Category: Michael Sales

Gaming no longer takes place just in some dank, musty basement. Gaming is huge. Gaming is mainstream. Gaming in America is bigger than Hollywood, and the game section of Comicon is usually the biggest, loudest and most trafficked. Fighter games. Fun games. Kids games. And especially role playing games, are becoming more and more acceptable in America every year.

But the epidemic of gaming addiction in Korea stands as a stark warning to us. We still do not know how excessive gaming and social media interaction affect young, developing minds. We like to think we multitask better, but studies are showing that we are really just doing more things poorly. We laugh when we are forced to go to google to spell something, and we joke aloud: “Is the internet making me dumber?” The science is still mixed, but given the profound influence this technology has on the world, it’s reasonable to be cautious.

Role playing games, in particular, offer a tantalizing alternative to the ‘real world.’ In the virtual world, you can be who you want to be, do what you want to do and behave how you like. Some players get so caught up in that world that they become addicted. The emotions they feel in the ‘world of bits’ are more powerful than anything they experience in the ‘world of atoms.’ Jobs, relationships, even food become secondary to the lives they lead on ‘the other side.’ These things still occur rarely, but as gaming grows more popular in America, will the addiction grow with it?

In the Matrix, there is a scene where Cypher decided to betray Neo and the rest of the freedom fighters. The real world offers no pleasure to Cypher, only days of fighting, running and dull existence. Even though he knows the Matrix is not ‘real’, he demands to be put back in it. He even tells one of The Agents to make him famous. To some, the ‘fake’ pleasures offered by the virtual world matter more than anything. Video games offer a similar ‘unreal’ experience.

When we play Wi Fit or 2nd Life, are we actually stepping into the first version of the Matrix, without even knowing it?

Old school games from the 1980’s had an innocence. Dig Dug. Centipede. Joust. The Mario Games. They all had a simplicity to them that seems novel and maybe even boring compared to today’s games. Current video game culture still retains a place for ‘cutesy’ games, but as video games become more mainstream, the best selling games seem to be more violent, more over the top and more aggressive.

1.) Does this change indicate a change in popular culture that is reflected in video games? If video games are more violent, does that mean Americans feel more violent?

2.) Does this change reflect the increased developing capacity brought on by cheaper and cheaper computing power? Were these violent tendencies always there and just remained unexpressed in video games because we did not have the capacity to realistically render it?

3.) Is there a link between economic well being and the kind of video games we enjoy? The 80’s were a time of recession and uncertainty (relative to the 90’s) In those times, games were more innocent and ‘family oriented.’ The 90’s saw economic boom times – our games became more violent and aggressive and stayed that way through the early part of the 21st century. Now, however, as times again become rough, there seems to be a return to family oriented, ‘fun’ games. Do we crave ‘fun’ games more during hard times? Is their a psychological need these games fulfill that are linked to our feeling of existential well being?

Traditionalists tend to see things ‘their’ way. In hip hop, traditional fans consider hip hop ‘real’ if it sounds like the music they grew up on. Country music consistently debates whether or not Taylor Swift is ‘real country’ and if traditional country artists are ‘too country.’ In theological studies, the “priest class” ultimately defines and maintains these terms. In the secular world, these people are called ‘gatekeepers.’ For most of the 20th century, media gatekeepers were able to maintain control of the way consumers accessed media. Now, those days are over.  Cheap technology allows regular, every day citizens to create and distribute their own media. This new form of citizen journalism is very threatening to traditional journalists, but most evidence shows both can exist together.

Traditionalists make a point to distinguish between ‘real journalism’ and ‘citizen journalism.’ In their minds, real journalism is more valid product, since it is vetted and reinforced by ethical principles. Citizen journalism is less valid because it blends too much opinion and commentary. While these criticisms of citizen journalism are true, it is also true that citizen journalism can add valuable context to existing stories. Commenting that adds factual links about a story, on the scene camera video or first hand testimony can all context that deepens a story and gives it more layers. Overall, this additional citizen journalism makes for a richer user experience, especially if the meta journalism is vetted by traditional, experienced journalists. If there is a problem, it is not that citizen journalism exists. The unwillingness of traditional news outlets to take full advantage of citizen journalists and the meta commentary that comes with it is the real problem. Citizen journalism is a resource. The media outlets that take full advantage of it will most likely be successful. Those that don’t may find themselves left behind in this new media environment.

Citizen journalists let the world see the horrible damage done by an earthquake in China and the terrible violence inflicted on Iranian citizens by their own government. Operations like Wikileaks exposed military policy in the U.S. and put pressure on the government to explain the current Afghanistan policy. Overall, technology allowed ordinary people to show things that powerful institutions did not want shown.

1.)  Most current citizen journalists are focused on national policy right now. What role can citizen journalists play exposing corruption on a local level in the U.S?

2.) After natural disasters in some countries, footage shot by citizen journalists is sometimes used to spur fundraising. Can citizen journalists aid funding for non-profits generally? Even non-profits focused on low profile issues that don’t gather national or international attention?

3.) Can citizen journalists ever be fully incorporated into traditional news organizations? Is that a way to offset balance sheets?

Traditional news outlets perform an incredibly important job in American society. The internet reduced the capacity of these institutions to control the story, but they still have a role. As the ‘State of Journalism’ report shows, American newspapers still do most of the journalistic news gathering and community journalism – while growing – is not yet robust enough to replace print. To insure citizens get as much unbiased, thoroughly reported information as possible, newspapers must stay solvent and active.

But how to do this? Revenues are down because of the recession, but print ad revenues have been declining for ten years or more. Subscription rates also began declining before the recession, evidence that things will not fully return back to ‘the way they were’ even when the economy turns around. What is more likely is that revenue has been permanently reduced for newspapers because of the unprecedented reduction of distribution cost, coupled with the increase in networking power and processing speed on the internet. Some newspapers, sensing this new reality, try to do ‘more with less.’ Instead of a more efficient workforce, they get a more stressed out newsroom that produces thinner, lower quality print product that they then try to re-produce online. Younger online users are left unengaged and old-time newspaper customers who remember the ‘hey-day’ keep on canceling subscriptions.

The online trend of “Free everything” cannot be fought.  The current trend of declining profits – whether slow or fast – will continue unless newspapers change the business model. The biggest, most inefficient  expenditure – the one that will keep newspapers at a financial disadvantage with the web – is creating a daily print product. Gigantic printing presses, ink, electricity, transportation and carriers all have to be factored in daily. Contrast that to the web, which eliminates almost all of those expenses. Though there is real reverence for the print product at newspapers, the bottom line is that many of them cannot maintain the journalistic standards and staffing required to do good work and maintain the print product on a daily basis. Instead, newspapers should consider making the print product a thick, weekly, maybe even more ‘upscale’ product (like a graphic novel of news.) This would still keep the older audience around and save a huge amount of money. And to the concerns that older people will not move online for news? The fastest growing audience on Facebook is  and over. If there is content they want, older people will go online to get it.

The traditional media business model is sinking like the Titanic. I was lucky. Before it completely sank, I found a lifeboat that got me to safety. Now that I am safely ashore at Elon University, I can watch the ship go down and reflect on what I learned. Despite the pessimism within the industry, I believe there are still opportunities to make money by selling journalistic news. But to do so,  expectations and traditions must change:

• Is paper the problem? The State of News Media report says lost advertising, lower circulation, and changing demographics are primarily why newspapers are suffering. That’s only part of the answer. On a larger level, newspapers are suffering because they revere the ‘print’ product over everything else. Is it still feasible to spend huge sums of money to deliver content on paper in a media environment that allows anybody with a $700 computer to start their own news outlet online? Especially when everything provided in the paper format can be accessed for free online? Isn’t revering the ‘paper’ product in the newsroom like revering a vhs tape in Hollywoood? At some point, it’s about the content you deliver, not the method you deliver it with.
• Stay in your lane: Traditional news outlets may ultimately be forced to play the ‘cable game.’ Successful networks on cable often find an untapped niche and heavily cover that area. When Espn was started, nobody thought you could create an entire network based on sports. Now look. Same with Food Network. Same with Discovery. All these entities took areas that were touched on by other outlets and made them full blown destinations. Is there a lesson here to be learned by traditional media outlets (especially newspapers?) With resources dwindling, is it reasonable for them to waste time and page space on ‘national’ coverage? If I can understand the national political scene with a free scan of Google news and free political blogs, why do I care that my local print product has it also? Conversely, a local paper has access to local content that no national entity can ever match. Is hyper-local a niche that print papers can exploit?
• Embrace your audience: Traditional media must accept that communication in media is now a two way street. We are no longer the exclusive gatekeepers of information anymore. The older audience that supports the print product can’t sustain the old business model anymore and the younger audience that still wants news demands interactivity. Journalists that see the audience as ‘dirty rabble’ will be left behind. We can’t be above the fray anymore – interactive technology online and on mobile devices requires us to wade into the crowd. Reporters can’t stay on stage anymore – its time to dive into the mosh pit!

I am still unconvinced that this Free economic model will translate easily to certain forms of art. A musician must be independent in order to exploit this economy, because record labels in America don’t have business model that gives away music. Underground rap artists use the free mixtape circuit to create ‘max distribution’, creating an audience by literally giving away mixtapes (or selling them at bargain basement prices.) This gets them name recognition much faster than they could get on a label, and allows them to capitalize on that notoriety in the future. Artists like Drake and Nikki Minaj were touring with well known acts simply off the strength of mixtape recognition – but again, they were not signed to major record labels. Exceptional musicians can parlay free music into tour and merchandize money, but I remain unconvinced that can work for the average artist.

That’s my biggest criticism of Anderson’s view. It seems overly optimistic and somewhat elitist. He focuses on the exceptional cases – the Googles, the Wikipedia’s, the RyanAirs, and extrapolates an entirely new business model from them. Even when takes the ‘micro’ view and looks at folks who make money through Second Life, I still doubt the overall feasibility of it all. When it comes to people who actually make a living in this Free economy, we are still in the early stages. It is premature to assume that the average Joe Blow who works at the gas station or inspects parts on an assembly line will be able to transition to this new economy. And if THAT guy can’t, what does that say about our country overall? Or the ultimate feasibility of Free?

‘How can people in business school get any sleep right now?’

That’s what I thought reading this book. ‘Free’, by Chris Anderson, leaves me clearly convinced that the internet has unleashed a new alternative to doing business. It has taken what King Gillete started and expanded it exponentially. By reducing distribution costs to zero, it has turned 20th century ‘bait and switch’ free into 21st century, ‘truly free.’ Which means you can literally give away free products that you never make money from and still be hugely popular and successful in business (like Google or Linux.)

1.) Does this model translate to art? Software and digital service providers (like Google or Wikipedia) make it work. But can independent musicians or illustrators or writers make it happen? Art is a fickle game – could a rapper make good money giving away his or her music away totally for free from the beginning?

2.) Why are traditional news outlet struggling so much in this model? They have operated in a semi-free environment for a long time. Is it an stubborn old school attitude that refuses to let them convert to free? Or is it that many of them are owned by larger companies that won’t allow them the flexibility to change?

3.) How will the Free model affect software giants like Microsoft and Apple? So far, cloud computing wins for convenience and novelty, but Google Docs still lags behind Microsoft Office. And the average person will pay a dollar for a song before they go futz with retarded music formats and spam laden torrent sites. Free still feels like an internet phenomenon – how long before it invades our home, and we have free cable? Free desktop computing? And truly free music?

Institutions trying to stop digital filesharing in the 21st century are like those that tried to institute prohibtion in the 20th. They want to stop demand for a product (in this case, the ability to share digital content) that consumers are unwilling to give up. And just like folks back then were willing to break the law to have their alcohol, Gen Y and Millenials today will share files no matter what.

Lessig worries about the tension between this new generation of digital pirates and the institutions that seek to control the online seas. But if prohibition is any indication, his concern is overblown. Institutions cannot take away products  consumers  believe they should have, especially if cultural memory is long enough to remember when the same institutions offered it before. Theoretically,  ‘Working Joes’ would not accept that in 1919, they could drink beer, but in 1921, suddenly they could not. The history of being able to buy a drink was too firmly established. Drinking alcohol felt like a ‘right’, even if it really wasn’t. The same is true with file sharing. Americans generally believe that once you buy something, it is yours to do with however you like. The fact that the ‘something’ is now digital, and doesn’t degrade no matter how many times you duplicate it, and can now be easily shared with millions? If the average Joe could copy analogue music on a cassette tape and share it with his friend in 1986, he or she feels the same way about digital music in 2010.

When prohibition made alcohol illegal, bootlegging and underground smuggling still provided the service anyway. What the mob did for alcohol, places like The Pirate Bay will do for filesharing. And in the end, downloading will still continue. So instead of trying to stigmatize a  practice they cannot stop, movie studios and record labels should adjust and act like the government in the ’30’s – acknowledge that this practice won’t go away, tax it and draw revenue that way.

Big institutions that control music and movies make a big deal about the immorality of downloading. Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America calls it stealing. But I question the idea of equating filesharing with stealing for the following reasons:

1.) Almost every other tangible product that we buy is assumed to be fully ours once we purchase it. Imagine how hilarious it would be for a farmer to kick your door in with a SWAT TEAM and hall you off to jail because you gave away the seeds to the pumpkin you bought to your neighbor. In effect, you have shared the essence of the pumpkin, and now allow your neighbor to have a copy they did not purchase. But no reasonable person would allow that sharing to be called ‘theft.’ Why, then, doesn’t this same freedom of sharing extend to digital products that have been purchased by a user?

2.) Sharing music electronically precedes the internet. As a child, it was unremarkable for me to record music form the radio onto a cassette tape, copy that tape and then share it with a friend. That concept is no different than online filesharing. So why are record labels and movie studios up in arms NOW? And why are they being allowed to label digital file sharing as ‘theft’, when electronic file sharing never received that widespread label.

3.) Hollywood initially came after digital downloading just like the music industry. The claim was that downloading would bankrupt Hollywood. However, over time studios have figured out how to make money (yearly box office receipts are generally the same or better than ever.) So why can’t the music industry and other institutions that own art figure out how to make money in this environment, too?