The New Net: Engaging vs. Passive Media
Posted Friday, March 28th, 2008 12:59 pm by Dave Moyer
In the world of media, everything is about content. Take whatever you want to send to the listener, viewer or reader, and send it out to them. Whether you’re talking about newer or more traditional media, the entire point of content production is to get that content out to the people you want to get it to. True, methods have changed drastically, but that is, and will always be, the main point of media. As The New Net changes our society, two distinct types of content have emerged. Traditional TV, radio and newspapers are in the format of what I like to call “passive” media, and podcasts, blogs and web video are turning out to be something that I like to call “engaging” media.
When I say “passive” I mean that a lot of the content goes right by the audience, and they aren’t as into it as you’ll see people being into newer styles of media. Chances are, you or someone you know has (or used to have, in many cases) the TV or the radio on while working in the kitchen, working on the computer, or doing something else that is also using their attention. This is “passive”; it’s not grasping your attention, and lots of content is going right by you all the time, unless something jumps out at you that captures your interest, whether it be someone solving the puzzle on “Wheel of Fortune”, a funny column in the newspaper, or your favorite song on the radio. And, because of the small amount of attention that people often have, and small amount of input that producers get on what engages people and what doesn’t, “passive media” producers tend to produce a very wide spectrum of content in very large amounts.
Enter “engaging” media, the kind of content that is found through something like the internet. With audio podcasts, video podcasts, streaming video, video sharing sites and blogs, people choose what they want to see. All sorts of things are presented to the audience, and the audience picks what they want to see. Look at your favorite podcast, for example. (If you don’t listen to podcasts, check out some of mine. I’m sure you’ll find them excellent. 
) The subscriber picked that show from the masses that are there, because it had what they want to see. The producer doesn’t have to make hours of broad content, because they know that they’re already sending listeners what they want– they subscribed to it, for Pete’s sake! Think of the success of YouTube! People liked it because they could watch what they wanted to watch when they wanted to watch it!
It’s those choices that makes this kind of content engaging. Because the audience gets what they want on their terms, they pay a lot more attention to it then they would to the TV when they’re cooking dinner. You’ll often see someone playing a podcast while running! Many of my listeners tell me that they listen while commuting to work, school, or whatever their destination many be. Some say that they listen in bed! They choose to consume that content when there’s nothing else to distract them! They know they’re getting what they want because they picked it themselves, and they don’t want to be distracted. That is the difference between new media and old media; engaging media and passive media. And it’s another revolution that’s taking place from The New Net.
Like this post? Buy me a Starbucks!
About
Entries (RSS)
Excellent discussion of an argument I’ve been trying to make for a long while. Interactive content, where you feel a part of something, is better than passive content.
There’s a sense of community around most podcasts. That’s rare for TV and radio shows. Sure, you’ve got fans, and fan clubs, but with podcasts and vodcasts, blogs, Twitter, etc, there’s interaction between the content provider and the content consumer. I feel a part of, rather than apart from, the podcasts I listen to.