobile phone alters social dynamics, relationships, and the construction of gender in Palestine. In short, they document how culturally specific gendered practices (not technological features) frame the meaning and value of technology.”
The following quote from her blog tells the story in a nutshell:
“Palestinian boys give their girlfriends phones for the express purpose of being able to communicate with them in a semi-private manner without the physical proximity that would be frowned on. At the same time, girls know that parents do not approve of them having access to such private encounters with boys – they go to great lengths to hide their mobiles and suffer consequences when they are found out. While the boys offered these phones as a tool of freedom, they often came with a price. Girls were expected to only communicate with the boy and never use the phone for any other purpose… These girls develop fascinating practices around using the phone, hiding from people, and acquiring calling cards.”
You can read Danah Boyd’s blog post here. And, if you can spare the time, read the entire published paper, Playing With Fire (PDF version), by Hiyam Hijazi-Omari and Rivka Ribak, from the link provided on Ms Boyd’s blog.
[Citation: Palestinian girls, dating and the mobile phone, Danah Boyd, 14 April 2008.]
Ms Boyd’s post is based upon a published paper on this very subject, Playing With Fire (October 2007), by two scholars, Hiyam Hijazi-Omari and Rivka Ribak, from the University of Haifa, Israel. She states that the authors of the paper “examine how the mobile phone alters social dynamics, relationships, and the construction of gender in Palestine. In short, they document how culturally specific gendered practices (not technological features) frame the meaning and value of technology.”
The following quote from her blog tells the story in a nutshell:
“Palestinian boys give their girlfriends phones for the express purpose of being able to communicate with them in a semi-private manner without the physical proximity that would be frowned on. At the same time, girls know that parents do not approve of them having access to such private encounters with boys – they go to great lengths to hide their mobiles and suffer consequences when they are found out. While the boys offered these phones as a tool of freedom, they often came with a price. Girls were expected to only communicate with the boy and never use the phone for any other purpose… These girls develop fascinating practices around using the phone, hiding from people, and acquiring calling cards.”
You can read Danah Boyd’s blog post here. And, if you can spare the time, read the entire published paper, Playing With Fire (PDF version), by Hiyam Hijazi-Omari and Rivka Ribak, from the link provided on Ms Boyd’s blog.
[Citation: Palestinian girls, dating and the mobile phone, Danah Boyd, 14 April 2008.]
18 April 2008
Changing the way we live our lives
Most of my friends have given their children – particularly adolescents and teens – mobilephones to stay connected. For emergencies. The logic behind this gesture is simple: should the child be in difficulty, he or she would be able to contact the parent quickly and easily. Of course, the mobilephone is used more often for casual talk than emergencies. And thank God for that. The fewer emergencies in our lives, the better.
However, the parent is aware that the child is using his/her mobilephone for purposes other than calling the parent. For instance, contacting friends, playing games, listening to music, taking photos/videos (and exchanging them with friends). When it comes to specific use of airwaves for calls, sms-es, downloads, and other paid services, the parent normally puts a cap on the child’s usage amount, limiting his/her usage on a monthly basis. Even then, the child finds ways of bypassing such restrictions – typically, resorting to using landlines and the Internet for communication.
What I find fascinating about this behaviour are three things: (a) the inventiveness of the children, (b) the convergence of technologies to offer better connectivity, and therefore (c) the social implications of the use of (in this case, mobile) technology in our lives. Not only is the technology – its features and advantages per se – important to us. What is also important is the influence it has in the way we communicate, build and maintain relationships. In other words, how the technology is actually changing the way we live our lives.
No longer is this technology only a business tool; it is now embedded in our culture.
However, the parent is aware that the child is using his/her mobilephone for purposes other than calling the parent. For instance, contacting friends, playing games, listening to music, taking photos/videos (and exchanging them with friends). When it comes to specific use of airwaves for calls, sms-es, downloads, and other paid services, the parent normally puts a cap on the child’s usage amount, limiting his/her usage on a monthly basis. Even then, the child finds ways of bypassing such restrictions – typically, resorting to using landlines and the Internet for communication.
What I find fascinating about this behaviour are three things: (a) the inventiveness of the children, (b) the convergence of technologies to offer better connectivity, and therefore (c) the social implications of the use of (in this case, mobile) technology in our lives. Not only is the technology – its features and advantages per se – important to us. What is also important is the influence it has in the way we communicate, build and maintain relationships. In other words, how the technology is actually changing the way we live our lives.
No longer is this technology only a business tool; it is now embedded in our culture.
15 April 2008
Our nomadic future
Here are some excerpts from another recent article from The Economist, Our nomadic future, which make insightful reading on what may be the future of our digital lives:
“Ancient nomads went from place to place — and they had to take a lot of stuff with them (including their livelihoods and families). The emerging class of digital nomads also wander, but they take virtually nothing with them; wherever they go, they can easily reach people and information.”
“Will it be a better life? In some ways, yes. Digital nomadism will liberate ever more knowledge workers from the cubicle prisons of Dilbert cartoons. But the old tyranny of place could become a new tyranny of time, as nomads who are ‘always on’ all too often end up — mentally — anywhere but here (wherever here may be). As for friends and family, permanent mobile connectivity could have the same effect as nomadism: it might bring you much closer to family and friends, but it may make it harder to bring in outsiders. It might isolate cliques. Sociologists fret about constant e-mailers and texters losing the everyday connections to casual acquaintances or strangers who may be sitting next to them in the café or on the bus.”
“As for politics, the tools of nomadism — such as mobile phones that double as cameras — can improve the world. For instance, they turn practically everybody into a potential human-rights activist, ready to take pictures or video of police brutality. But the same tools have a dark side, turning everybody into a fully equipped paparazzo. Some fitness clubs have started banning mobile phones near the treadmills and showers lest patrons find themselves pictured, flabby and sweaty, on some website that future Google searches will happily turn up. As in the desert, so in the city: nomadism promises the heaven of new freedom, but it also threatens the hell of constant surveillance by the tribe.”
[Citation: Our nomadic future, The Economist, 10 April 2008.]
“Ancient nomads went from place to place — and they had to take a lot of stuff with them (including their livelihoods and families). The emerging class of digital nomads also wander, but they take virtually nothing with them; wherever they go, they can easily reach people and information.”
“Will it be a better life? In some ways, yes. Digital nomadism will liberate ever more knowledge workers from the cubicle prisons of Dilbert cartoons. But the old tyranny of place could become a new tyranny of time, as nomads who are ‘always on’ all too often end up — mentally — anywhere but here (wherever here may be). As for friends and family, permanent mobile connectivity could have the same effect as nomadism: it might bring you much closer to family and friends, but it may make it harder to bring in outsiders. It might isolate cliques. Sociologists fret about constant e-mailers and texters losing the everyday connections to casual acquaintances or strangers who may be sitting next to them in the café or on the bus.”
“As for politics, the tools of nomadism — such as mobile phones that double as cameras — can improve the world. For instance, they turn practically everybody into a potential human-rights activist, ready to take pictures or video of police brutality. But the same tools have a dark side, turning everybody into a fully equipped paparazzo. Some fitness clubs have started banning mobile phones near the treadmills and showers lest patrons find themselves pictured, flabby and sweaty, on some website that future Google searches will happily turn up. As in the desert, so in the city: nomadism promises the heaven of new freedom, but it also threatens the hell of constant surveillance by the tribe.”
[Citation: Our nomadic future, The Economist, 10 April 2008.]
12 April 2008
Family ties
Our recent achievements in technology and the growth in social media have influenced our behaviour, redfining the way we gather information, communicate and interact with each other, and do business. Although this phenomenon has affected a portion of our population, it has attracted criticism from many quarters.
I’m not surprised. After all, since the Industrial Revolution, people have cried foul of the negative effects of our technological achievements. One topic of concern has been the weakening of ties between family and friends, claiming that ‘the new technology culture’ has actually isolated people when it should have connected them.
Family Ties, an article in the latest issue of The Economist discusses this very issue and presents several points of view. Here are some excerpts:
In the 1990s, as the internet came into widespread use, sociologists, never an upbeat bunch to begin with, became decidedly pessimistic. Some observed a “loss of social capital” as people spent their time transfixed by screens rather than other people. Others saw the (real-world, as opposed to online) social networks of Americans shrinking, with ever more people feeling that they were intimate with nobody at all. Robert Kraut at Carnegie Mellon University argued that the internet causes social isolation and depression. Norman Nie at Stanford University believed that “internet use at home has a strong negative impact on time spent with friends and family as well as time spent on social activities.”
But most of these observations, made in a rich country at the height of the PC era, focused on the wired and stationary kind of communications technology rather than the wireless and mobile sort. Now, as mobile communications are becoming the norm, a new generation of sociologists is scrambling to update all these theories. So far, most of them agree that nomadic technology, far from isolating people, brings them closer to their families, friends and lovers — their strong ties. But they still disagree on what that means for weak ties with strangers, and thus society at large.
Nomadic technology deepens family ties because, as another sociologist, Christian Licoppe, puts it, it enables “connected presence”, which is new in history. In the era of stationary communications technology, people used landline phones that belonged to a place rather than a person. In that communication culture people talked infrequently and viewed a conversation as an occasion. Typically, they would plan the call for an appropriate time, such as a Sunday. Both sides would introduce themselves with a greeting — i.e., a ritual — and then take time to catch up.
With mobile phones, on the other hand, people call, text or e-mail one another constantly throughout the day. Since they are always, in effect, contacting a person rather than a place, and since the receiver can see the caller’s name, and probably his picture, they often dispense with greetings altogether. The exchanges now tend to be frequent and short. People expect less content but instead a feeling of permanent connection, as though they were in fact together during the entire time between their physical meetings.
The article, Family Ties, also presents an interesting example of the use of mobile technology in Japan and how the Japanese have embraced it behaviorally and culturally:
Mobile technology also tethers couples, especially young ones, but in a different way. Mimi Ito, an anthropologist who studies the effects of mobile technology on youth culture in Japan and America, has found that Japanese lovers send constant text messages to avoid parental rules and to stay connected emotionally when they are physically separated. Every nomadic culture has its idiosyncrasies, and the Japanese speciality is a rich vocabulary of “emoticons”: “I really want to see you (>_<)”; “I feel like I am going to be sick (;_;)”.
This steady stream of emoticons and photos in between physical “flesh meets” amounts to “tele-nesting”, says Ms Ito. It also spices up and prolongs the flesh meets. Young people in Tokyo, she has observed, will start their date by exchanging text messages all afternoon as they do homework or take the train to the rendezvous. At night, on their journey home after the actual date, they use messages again as “fading embers of conversation”, sometimes continuing for days and turning little memories into the couple’s “lore”.
Often entire cliques do this sort of thing, creating, in effect, their own tribal medium and narrative. Ms Ito has noticed a new genre of photography on the rise as young people use their phones to snap photos of everyday situations — the view from the escalator on the way to school, say — which mean a lot to their friends and nothing to anybody else. They especially love photos that capture “dumb things that their friends do”, such as getting drunk and falling into puddles, which collectively amount to “everyday, casual documentaries” for a circle of friends.
[Citation: Family Ties, The Economist print edition, 10 April 2008.]
I’m not surprised. After all, since the Industrial Revolution, people have cried foul of the negative effects of our technological achievements. One topic of concern has been the weakening of ties between family and friends, claiming that ‘the new technology culture’ has actually isolated people when it should have connected them.
Family Ties, an article in the latest issue of The Economist discusses this very issue and presents several points of view. Here are some excerpts:
In the 1990s, as the internet came into widespread use, sociologists, never an upbeat bunch to begin with, became decidedly pessimistic. Some observed a “loss of social capital” as people spent their time transfixed by screens rather than other people. Others saw the (real-world, as opposed to online) social networks of Americans shrinking, with ever more people feeling that they were intimate with nobody at all. Robert Kraut at Carnegie Mellon University argued that the internet causes social isolation and depression. Norman Nie at Stanford University believed that “internet use at home has a strong negative impact on time spent with friends and family as well as time spent on social activities.”
But most of these observations, made in a rich country at the height of the PC era, focused on the wired and stationary kind of communications technology rather than the wireless and mobile sort. Now, as mobile communications are becoming the norm, a new generation of sociologists is scrambling to update all these theories. So far, most of them agree that nomadic technology, far from isolating people, brings them closer to their families, friends and lovers — their strong ties. But they still disagree on what that means for weak ties with strangers, and thus society at large.
Nomadic technology deepens family ties because, as another sociologist, Christian Licoppe, puts it, it enables “connected presence”, which is new in history. In the era of stationary communications technology, people used landline phones that belonged to a place rather than a person. In that communication culture people talked infrequently and viewed a conversation as an occasion. Typically, they would plan the call for an appropriate time, such as a Sunday. Both sides would introduce themselves with a greeting — i.e., a ritual — and then take time to catch up.
With mobile phones, on the other hand, people call, text or e-mail one another constantly throughout the day. Since they are always, in effect, contacting a person rather than a place, and since the receiver can see the caller’s name, and probably his picture, they often dispense with greetings altogether. The exchanges now tend to be frequent and short. People expect less content but instead a feeling of permanent connection, as though they were in fact together during the entire time between their physical meetings.
The article, Family Ties, also presents an interesting example of the use of mobile technology in Japan and how the Japanese have embraced it behaviorally and culturally:
Mobile technology also tethers couples, especially young ones, but in a different way. Mimi Ito, an anthropologist who studies the effects of mobile technology on youth culture in Japan and America, has found that Japanese lovers send constant text messages to avoid parental rules and to stay connected emotionally when they are physically separated. Every nomadic culture has its idiosyncrasies, and the Japanese speciality is a rich vocabulary of “emoticons”: “I really want to see you (>_<)”; “I feel like I am going to be sick (;_;)”.
This steady stream of emoticons and photos in between physical “flesh meets” amounts to “tele-nesting”, says Ms Ito. It also spices up and prolongs the flesh meets. Young people in Tokyo, she has observed, will start their date by exchanging text messages all afternoon as they do homework or take the train to the rendezvous. At night, on their journey home after the actual date, they use messages again as “fading embers of conversation”, sometimes continuing for days and turning little memories into the couple’s “lore”.
Often entire cliques do this sort of thing, creating, in effect, their own tribal medium and narrative. Ms Ito has noticed a new genre of photography on the rise as young people use their phones to snap photos of everyday situations — the view from the escalator on the way to school, say — which mean a lot to their friends and nothing to anybody else. They especially love photos that capture “dumb things that their friends do”, such as getting drunk and falling into puddles, which collectively amount to “everyday, casual documentaries” for a circle of friends.
[Citation: Family Ties, The Economist print edition, 10 April 2008.]
11 April 2008
Social networking was what our parents did
The detractors of online social networking are many. Their point of view being, since (a) genuine friendships require face-to-face contact, and (b) it’s easy to be deceptive on the Internet, building genuine online friendships are hard to achieve.
Don’t believe me? Well, here’s an excerpt from an article by James Randerson which appeared in The Guardian’s online edition not too long ago:
“Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace do not help you make more genuine close friends, according to a survey by researchers who studied how the websites are changing the nature of friendship networks.
Although social networking on the internet helps people to collect hundreds or even thousands of acquaintances, the researchers believe that face to face contact is nearly always necessary to form truly close friendships.”
The article quotes Dr Will Reader of Sheffield Hallam University as saying: “People see face to face contact as being absolutely imperative in forming close relationships.”
If you ask me, the last sentence is a real no-brainer. If close friendships can be defined by, say, the relationships that exist between husbands and wives, or parents and children, it goes to prove that physical proximity and face-to-face interaction are two vital factors in human bonding and building relationships.
In the virtual world of the Internet, such human interaction and bonding do not occur. What occurs online is a sharing of likes, dislikes, feelings and ideas – a presentation of profiles and personalities – in order to find a common ground for a friendship. A distant meeting of minds, so to speak.
A rough equivalent of today’s online friendships would be the concept of pen-friends we used to have when we were children 30-odd years ago. With our pen-friends, we exchanged letters, greeting cards, photographs, gifts… all by snail mail… without meeting each other face-to-face.
Snail mail is not the only difference between then and now. In those days, (a) we would have just one or two pen-friends, not hundreds or thousands as is the practice with online friendships today, and (b) pen-friendship was considered a hobby or recreation, mainly for children (although my father had a Hungarian pen-friend for a while), practised in order to learn about different people and their cultures.
Pen-friendship was not looked upon as social networking then. Social networking was what our parents did: mixing and mingling and communicating and sharing with relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues at work and business associates. Albeit, the numbers were small: their network would comprise of 50-60 persons, if they didn’t count the obligatory relatives, with a dozen or so close friends with whom they enjoyed genuine relationships.
Today, the Internet allows a much greater reach... and almost-instant connectivity. So, perhaps, the younger generation has become a lot more social... building their network of friends enthusiastically.
[Citation: Social networking sites don’t deepen friendships, by James Randerson, science correspondent, guardian.co.uk, 10 September 2007.]
Don’t believe me? Well, here’s an excerpt from an article by James Randerson which appeared in The Guardian’s online edition not too long ago:
“Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace do not help you make more genuine close friends, according to a survey by researchers who studied how the websites are changing the nature of friendship networks.
Although social networking on the internet helps people to collect hundreds or even thousands of acquaintances, the researchers believe that face to face contact is nearly always necessary to form truly close friendships.”
The article quotes Dr Will Reader of Sheffield Hallam University as saying: “People see face to face contact as being absolutely imperative in forming close relationships.”
If you ask me, the last sentence is a real no-brainer. If close friendships can be defined by, say, the relationships that exist between husbands and wives, or parents and children, it goes to prove that physical proximity and face-to-face interaction are two vital factors in human bonding and building relationships.
In the virtual world of the Internet, such human interaction and bonding do not occur. What occurs online is a sharing of likes, dislikes, feelings and ideas – a presentation of profiles and personalities – in order to find a common ground for a friendship. A distant meeting of minds, so to speak.
A rough equivalent of today’s online friendships would be the concept of pen-friends we used to have when we were children 30-odd years ago. With our pen-friends, we exchanged letters, greeting cards, photographs, gifts… all by snail mail… without meeting each other face-to-face.
Snail mail is not the only difference between then and now. In those days, (a) we would have just one or two pen-friends, not hundreds or thousands as is the practice with online friendships today, and (b) pen-friendship was considered a hobby or recreation, mainly for children (although my father had a Hungarian pen-friend for a while), practised in order to learn about different people and their cultures.
Pen-friendship was not looked upon as social networking then. Social networking was what our parents did: mixing and mingling and communicating and sharing with relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues at work and business associates. Albeit, the numbers were small: their network would comprise of 50-60 persons, if they didn’t count the obligatory relatives, with a dozen or so close friends with whom they enjoyed genuine relationships.
Today, the Internet allows a much greater reach... and almost-instant connectivity. So, perhaps, the younger generation has become a lot more social... building their network of friends enthusiastically.
[Citation: Social networking sites don’t deepen friendships, by James Randerson, science correspondent, guardian.co.uk, 10 September 2007.]
07 April 2008
Virtual friendships
A couple of days ago, over email, a software engineer ‘friend’ I had ‘met’ on a social network mentioned that he has included me in a special list he keeps of ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ people. I was delighted and honoured, and emailed him to tell him so.
We’ve been exchanging thoughts, ideas and opinions on literary fiction, films and life in general for over a year now, over emails and chats, and now our ‘friendship’ had reached a certain level of recognition and respect for each other. Since we live in different cities in India, we have not met yet. You see, from day one, our ‘friendship’ has been virtual, made possible by the Internet.
I share similar ‘friendships’ with others I’ve ‘met’ online: a history Ph D student in Australia, a corporate lawyer in Brazil, an HR management consultant, a market researcher, an electrical engineer from India… to name a few. Apart from the HR management consultant whom I met on a blind date in Bangalore last year, and have been in touch ever since, these online ‘friendships’ have remained virtual.
Today, there are many people like me who have embraced the Internet and the revolution it has brought in... in connecting people; in helping people make virtual ‘friends’ through online social and professional networks. Some ‘friendships’ have moved further to phone conversations and face-to-face meetings. A few friendships have even become close. Within my larger circle of friends, I know of two marriages which had begun with introductions on the Internet.
As you can guess, I’m an advocate of online social networks and virtual friendships. I believe online social networks connect people. Or, at least, help connect people. The rest is left to specific individual ‘friendships’... to develop or be destroyed… just as things are with relationships in the real world.
We’ve been exchanging thoughts, ideas and opinions on literary fiction, films and life in general for over a year now, over emails and chats, and now our ‘friendship’ had reached a certain level of recognition and respect for each other. Since we live in different cities in India, we have not met yet. You see, from day one, our ‘friendship’ has been virtual, made possible by the Internet.
I share similar ‘friendships’ with others I’ve ‘met’ online: a history Ph D student in Australia, a corporate lawyer in Brazil, an HR management consultant, a market researcher, an electrical engineer from India… to name a few. Apart from the HR management consultant whom I met on a blind date in Bangalore last year, and have been in touch ever since, these online ‘friendships’ have remained virtual.
Today, there are many people like me who have embraced the Internet and the revolution it has brought in... in connecting people; in helping people make virtual ‘friends’ through online social and professional networks. Some ‘friendships’ have moved further to phone conversations and face-to-face meetings. A few friendships have even become close. Within my larger circle of friends, I know of two marriages which had begun with introductions on the Internet.
As you can guess, I’m an advocate of online social networks and virtual friendships. I believe online social networks connect people. Or, at least, help connect people. The rest is left to specific individual ‘friendships’... to develop or be destroyed… just as things are with relationships in the real world.
01 April 2008
Secret world
My nephew sms-ed me the URL of his new website yesterday. His website had a wonderful introduction by a friend of his, a girl in her late teens, who provided her full name, email ID, and links to her Blogger and Flickr accounts below the introduction. Her blogs featured her photo and some intimate thoughts.
This made me wonder about the ease, and courage, with which youngsters shared their private information on the Internet (see my previous post). Oblivious of stalkers and Internet-related crimes that we read about almost everyday (perhaps less so in India), youngsters today feel free about making their private information public. Some even display risqué photos of theirs on social networking sites.
It’s universally accepted that young people – particularly women – are prime targets of crime. Numbers vary from country to country, and although in most cases young women do not report the crime, giving away too much personal information online exposes these young women and makes them vulnerable to stalking… and harm. So, what makes them divulge personal information publicly?
It seems to be peer pressure, as I found out after talking to several of them. Most teenagers believe that since everyone is doing it (a) they should too, and (b) it is safe to do so. After all, it’s only their friends who are looking at their photos and reading their stuff. So confident are they in what they are doing that there are competitions among them to make their profiles more and more ‘colourful’ to attract friends.
So engrossed are they in their online preoccupation that these youngsters are oblivious to the fact that the friends they attract online may also include stalkers and sexual predators. To them, these crimes don’t happen often enough – so it’s a risk worth taking. Fearlessly, they pursue their online lives, hiding away in a secret world their low-tech parents and teachers are afraid to enter.
This made me wonder about the ease, and courage, with which youngsters shared their private information on the Internet (see my previous post). Oblivious of stalkers and Internet-related crimes that we read about almost everyday (perhaps less so in India), youngsters today feel free about making their private information public. Some even display risqué photos of theirs on social networking sites.
It’s universally accepted that young people – particularly women – are prime targets of crime. Numbers vary from country to country, and although in most cases young women do not report the crime, giving away too much personal information online exposes these young women and makes them vulnerable to stalking… and harm. So, what makes them divulge personal information publicly?
It seems to be peer pressure, as I found out after talking to several of them. Most teenagers believe that since everyone is doing it (a) they should too, and (b) it is safe to do so. After all, it’s only their friends who are looking at their photos and reading their stuff. So confident are they in what they are doing that there are competitions among them to make their profiles more and more ‘colourful’ to attract friends.
So engrossed are they in their online preoccupation that these youngsters are oblivious to the fact that the friends they attract online may also include stalkers and sexual predators. To them, these crimes don’t happen often enough – so it’s a risk worth taking. Fearlessly, they pursue their online lives, hiding away in a secret world their low-tech parents and teachers are afraid to enter.
26 March 2008
The new image-makers
One of the points I had raised in my earlier posts on Generation Next was their fearless attitude of sharing personal information publicly on online social networks, forums, chats and databases. They don’t seem to care about who sees their personal profiles, messages, blogs, photos or videos. On the contrary, the more people they connect with online using such personal information and self-expression, the happier they are.
The truth behind this lifestyle is quite interesting. Generation Next actually spends days on end creating their personalities through words, images and music, uploading them and changing them constantly, in order to make themselves attractive to others. One could say they have become their own publicists, creating their own brand identities and flaunting them like marketers do with their brands.
To me, they are the new image-makers of the digital world. A marketer or PR person can learn a lot from them. However, not everyone feels this way.
“But are we seeing real people, or personas?” asks Jennie Yabroff in a recent Newsweek article titled Here’s Looking At You, Kids. Adding later, “Sociologists have begun to question the effect of all this exhibitionism on young people. Can they form durable identities off-camera, or are they so used to producing their images for outside consumption that images have replaced their essences? Will a generation for whom all secrets are fair game and every private moment can become public trust each other and form intimate relationships?”
Now hold on. Aren’t we being too tough on Generation Next? Ms Yabroff’s last question certainly sounds a wee bit judgmental. At least, I feel so. From my experience with them, youngsters today are more open-minded than we are – or were, when we were at their age. For all you know, as Generation Next grows up, they’ll be more skilled – and wise – in handling people and situations than we are today.
Although I, too, believe that self-presentation seems to be a priority for Generation Next, I’m not sure if we can declare that what we see aren’t real people, but only personas. In my generation too, and even earlier, the game between ‘the real’ and ‘the persona’ has always been on. Volumes of psychological theory are based upon it.
What’s the truth of the matter? Well, perhaps what Ms Yabroff mentions towards the end of her article makes sense: “It’s probably too soon to weigh the implication of all this publicization on teens’ abilities to have meaningful experiences off-camera.” But, that’s not the end of it. There are theories on the contrary. So, you might as well read the entire article.
[Citation: Here’s Looking At You, Kids, article by Jennie Yabroff, Newsweek, 15 March 2008.]
The truth behind this lifestyle is quite interesting. Generation Next actually spends days on end creating their personalities through words, images and music, uploading them and changing them constantly, in order to make themselves attractive to others. One could say they have become their own publicists, creating their own brand identities and flaunting them like marketers do with their brands.
To me, they are the new image-makers of the digital world. A marketer or PR person can learn a lot from them. However, not everyone feels this way.
“But are we seeing real people, or personas?” asks Jennie Yabroff in a recent Newsweek article titled Here’s Looking At You, Kids. Adding later, “Sociologists have begun to question the effect of all this exhibitionism on young people. Can they form durable identities off-camera, or are they so used to producing their images for outside consumption that images have replaced their essences? Will a generation for whom all secrets are fair game and every private moment can become public trust each other and form intimate relationships?”
Now hold on. Aren’t we being too tough on Generation Next? Ms Yabroff’s last question certainly sounds a wee bit judgmental. At least, I feel so. From my experience with them, youngsters today are more open-minded than we are – or were, when we were at their age. For all you know, as Generation Next grows up, they’ll be more skilled – and wise – in handling people and situations than we are today.
Although I, too, believe that self-presentation seems to be a priority for Generation Next, I’m not sure if we can declare that what we see aren’t real people, but only personas. In my generation too, and even earlier, the game between ‘the real’ and ‘the persona’ has always been on. Volumes of psychological theory are based upon it.
What’s the truth of the matter? Well, perhaps what Ms Yabroff mentions towards the end of her article makes sense: “It’s probably too soon to weigh the implication of all this publicization on teens’ abilities to have meaningful experiences off-camera.” But, that’s not the end of it. There are theories on the contrary. So, you might as well read the entire article.
[Citation: Here’s Looking At You, Kids, article by Jennie Yabroff, Newsweek, 15 March 2008.]
25 March 2008
Learning from Generation Next
Maybe there’s something to learn from Generation Next: their easy acceptance/use of technology; their unabashed habit of going public online with personal information; their online social networking skills; their trust for each other’s recommendations.
What’s fascinating about this is that most of it is accomplished from inside their bedrooms. Some of them, like Ashley Qualls of www.whateverlife.com, have even become millionaires living this lifestyle.
If this is a massive socio-cultural and economic movement knocking on our doors (which is what it seems to be), then it is going to have a huge impact on the world of business. Businesses will follow Generation Next practices and adopt or tailor new product/service offerings to consumers who are waiting eagerly to try out new stuff… and tell their friends about it.
The influence that Generation Next already has – and can have in the future – is, and will be, simply phenomenal. Technology-related products and services are likely to be benefited most – particularly those that offer multimedia options (remixes, mashups, graphics), user-friendly customisation, and encourage creativity, collaboration and communication.
Advertisers and marketers need to understand this generation and this movement, and channelise this huge potential in their favour to get ahead in business. Mind you, Generation Next is not a patient lot. Every moment lost is a missed opportunity.
What’s fascinating about this is that most of it is accomplished from inside their bedrooms. Some of them, like Ashley Qualls of www.whateverlife.com, have even become millionaires living this lifestyle.
If this is a massive socio-cultural and economic movement knocking on our doors (which is what it seems to be), then it is going to have a huge impact on the world of business. Businesses will follow Generation Next practices and adopt or tailor new product/service offerings to consumers who are waiting eagerly to try out new stuff… and tell their friends about it.
The influence that Generation Next already has – and can have in the future – is, and will be, simply phenomenal. Technology-related products and services are likely to be benefited most – particularly those that offer multimedia options (remixes, mashups, graphics), user-friendly customisation, and encourage creativity, collaboration and communication.
Advertisers and marketers need to understand this generation and this movement, and channelise this huge potential in their favour to get ahead in business. Mind you, Generation Next is not a patient lot. Every moment lost is a missed opportunity.
21 March 2008
Still untapped
Generation Next may be heavy users of the Internet, emails, IMs and social networks, but from a business perspective, everything is not cool for companies which provide Internet-based services to this consuming target group.
The fact is, GenNext wants it all for free. And they want more and more of it. Apart from mobilephone and Internet service providers which charge for usage (and, in some cases, for features like downloads and responses to contests or polls), no one has been able to come upon a sensible revenue-generating business model.
Search, email and IM/chat services (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL), social networking sites (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, Orkut), blogging services (e.g. Blogger, Wordpress, Typepad), as well as services like Flickr and YouTube have all admitted defeat. There just doesn’t seem to be a way to monetise their ventures.
On the contrary, they all have to add new features, increase user archival space and improve their services to remain competitive.
Placing ads on user pages is, of course, being tried out. But so far, revenues have been dismal. No matter how many registered users these service providers claim to own, in GenNext category or otherwise, no one is making pots of money.
Considering the billions of users these companies service 24/7, economically speaking, it’s a huge market, still untapped!
The fact is, GenNext wants it all for free. And they want more and more of it. Apart from mobilephone and Internet service providers which charge for usage (and, in some cases, for features like downloads and responses to contests or polls), no one has been able to come upon a sensible revenue-generating business model.
Search, email and IM/chat services (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL), social networking sites (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, Orkut), blogging services (e.g. Blogger, Wordpress, Typepad), as well as services like Flickr and YouTube have all admitted defeat. There just doesn’t seem to be a way to monetise their ventures.
On the contrary, they all have to add new features, increase user archival space and improve their services to remain competitive.
Placing ads on user pages is, of course, being tried out. But so far, revenues have been dismal. No matter how many registered users these service providers claim to own, in GenNext category or otherwise, no one is making pots of money.
Considering the billions of users these companies service 24/7, economically speaking, it’s a huge market, still untapped!
20 March 2008
Generation Next loyalty
“Globally, 18-34 year-olds are more likely to rely on technology not only to communicate and shop, but also to enhance their social lives. One-third agree that their social lives would suffer without technology, and that technology has helped them to overcome their shyness.”
[Quote from It’s A Family Affair: The Media Evolution of the Global Family in a Digital Age research report. Research commissioned by Yahoo! and OMD. Project Directors: Mike Hess (OMD) and Michele Madansky (Yahoo! Inc).]
It’s heartening to read research findings which help me make sense of the digital age. Gives me hope that this digital lure is not just another bubble which will burst any day now, but will show us – marketers and social animals alike – a way to plan our future.
Honestly, I am intrigued by what’s happening around me. Particularly, by the lead the 18-34 year-olds have taken to set the direction for the rest of us as far as day-to-day use of digital technology goes.
I realise that, at 48 years of age, I’ve missed the bus. Being digitally connected means spending hours on end with computers, the Internet, mobilephones or iPods – a habit I’m yet to develop. Sadly, I’m from a generation that prefers reading books, listening to music on a large stereo system and meeting friends in person. And even more sadly, I’m still loyal to this lifestyle.
Sure, I have my share of computers, the Internet, mobilephones and online social networks, but it’s never the same as a Generation Next lifestyle. In fact, I was reading an article on the Internet last week that kind of woke me up. The article, called Is Loyalty At Risk? by John Gaffney, explained why – and how – my life is different from Generation Next’s. You’ll understand when you read this extract:
Kids talk on cell phones while they IM, and do all this while they watch TV with 90 percent of the screen, a crawler at the bottom, and promotional messages flashing in the corners.
“Attention,” says Umair Haque, a strategy consultant with Bubblegeneration, “is becoming the scarcest — and so most strategically vital — resource in the value chain. Attention scarcity is fundamentally reshaping the economics of most industries.”
The generation that will control the purse strings of the future is being raised to expect even more from companies while hearing less from them. What the Pew Internet project calls Generation Next (ages 18–26) doesn’t seem to be loyal even to some of the Web sites whose success it has been most responsible for. More than 40 percent of customers who have a profile on MySpace have profiles on Friendster, Facebook, and other sites.
According to Terry Dry, cofounder of teen-focused online promotional firm Fanscape, loyalty is an allegiance to the next big thing and the next cool brand. “Kids don’t feel like they owe you anything,” he says. “They want what they want and they want something for their loyalty even if it’s temporary. Keep delivering value and you have a shot.”
[Citation: Is Loyalty At Risk? by John Gaffney, September 2007, 1to1 Magazine.]
[Quote from It’s A Family Affair: The Media Evolution of the Global Family in a Digital Age research report. Research commissioned by Yahoo! and OMD. Project Directors: Mike Hess (OMD) and Michele Madansky (Yahoo! Inc).]
It’s heartening to read research findings which help me make sense of the digital age. Gives me hope that this digital lure is not just another bubble which will burst any day now, but will show us – marketers and social animals alike – a way to plan our future.
Honestly, I am intrigued by what’s happening around me. Particularly, by the lead the 18-34 year-olds have taken to set the direction for the rest of us as far as day-to-day use of digital technology goes.
I realise that, at 48 years of age, I’ve missed the bus. Being digitally connected means spending hours on end with computers, the Internet, mobilephones or iPods – a habit I’m yet to develop. Sadly, I’m from a generation that prefers reading books, listening to music on a large stereo system and meeting friends in person. And even more sadly, I’m still loyal to this lifestyle.
Sure, I have my share of computers, the Internet, mobilephones and online social networks, but it’s never the same as a Generation Next lifestyle. In fact, I was reading an article on the Internet last week that kind of woke me up. The article, called Is Loyalty At Risk? by John Gaffney, explained why – and how – my life is different from Generation Next’s. You’ll understand when you read this extract:
Kids talk on cell phones while they IM, and do all this while they watch TV with 90 percent of the screen, a crawler at the bottom, and promotional messages flashing in the corners.
“Attention,” says Umair Haque, a strategy consultant with Bubblegeneration, “is becoming the scarcest — and so most strategically vital — resource in the value chain. Attention scarcity is fundamentally reshaping the economics of most industries.”
The generation that will control the purse strings of the future is being raised to expect even more from companies while hearing less from them. What the Pew Internet project calls Generation Next (ages 18–26) doesn’t seem to be loyal even to some of the Web sites whose success it has been most responsible for. More than 40 percent of customers who have a profile on MySpace have profiles on Friendster, Facebook, and other sites.
According to Terry Dry, cofounder of teen-focused online promotional firm Fanscape, loyalty is an allegiance to the next big thing and the next cool brand. “Kids don’t feel like they owe you anything,” he says. “They want what they want and they want something for their loyalty even if it’s temporary. Keep delivering value and you have a shot.”
[Citation: Is Loyalty At Risk? by John Gaffney, September 2007, 1to1 Magazine.]
17 March 2008
Generation Next
A lot of investment has gone into researching today’s youth – the Generation Next (people in the 16-25 years age group) – the ones who cannot live without mobilephones, iPods and the Internet; the ones who create their own content digitally (since they feel what’s available is dismally out of time) and expand their networks socially from the confines of their rooms and their home computers.
Most such research reports are likely to be protected under private ownership, but there are a few which have been released in the public domain. One such report, released a year ago, and called A Portrait of ‘Generation Next’, is from Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, Washington DC. Although the research was conducted in 2006 in the United States and reflects those sentiments, it is a pretty good indicator of what today’s youth (probably) is.
Here’s an extract from that report:
“A new generation has come of age, shaped by an unprecedented revolution in technology and dramatic events both at home and abroad. They are Generation Next, the cohort of young adults who have grown up with personal computers, cell phones and the internet and are now taking their place in a world where the only constant is rapid change.
In reassuring ways, the generation that came of age in the shadow of Sept. 11 shares the characteristics of other generations of young adults. They are generally happy with their lives and optimistic about their futures. Moreover, Gen Nexters feel that educational and job opportunities are better for them today than for the previous generation. At the same time, many of their attitudes and priorities reflect a limited set of life experiences. Marriage, children and an established career remain in the future for most of those in Generation Next.
More than two-thirds see their generation as unique and distinct, yet not all self-evaluations are positive. A majority says that “getting rich” is the main goal of most people in their age group, and large majorities believe that casual sex, binge drinking, illegal drug use and violence are more prevalent among young people today than was the case 20 years ago.
In their political outlook, they are the most tolerant of any generation on social issues such as immigration, race and homosexuality.”
The report is quite substantial and revealing. You can read a PDF version here.
[Citation: A Portrait of ‘Generation Next’, Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, Washington DC, released January 2007.]
Most such research reports are likely to be protected under private ownership, but there are a few which have been released in the public domain. One such report, released a year ago, and called A Portrait of ‘Generation Next’, is from Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, Washington DC. Although the research was conducted in 2006 in the United States and reflects those sentiments, it is a pretty good indicator of what today’s youth (probably) is.
Here’s an extract from that report:
“A new generation has come of age, shaped by an unprecedented revolution in technology and dramatic events both at home and abroad. They are Generation Next, the cohort of young adults who have grown up with personal computers, cell phones and the internet and are now taking their place in a world where the only constant is rapid change.
In reassuring ways, the generation that came of age in the shadow of Sept. 11 shares the characteristics of other generations of young adults. They are generally happy with their lives and optimistic about their futures. Moreover, Gen Nexters feel that educational and job opportunities are better for them today than for the previous generation. At the same time, many of their attitudes and priorities reflect a limited set of life experiences. Marriage, children and an established career remain in the future for most of those in Generation Next.
More than two-thirds see their generation as unique and distinct, yet not all self-evaluations are positive. A majority says that “getting rich” is the main goal of most people in their age group, and large majorities believe that casual sex, binge drinking, illegal drug use and violence are more prevalent among young people today than was the case 20 years ago.
In their political outlook, they are the most tolerant of any generation on social issues such as immigration, race and homosexuality.”
The report is quite substantial and revealing. You can read a PDF version here.
[Citation: A Portrait of ‘Generation Next’, Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, Washington DC, released January 2007.]
16 March 2008
Reduced
Advertisers and marketers know how to reduce their work. They define consumers into segments of people belonging, say, to age groups such as 16-35 years or 12-24 years, with specific behaviours and disposable incomes to allow them certain buying choices.
Consumers are no longer treated as human beings with individual likes, dislikes, habits and preferences. They are reduced to sets of decision-makers fitting demographic and/or psychographic descriptions that are input into advertising and marketing campaigns.
Entire populations of countries are reduced to such descriptions of stereotypes that have a common thread that binds them. A thread that finally forms the basis of a marketing-communication strategy.
The question is, of course, if masses of people with diverse needs, wants and behaviours can identify with, or conform to, such reduced descriptions.
Consumers are no longer treated as human beings with individual likes, dislikes, habits and preferences. They are reduced to sets of decision-makers fitting demographic and/or psychographic descriptions that are input into advertising and marketing campaigns.
Entire populations of countries are reduced to such descriptions of stereotypes that have a common thread that binds them. A thread that finally forms the basis of a marketing-communication strategy.
The question is, of course, if masses of people with diverse needs, wants and behaviours can identify with, or conform to, such reduced descriptions.
15 March 2008
Not the 16-35 years
Nokia may be eyeing trend-setting consumers in the 16-35 years age group for ‘circular entertainment’ (see my previous post), but in 5 years, 35-year-olds will be over 40 and their lives may revolve around something more important than creating their own entertainment – ‘creating’ being an essential criterion in the phenomenon Nokia is describing.
That’s because most 40-year-olds will be in the middle of their careers, with growing children, and pressures of upward mobility driving their lifestyles. Creating their own entertainment is unlikely to be top-of-mind for them – though, a digital lifestyle is certainly going to be ubiquitous 5 years from today. Most likely, it’ll be the children in the family who will create their own entertainment.
In fact, this is no big discovery. Today, perhaps not children, but trend-setting teens are finding their own ways to entertain themselves. They are sitting on the Internet, downloading stuff, creating pages about themselves, networking with others, and sharing their creations – self descriptions, stories, photos, images, videos, podcasts, comments on other websites, blogs, etc.
They are also on their mobilephones – talking, messaging text, images and videos, sharing ringtones, listening to music or playing games. Even while studying or commuting, they have their iPods or other MP3 players plugged in for music – music which they have downloaded from the Internet or from their friends to create personal playlists.
You won’t find them watching TV half the day like the generation before them used to. Today’s teens are digitally active – participating and creating content for themselves. If I were Nokia looking at future trends, I would study the trend-setting 12-24 year olds today (and not the 16-35 years age group as they did).
That’s because most 40-year-olds will be in the middle of their careers, with growing children, and pressures of upward mobility driving their lifestyles. Creating their own entertainment is unlikely to be top-of-mind for them – though, a digital lifestyle is certainly going to be ubiquitous 5 years from today. Most likely, it’ll be the children in the family who will create their own entertainment.
In fact, this is no big discovery. Today, perhaps not children, but trend-setting teens are finding their own ways to entertain themselves. They are sitting on the Internet, downloading stuff, creating pages about themselves, networking with others, and sharing their creations – self descriptions, stories, photos, images, videos, podcasts, comments on other websites, blogs, etc.
They are also on their mobilephones – talking, messaging text, images and videos, sharing ringtones, listening to music or playing games. Even while studying or commuting, they have their iPods or other MP3 players plugged in for music – music which they have downloaded from the Internet or from their friends to create personal playlists.
You won’t find them watching TV half the day like the generation before them used to. Today’s teens are digitally active – participating and creating content for themselves. If I were Nokia looking at future trends, I would study the trend-setting 12-24 year olds today (and not the 16-35 years age group as they did).
12 March 2008
Circular Entertainment
Late last year, Nokia released an interesting bit of news in the market. That, within the next five years, as much as “25% of entertainment will be created and consumed within peer communities.”
This is no ordinary soothsaying by Nokia, but the result of a global study (by The Future Laboratory, UK) of trend-setting consumers (9,000 consumers aged 16-35 years from 17 countries) and their digital behaviours and lifestyles, investigating the future of (their) entertainment.
According to Mark Selby, Vice President, Multimedia, Nokia, the study, titled A Glimpse of the Next Episode, revealed that “people will have a genuine desire not only to create and share their own content, but also to remix it, mash it up and pass it on within their peer groups – a form of collaborative social media.”
[I remember Apple’s Steve Jobs say something very similar way back in 2000.]
Mr Selby explained, “The content keeps circulating between friends, who may or may not be geographically close, and becomes part of the group’s entertainment.”
Nokia has dubbed this phenomenon ‘circular entertainment’ and is pinning some of its business hopes on it. Having watched Nokia’s N-series advertising all through last year, I’m pretty sure Nokia had wind of this trend much before the study was done.
Perhaps the world is already headed in this direction. Perhaps it’s Nokia’s way of engineering a consumer trend in order to capitalise on future marketing opportunities. Whatever the case may be, ‘circular entertainment’ seems like an inevitability!
You can access the Nokia press release here.
[Citation: Nokia press release, 3 December 2007 – Nokia predicts 25% of entertainment by 2012 will be created and consumed within peer communities.]
This is no ordinary soothsaying by Nokia, but the result of a global study (by The Future Laboratory, UK) of trend-setting consumers (9,000 consumers aged 16-35 years from 17 countries) and their digital behaviours and lifestyles, investigating the future of (their) entertainment.
According to Mark Selby, Vice President, Multimedia, Nokia, the study, titled A Glimpse of the Next Episode, revealed that “people will have a genuine desire not only to create and share their own content, but also to remix it, mash it up and pass it on within their peer groups – a form of collaborative social media.”
[I remember Apple’s Steve Jobs say something very similar way back in 2000.]
Mr Selby explained, “The content keeps circulating between friends, who may or may not be geographically close, and becomes part of the group’s entertainment.”
Nokia has dubbed this phenomenon ‘circular entertainment’ and is pinning some of its business hopes on it. Having watched Nokia’s N-series advertising all through last year, I’m pretty sure Nokia had wind of this trend much before the study was done.
Perhaps the world is already headed in this direction. Perhaps it’s Nokia’s way of engineering a consumer trend in order to capitalise on future marketing opportunities. Whatever the case may be, ‘circular entertainment’ seems like an inevitability!
You can access the Nokia press release here.
[Citation: Nokia press release, 3 December 2007 – Nokia predicts 25% of entertainment by 2012 will be created and consumed within peer communities.]
14 February 2008
Mobilephones will change journalism
With the recent push for citizen journalism by many media houses (print, TV and online), the mobilephone has become an indispensable device for reporting news. However, the mobilephone – with camera, audio, video and uploading/emailing features – has been viewed as an amateur’s attempt at news reporting, and given less credit than the equipment used by professionals in their line of work.
However, all that may be changing soon – according to an article in The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, by Jeff Jarvis, who is journalism professor at City University of New York. In the article, Prof Jarvis claims that the mobilephone is “the new tool of the journalist’s trade,” and feels it will be an indispensable unit of the journalist’s gear in the future.
Citing Reuters’ mobile journalist (mojo) initiative – used in the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month – which equips reporters with the Nokia N82 phone for professional work, Prof Jarvis writes that the N82 mobilephones “are kitted with a wireless keyboard, a miniature tripod, a solar battery and a small microphone – along with all the relevant software to edit and publish multimedia content.”
He suggests, “The portability and discreet look of all-in-one devices, apart from their practicality, also change the relationship between journalists and interviewees…”
To know more about Reuters’ mobile journalist initiative and Jeff Jarvis’ views on using mobilephone technology in journalism, read The Guardian article here.
[Citation: The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, Jeff Jarvis, 11 February 2008.]
However, all that may be changing soon – according to an article in The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, by Jeff Jarvis, who is journalism professor at City University of New York. In the article, Prof Jarvis claims that the mobilephone is “the new tool of the journalist’s trade,” and feels it will be an indispensable unit of the journalist’s gear in the future.
Citing Reuters’ mobile journalist (mojo) initiative – used in the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month – which equips reporters with the Nokia N82 phone for professional work, Prof Jarvis writes that the N82 mobilephones “are kitted with a wireless keyboard, a miniature tripod, a solar battery and a small microphone – along with all the relevant software to edit and publish multimedia content.”
He suggests, “The portability and discreet look of all-in-one devices, apart from their practicality, also change the relationship between journalists and interviewees…”
To know more about Reuters’ mobile journalist initiative and Jeff Jarvis’ views on using mobilephone technology in journalism, read The Guardian article here.
[Citation: The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, Jeff Jarvis, 11 February 2008.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
