A topic that continues to gain attention in the technology
and scholarly circles, but goes essentially unnoticed by the general populace
is media convergence. Simply put, media convergence is the blending of various
media platforms (print, broadcast, telecommunications, computing) into a “new”
method (platform?) for distributing information to receivers. There is
another side to this convergence, the actual devices used (computers, phones,
TVs, radios, etc.) but for the purpose of this blog entry, I am just referring
to the content.
For example, moving from the past
overlap between television, computers and newspapers…
…to something more like this…
I apologize for the less than great graphic, but in this age
of media convergence, there are times when I still struggle with the
convergence of images and text. But hopefully what I am trying to convey is a
little clearer when I talk about media convergence. Radio content can be
accessed over the Internet as well as your smartphone. Television programming
and movies can be accessed over your computer, smartphone and tablet.
Traditional newspaper content can be found online as well as directed right to
your smartphone, tablet and computer.
This convergence of various platforms can be a very good
thing. Or a bad thing. Or a very ugly, nasty devious thing. Let’s look at each
possibility.
The Good
I currently work for the largest home improvement retailer
in the world. Not as a communicator, but as a merchandising supervisor. I spend
a lot (almost all) of my time out on the sales floor, working to ensure the
various merchants we represent get their products correctly placed and
merchandised on the sales floor. We handle a TON of information, supplied to us
by the vendors, our own internal merchants, our regional managers, district
managers and central support services. It comes to us as email, training videos
transmitted via computer and web
links.
And somewhere, I am sure there is a real, hard copy paper
printout of everything I receive. Having that information accessible at each
computer terminal on the sales floor is a great thing. However, in any given
store, there may only be 10-12 computer terminals available and perhaps 30-35
people needing to use or access those computers at any given time throughout
the day. So my ability to access that information can be hampered by the accessibility
of those terminals.
However, if I could access that same information on a tablet or even on my smartphone while I am standing in front
of a bay getting reset, I could potentially increase the overall productivity of
my team. Granted, that is more about the actual device, but if the content is
not available for use on a variety of platforms, having the device would be
pointless.
The point is, no matter where I am – in front of a bay, in
front of a computer or even in my car (safely parked, not driving) if I have
the same access to the information, I can drive the productivity of my team up
and impact the overall efficiency of my team. This is good. Especially at my
annual review.
Providing the same information whether it be in a newspaper,
an online version of a newspaper, or sent directly to a tablet or smartphone
increases access of that information by the end user/reader. Access to
information – in the information age – is a very good thing. Granted, not all
information is good/valid/accurate, but it is up to the end user to ferret out
the accurate from the inaccurate, the reliable from the unreliable or the facts
from the opinions.
For retailers, though, trying to get their products and
information in front of consumers, the ability of taking one image/video and
using it on TV, radio (the audio track), in newspapers, magazines, via the web
or sent directly to smartphones and tablets is maximizing their advertising and
marketing dollars.
The Bad
A very real issue that I face in my job is that while my
access to information seems to be increasing, my access to information seems to
be increasing. At times I can be overrun with information. I can go from a
single email one day, to an onslaught of emails, copies of emails and copies of
emails previously copied the next day. So increasing my access to this
information via whichever platform only means I will have more places to check –
which will reduce my time to actually get things done.
That can be a bad outcome of this media convergence.
Information overload. Feeling constantly bombarded or flooded with information.
The static kitten images were cute and then the little videos of kittens on
Facebook were funny, but I really don’t want kitten-related intros sent to my
smartphone when I’m just trying to look up the address of the closest Wendy’s
for lunch.
As an aside, when answering a question from an audience
member about dealing with an overabundance of email, Merlin Mann noted
in 2007 that “you may just have to talk to them,” implying an actual
face-to-face conversation might be required in order to get a handle on being
flooded by what amounts to unnecessary emails. Go figure. Put technology aside
and actually talk to someone personally? What a concept. (yes, a bit of sarcasm)
The Ugly (and
insidious)
If this media convergence continues, what happens to the
sources of all this information? If the entertainment company buys a news conglomerate
that already owns television and radio broadcasting companies and newspapers
and magazines, how diversified is the information being “reported” or covered?
The “story” may appear all over the various media platforms, which on the surface
gives it a certain level of credibility, but if it all originates from a single
source, is it really news or an attempt at agenda setting by the few, powerful
companies that exert their influence in an effort to benefit their own goals
and aspirations? Would companies actually engage in such devious and insidious endeavors
to line their own pockets with wealth and power? It could and does happen. One
final word: Enron.
What are your thoughts on media convergence? Good, bad or
ugly? Why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
