Reading Assignment 1: “Media Predictions”
Deloitte’s Technology, Media and Telecommunications group anticipates the commercialization of social networks and user-generated content, the rise of real economies in virtual worlds and the need for a more sophisticated approach to “long tail” marketing in this article published last year. “The challenge for media companies in 2007 is to second-guess how the public’s perception of value may change …” the authors write. What do you think? Which online trends are likely to be most profitable for media companies, and what, if anything, have the authors failed to anticipate?
February 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Aside from the almost obsessive use of the word “panacea,” Deloitte’s was able to make some pretty good predictions. Their idea that user-generated content needs to find a way to make money was pretty accurate. Google bought YouTube, and now, instead of being a site that generates no revenue, it’s a moneymaker.
They also mentioned using social networking sites to spread the word– this has certainly happened on Facebook. Now the site is filled with ads, promotions, contests, etc.
Their ideas about competition TV were also insightful. It’s funny, game shows used to be huge back in the 50’s and thereabouts, and then more structured shows took hold.
Recently, we returned to game shows with the advent of reality TV– American Idol, Rock of Love, etc. It’s reality TV, but it’s a game show. There’s also Project Runway and Top Chef. Viewers can text in, instead of call in, votes for their favorite character etc. They can also sign up for updates on the show. Guess what that generates? Money. TV has created a whole empire using cell phones, the Web, and the more traditional TV set.
As for trends that Deloitte’s missed the boat on: They make a big deal out of how paper will never die because people want to curl up with a good book. Well, now I guess you can curl up with a good Kindle. It remains to be seen whether these will catch on or not.
I also disagree with their perception of VOD. TV on the Internet is huge right now– you can watch almost any recent show on your computer. Ads are also included in the shows in order to generate revenue.
Again, it’s weird. Last year I went to a media conference in Paris where an ad company told us that the future of advertising is basically in the past. In the old days, a company would sponser a show– like “the Dove Soap Comedy Hour with Jerry Lewis” or something like that. (That is not a real show.) Today, apparently we’re going back to that. Look online, each episode of a show on ABC.com is brought to you by (fill in ad name here). Also, there’s entire Internet shows about different products– I guess there’s one about an airline that is basically an ad for airlines.
It’s weird– as we try to get further away from the invasion of ads they become more engrained in our lifestyle. Anyone see Idiocracy?
As for Deloitte’s assertion that people would rather go to the video store than wait for a movie to download– I don’t know that many people that download shows and movies, but I know a ton of people that use Netflix. That seems like a huge online moneymaker– especially since they are now moving into film production.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I appreciated the call for “balanced, comparable statistics that clearly show the relative performance of alltypes of meida, both old and new.” I’d be interested to see how that is executed.
One concept I found both ominous and usefull was the proposal for offering “gigabytes of privacy for a fee.” I am not an expert, but as I understand it, on facebook their are no nuances of privacy that you can customize in your profile. It sounds like a usefull tool, but there is something strange about the concept of bying privacy.
One assertion I found interesting was that “the majority of user generated content is likely to remain mediocre and thus of little value or interest to most” I personally find this to be true in my case - I hardly ever read comments or rely on user generated content for information, but I do not get the sense that that is true for other people.
The reference to PostSecret as both a successful blog and book was a good example of “symbiotic profitable coexistence.” A friend referred me to the Website a few years ago and I probably would not have been interested or aware of the book unless I was familiar with the blog.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Reading through the document, I think that Deloitte did a fairly good job at predicting media trends for 2007. The first idea that resonated with me was the comment that the “majority of user-generated content is likely to remain mediocre.” There is a sea of blogs out there and while many of them are getting hits – luckily, mine included – there are few bloggers that could successfully make a living off of them.
Another obvious prediction is that the Chinese market has huge revenue-generating potential for media companies. With the Chinese population accounting for about one-sixth of the world population, there are a lot of potential media consumers out there. The major problem, however, is that the Chinese government is holding the reigns tight on media liberalization. I took a class in undergrad about China’s role in the Asian-Pacific region. I wasn’t surprised to learn that the Chinese government was censoring search results in Google. If a Chinese citizen were to google “Chinese government,” only sites with positive comments would come up. It would be incredibly difficult to crack into the Chinese market with the extreme censorship measures the Chinese government continues to practice. Only media companies that wrote positive stories about China would pass through censored search engines. What kind of online media coverage are the Chinese people really getting?
One of my favorite debates addressed was the battle between print and digital media. Will long-standing newspapers really be replaced by Internet media outlets? Will reading an e-paper really replace paging through a good, old-fashioned newspaper? Not for now, at least as I see it. Unfortunately, a large proportion of newspaper reporters that I’ve worked with feel threatened by the promise of online journalism. For example, the middle-aged, seasoned reporters I know at the Chicago Tribune stick to writing stories for the paper and don’t even consider sending a shorter version to the Web desk. These reporters fear for their job security because they think the Internet will replace hard print. If only someone could convince them that the Internet is a great companion for print. The Internet is perfect for staging multimedia components or telling breaking news as it happens. Stories in print can be enhanced with additional information provided online.
Print and pixels just need to get along until equilibrium between the two formats can be met. I am reminded of a comment that journalist Arianna Huffington made during a panel discussion, which appeared in a 2006 issue of Editor & Publisher:
“I find this debate between online and print, who is going to survive and who is going to die, incredibly old fashioned, irrelevant. It’s not an either/or. It’s like the old barroom argument ‘Is it Ginger or Mary Ann?’ This is 2006, let’s have a three-way. We don’t have to choose.”
February 17th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I agree with Christina that “paper and pixels” should find ways to get along, rather than always be at each other’s throats.
My old newspaper did this well when we had major flooding in our area. Along with the print edition, we set up an online photo gallery where readers could submit their photos of the destruction in their communities. And it was a huge success: We started getting millions of hits a day, compared with the typical thousands, and the photos enabled us to include areas that we couldn’t reach because of our small staff.
However, our professional print/online coverage was still great - I think we even won some awards. (And we even printed a book with our staff photos and the best of the reader photos!)
I was intrigued by the mention of this year’s Beijing Olympics in the section on China. Right now, the Chinese government is undergoing a lot of international scrutiny (well-deserved, in my opinion) for its support of the Sudanese government and general disregard for human rights. There’s been some discussion of whether major advertisers at the Olympics should pressure China to clean up its act. I’m not sure that’s a corporation’s responsibility, but I hope athletes and other visitors can use new media to let people know what’s really going on in China and that advertisers don’t get blinded by dollar signs. (Of course, U.S. consumers and government have some hard questions to ask themselves, too.)
February 17th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
By the way, even though the writers’ strike is over, I think the Web sites that sprung up to fill in the gap (such as funnyordie.com) could continue to be profitable.
The strike and its impact on the Hollywood economy probably weren’t things that Deloitte could predict. But it’s interesting how 20th-century (even 19th-century) labor techniques can still affect 21st-century media.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:12 am
I also thought that these “predictions” made a strong argument for the peaceful co-existence of print and pixels. Personally I have never seen them as being oh-so-separated but it would seem that the advertising world has made them into an artificial dichotomy of sorts. I also thought than the predictions about China and how media groups should not attempt to overlay their original business strategies in the Chinese context, was telling not only for a switch of marketplace but also for a medium. As we are seeing in this class, the message is the medium. Deloitte says that, “User generated content offers more of an opportunity than a threat.” I agree that the there will always be talented individuals that rise to the top. And as Catherine illustrates in her story about her newspaper and the flood the two most certainly can give each other a helping a hand.
There are a few things that make me nervous about this whole worship of blogging in it’s current state. Deloitte says that there are 6 million bloggers and very few of them make a living—which (and I know I am announcing the elephant in the room) makes me wonder why Medill thinks that blogging will be an important aspect of our young careers. The other elephant parading through the room I think also happens to be that according to Deloitte it is still the talented that garner attention. But I think blogging in it’s current formation tends to create a paradigm of quantity over quality. The more frequently you post the more attention you get rather than the more you have to say.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:28 am
I find the idea of making profit from websites with user-generated content and social networking interesting. Everywhere from MySpace to YouTube are plugging into this huge money maker. Popular blogs sell space on their sites to create a full-time job out of a hobby. Just go to Pinkisthenewblog.com to see all the companies that have jumped to market in these new arenas.
The article really interested me on this point. I can’t say it hasn’t crossed my mind that it would be really cool to have someone want to advertise on the blogs we are doing for class. I mean, why couldn’t I make a profit off my interest if Perez Hilton can make money of his? Right?
Other trends that were mention in the article were interesting, but Brenna covered most of the points on the TV game shows one, Christina on print vs. digital, etc., thus making anything I say redundant. So I’ll move on. I do have to say that I do agree that I will never abandon my magazines and books, just like how my father will never abandon his Wall Street Journal, for a digital version. I like the feel of the paper in my hands. And that is that. Other generation may feel differently, however. So mine may be in the minority. All well.
I like others above, also disagree with the perception of VOD. I am a huge fan of using the Internet to catch up on my shows. I don’t have money to buy TIVO, so the Internet is the next best thing. I can’t watch TV on a regular basis with all the HW and classes I am taking, so I watch ABC and FOX shows on a regular basis and love having them on there. I think there is a lot of potential for advertising through these shows, and advertisers are always looking for money to be made and audiences to reach!
February 18th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Dang it, Brenna. I wanted to be the one to make fun of how much they used “panacea.” I planned for it and everything.
My main thought on the Deloitte document is one of thanks. It seems a more rational view than the “Internet is everything, newspapers and books are things of cavemen” perspective that has seemed to dominate since I was in high school. I do have to disagree with Brenna on two points - first, that the document said the paper will never die. One of the sources they quoted said it could die as soon as 2043. They admit the possibility.
What they were saying is that, for the papers to survive, they might have to change their focus from breaking news to focusing more on “opinion pieces, essays, editorials, in-depth analysis and features.”
The Internet was supposed to kill newspapers. So was TV. So was the radio. Everyone calls newspapers dinosaurs. They’re not. They’re coelacanths. Prehistoric monsters that just keep surviving for millions of years.
Second disagreement point is about the movies. I’m one of those people who prefers to go to the Blockbuster for a movie. The basic reason is that the next thing on my Netflicks queue could be a really brilliant, disturbing documentary on the plight of migrant Norwegian widget-makers on a night I feel like watching Superbad. Not the most tech-savvy reason, but a common one. The documentary sounded really great two weeks ago.
I think Blockbuster is a great example of a company that has augmented its “real world” market with online material. Granted, it’s playing catch-up with Netflicks, but Blockbuster has mail service and online downloads without getting rid of the late-night drive to the store.
I think that’s what the Deloitte document is arguing for - synthesis of the traditional and the new, rather than the knee-jerk assumption that the new will automatically replace the old.
Final Brenna-related point - I loved Idiocracy.
Maude, thanks for announcing the elephant. I really want to know that myself. It’s fun and it’s teaching me how to post video and audio, but, well, it’s been a bone of contention. A serious one. And I’m a New Media major.
When the best journalism to come out of Northwestern in a long time has come from David Spett, it might be time to consider whether our focus should be on the content or the means by which that content is distributed.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am
There’s something shifty about online companies selling my own privacy back to me.
And there’s something about the phrase “monetize their massive user bases” that sounds downright unwholesome.
Anyway, I think the key to getting online users to bite on “long-tail advertising” is to find something people like and integrate with it in ways that don’t completely disrupt the experience. One example, and I hate to sound like I’m advocating this too strongly, is CBS’ solution to having clips from its shows leak onto YouTube. Taking an “if you can’t beat ‘em…” approach, the network cut a deal and created its own YouTube channel (http://youtube.com/user/CBS) with more than 5,000 clips (and these are actual clips from shows, not just commercials); the twist is, they are pioneering a sneaky new advertising technique in which a small gold line appears on the video player bar, and when the playhead comes to that position, an ad rises up within the bottom part of the video window for a few seconds. This approach allows the YouTube content to continue without (much) interruption, CBS to make money off of the site rather than sending take-down notices all day, and for me to watch Dave Letterman clips while only being mildly irritated! And best of all, you can click an “X” to hide the ad.
Like Brenna, I think the author has really missed the mark with his dismissal of on Video-on-Demand. Not only, as Brenna says, is internet TV a huge commodity right now, but Netflix is poised to change the home video market forever by the end of this year, when it will release a set-top box that will allow users to instantly download movies onto their televisions with the push of a button. No more 48-hour BitTorrent downloads for me!
And while some people think consumers would be hesitant to buy yet another clunky gizmo for their home theaters, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings says, “No, that’s not a concern… And the reason is, if you’ve got compelling content, people will hook up another box. Things like the Wii sell out in dramatic numbers. The Wii’s selling two million units a month. Why? Because there’s something you want to do with it. So you’ve got to have some compelling content. But the idea that people will never hook up another box is patently untrue.”
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120251714532955425.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
That compelling, cutting-edge content, I think, is what people shell out the big bucks for, and it’s what the marketing folks are looking to exploit next.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I think Deloitte hit a lot of targets with their predictions, but I also think there are a couple of glaring miscalculations they made.
I think the prediction that user-generated content is an opportunity for media companies is correct. YouTube is wildly popular and it is overwhelmingly controlled by users and the content they upload. Sure, some big media companies offer their shows on YouTube and people watch them, but YouTube is a tool for the average Joe to throw in his two cents of video.
Their prediction that user-generated content could bolster media company’s own entertainment offerings is compelling. There are already countless fan groups for various artists and actors, so if they find a way to harness that interest they will grab people’s attention and make more advertising money.
I think their prediction with TV and shopping is off. We’ve had QVC and the Home Shopping Network for longer than I can remember. Why shop on the TV when you can shop online where it’s far more interactive, far more user-controlled and a lot more convenient to do anywhere? I can shop in the office, at home or on the train with my computer. I can save results, bookmark items I like and track shipping.
Shopping on TV is cumbersome and I really don’t see it taking off.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am
[I think my last post got filtered out because it had links in it. Sorry if this is a double-post]
There’s something shifty about online companies selling my own privacy back to me.
And there’s something about the phrase “monetize their massive user bases” that sounds unwholesome to me.
Anyway, I think the key to getting online users to bite on “long-tail advertising” is to find something people like and integrate with it in ways that doesn’t completely disrupt the experience. One example, and I hate to sound like I’m advocating this too strongly, is CBS’ solution to having clips from its shows leak onto YouTube. Taking an “if you can’t beat ‘em…” approach, the network cut a deal and created its own YouTube channel with more than 5,000 clips (and these are actual clips from shows, not just commercials); the twist is, they are pioneering a sneaky new advertising technique in which a small gold line appears on the video player bar, and when the playhead comes to that position, an ad rises up within the bottom part of the video window for a few seconds. This approach allows the YouTube content to continue without interruption, CBS to make money off of the site rather than sending take-down notices all day, and for me to watch Dave Letterman clips while only being mildly irritated! And best of all, you can click an “X” to hide the ad.
Like Brenna, I think the author has really missed the mark with his dismissal of on Video-on-Demand. Not only, as Brenna says, is internet TV a huge commodity right now, but Netflix is poised to change the home video market forever by the end of this year, when it will release a set-top box that will allow users to instantly download movies with the push of a button. No more 48-hour BitTorrent downloads for me!
And while some people think consumers would be hesitant to buy yet another clunky gizmo for their home theaters, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings told the Wall Street Journal last week, “No, that’s not a concern… And the reason is, if you’ve got compelling content, people will hook up another box. Things like the Wii sell out in dramatic numbers. The Wii’s selling two million units a month. Why? Because there’s something you want to do with it. So you’ve got to have some compelling content. But the idea that people will never hook up another box is patently untrue.”
That compelling, cutting-edge content, I think, is what people shell out the big bucks for.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Okay, I need to start posting sooner, because now everything has been said. Overall, I too felt like this was a fairly even-handed, rational argument that media will continue to change and evolve but the print stuff isn’t going anywhere. It’s sort of the nature/nurture debate - no truly informed mind really argues one over the other anymore, so why are we still bothering to have the debate? (Even your haircolor was influenced by the proteins in your system at the time your body decided to start sprouting hair. The debate seriously drives me crazy because nobody will ever win.)
I do want to add to the Netflix/Blockbuster boxing match: I read a few months ago in the NYT that Netflix had signed a deal with an internet or cable company (I don’t even think I read beyond the Daily Headlines email so forgive me here) to eventually bring movies right to your TV - eventually making the little square envelopes a thing of the past. Picture On-Demand with every movie in Netflix’s library. In that case, who would need to get up and go to Blockbuster? Paul could watch Superbad at the drop of a hat.
I was interested by the concept that user-generated content just isn’t of the best quality. For the most part it’s true, but maybe the sheer volume of bad stuff is blinding us to the good stuff. Some woman in New York keeps a brilliant blog at http://theuglyvolvo.livejournal.com/. Why she doesn’t have a book deal yet, I don’t know, but she’s at least as talented as many bona fide writers out there today. Is she less legitimate because her content isn’t company-backed?
That said, user-generated content DOES usually suck. Comments and ratings always make me cringe because at Northwestern, I sometimes forget that really, really stupid people are out there making a lot of noise.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
So many thoughts on this:
1) I think it’s somewhat naive to think there isn’t an all-out print-pixel war. While there certainly may be a utopian answer where the two could peacefully coexist, I think most newspapers are struggling to figure out how that’s going to work. Did anyone hear about The Capital Times, the Madison, Wis., newspaper that moved completely online? (Yeah … this somewhat scares me, because I intend to go to a Lee Enterprises paper.) But is it all a bad thing? It’s not as if the paper is being replaced; it’s just evolving into a new format that works better and makes more sense for this generation. It’s probably 15-20 years off, but I do think you’ll be seeing quite a few major papers moving primarily online.
2) One reason online hasn’t completely replaced print yet is that papers’ staffs haven’t overcome the learning curve, both in content and ad sales. The idea of selling a virtual banner still leaves some old-school ad execs at a loss. How do you charge for that? Based on hits, visitors, clicks? Once this becomes standardized, I think you’ll see more big-time online moves. In the Capital Times case, they said they would continue to put out a twice-weekly free publication. I think this could be a great compromise and would allow them to continue to put out special sections or advertising inserts, coupons, etc.
3) While large media companies may still be having a hard time figuring out the online ads, it’s the small-time bloggers that are finding success on their scale with online advertising. (I’ve made $1.65 so far. In the money.)
4) I don’t think you’ll get much profit off asking people to pay for privacy. You want to share something without other people seeing it? That’s not difficult. E-mail it. Most networking sites do have privacy controls. If you want to be my MySpace friend, you need to know my last name and I have to approve you. If you ask to be my Facebook friend, but I don’t want you to see any of my pictures, videos, friends comments, you get booted to the limited profile. So if these networking sites plan to take those controls away and then start charging for them, I think it’ll be met with a lot of protest and maybe lead many of those borderline, should-I-or-shouldn’t-I users to cancel their accounts.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Three thoughts:
1) Criminals making use of the economy of Second Life to hide the source of their funds is a great idea. It’s just so brilliant is makes me want to have illegally obtained cash to launder.
2) Social Networking sites will never make money charging customers for “privacy” for their pictures and videos. If any of the big networking sites did that, people would flock to those that did not charge for the privilege. And believe me, there would be plenty that would not charge.
I agree that social networking sites are faced with the challenge of figuring out how to mobilize their massive user bases to make money, but the weakness of Deloitte’s suggestion illustrates just how hard it really is to make money from these sites.
3) For me it was amusing to see the report focusing on making money from user participation in television shows. Instead of finding growth opportunities in audience participation, TV Producers had to contend with a writer strike that crippled what looked like a safe stream of ad revenue. And even more interesting, since the strike originated in a tug of war for money derived from new media, the rife opportunities of this developing media environment actually proved to be a liability to the Networks in 2007.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Paul, you said:
“When the best journalism to come out of Northwestern in a long time has come from David Spett, it might be time to consider whether our focus should be on the content or the means by which that content is distributed.”
Now my question is, do you have something against David or is the issue because the “best journalism” was in a column in the school paper? I’m going to assume the latter. Does it matter that the content was delivered in a column rather than a regular article? Likewise, does it matter whether content is delivered online or in print? Personally, I don’t believe it does.
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was that it suggests talented people will prevail — their material or blog posts are what people will pay attention to. It’s a nice idea. However, I agree with Maude. It seems like so far with the Web, for the most part quantity matters over quality. My question is, is the paper using “talented” synonymously with “trained”?
As Brenna already mentioned, I’m not sure they were right about the rising use of VOD. Deloitte suggested that the growing number of households with broadband connections would increase the desire to download movies. If this is a trend, I certainly don’t know anyone who is a part of it. I think the main impact high-speed connections have had on online video-watching is the increasing popularity of streaming television shows off of the networks’ Web sites and through sites such as Hulu.com.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I’m amazed at the success of public participation in television, not to mention its staying power. I have the broadband connection, I have the mobile phone, I dig the decline in advertising, so why am I still not drawn to this genre of television? Am I alone in this? If millions of people are doing it, why don’t I even hear about it? I have a TV antenna!
Participating in television shows just doesn’t do it for me, particularly the “light-entertainment sector,” whatever this means. I’m curious to see if it will spread to genres like politics or nature shows, though I’m pretty sure these too will not get me to text a vote. I’d rather write my representatives, sign my name, and get their take on things. A personal connection, that is.
Texting a vote is so anonymous, and I don’t really know if it truly would be used for such high-minded things as “legislation permitting.” Nor would the sample response to shows like these necessarily be representative of a general consensus, because there is no certain way to identify the audience. When there is something wrong in the world, I’m not likely to sumbit my grievance to a TV show where my response becomes the property of a corporate network.
And to think that playing these games means my phone number will be used for market research, or to give me a courtesy call reminding me to keep watching? Yuck. Give me something good to watch and I will come.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Heather - I was in no way being snide about David Spett. I think his work tracking down Dean Levine’s unattributed quotes about student reactions to the new curriculum IS some of the best journalism I’ve seen in years, not just from Northwestern.
I guess it wasn’t clear, but what I meant was that while we are learning about internet, internet, internet, the dean who made these changes was taken to task by a guy who just stuck by old-school reporting. David Spett (who I’m not fortunate enough to know) went out and just asked the questions. He did the journalism.
We’re learning about the medium, we’re learning conceptual stuff about the internet. I wish we were being taught to do what David Spett did. That’s all I meant.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I wanted to comment on the idea of user-generated content as opportunity. Specifically, the Deloitte reading says, “User-generated content may offer more of an opportunity than a threat to incumbent media companies. The more media companies take an opportunistic stance towards user-generated content, the more they are likely to be able to exploit its potential value. The industry should consider, for example, how such content can be incorporated into traditional media formats.” I agree with the quote up until the last sentence. Obviously if media companies can find a way to capitalize on user-generated content, that could be a very successful opportunity for them – even profitable. But what I disagree with is the idea that they should try to find ways to incorporate user-generated content into traditional media formats. Why is that? What sets user-generated content apart from the traditional media form is its lack of traditional form. In fact that’s why they were established, right? Blogs, aka user-generated content, started because people wanted to see something they couldn’t find in the traditional media. If we incorporate blogs into the traditional model won’t they lose some of their edge?
And, further, how can traditional media even capitalize on user-generated content? If a media company wanted to have more user-generated content they could just hire people to blog, but I don’t think this is the same thing as having independent bloggers. If traditional media companies have bloggers then they are susceptible to that company’s governing standards. Part of the beauty of blogs is that they, for the most part, are only subject to the authors standards. And, yes, that means you will get some that are offensive, untrue and just plain dumb, but without that opportunity, you would have less voices, and less people are able to share their opinions with the world. I do think that media companies need to find a way to integrate user-generated content for the sheer value of surviving economically. I just fear that by integrating user-generated into the traditional model it could lose some of their unique value.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I was very interested in the concept of “long tail” marketing. The article suggests that often older items go unmarketed because of limited space for promotions.
This is not the case with iTunes. I really enjoy the their method of promotion.
The iTunes “storefront” displays a constantly updated array of newly available content and top-sellers in different categories.
But it also personalizes its suggestions for the user, dividing those suggestions into categories. I think this solves the problem of trying to market to a person who just bought a country music CD because their Aunt Barbara happens to like Kenny Chesney. That person just won’t click on the “country” tab and instead will look at iTunes’ suggestions in different categories.
iTunes also attaches suggestions to most of its content. For music, this comes in three forms: information about what else other people who bought that content have bought, playlists created by iTunes that include that content, and popular playlists created by other users that include that music.
You can also browse those playlists on your own. This is where the older content really comes in. If I happen to love a certain band from the ’80s, I will also be able to check out other songs that iTunes associates with it and other songs that my fellow lovers of this ’80s group adore. Once I click on those songs, I can find songs related to those songs, which are related to other songs, which are related to other songs, etc.
Most of the content is reviewed by iTunes staff and rated and reviewed by iTunes users. You can see which songs are the most popular downloads. I feel like I never have to listen to the radio again to discover new music I love.
I see these same methods on the BBC’s website. The front page is the “storefront,” with the most recent content the editors think you’ll want to read. The bestsellers are listed as the most popular and most e-mailed stories of the day. You can click on different “playlists” depending on what area of the world you’re interested in.
Once you open an article, the righthand column displays other content associated with that article, both old and new. And once you open those articles, you might find links to other content. It’s hard for me to just read one article on the BBC’s site.