How *not* to argue for the Internet

This week's topic for class was a lot more up my ally; talking about users of media, audiences and the way media actually works in the world. Being re-acquainted with the old Chris Anderson Long Tail article was good. Anderson presents a compelling and solid argument, saying that the future of the market will be less focused on mass assumptions of popular tastes and more on niche markets. He says this is mostly due to the emergence of the Internet and the world Wide Web as a highly dispersed, fragmented and collaborative marketplace. Henry (yes I'm going to bring him up every post, deal with it) Jenkins has drawn on Anderson's ideas in his book Convergence Culture to extrapolate on his arguments about consumers becoming more active: "The Long Tail model assumes an increasingly savvy media consumer..." While one could argue that there has still been a push but media producers to sell big, mass-focused, one-size-fits all brands (I'm thinking Apple, Harry Potter, Marvel) I think even conceding this one would have to agree that niche marketing is used to sell even these products. Apple likes to promote there being a version of its brand for everyone, and you can enjoy Harry Potter as a book, movie, audio-book, video game, website, lunch-box, etc. The other reading I was struck by (unfortunately not as positively) was the excerpt from The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. Where do I start? I have to say I noticed a similarity between Friedman and Richard Dawkins: in that they both have arguments I agree with in general, but I wince when confronted with the ideas because they sound like one of those crazy people with placards on the corner of Bourke Street. Coincidentally: Happy Birthday Mr Dawkins for yesterday. Anyway. Basically, Friedman loves the Internet. He wrote a love letter to it and its many founding fathers from about page 59 onwards in his book. That's great, I love the Internet too, and I believe (perhaps too ideally) that it has great democratising power. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Internet is a predominately Western, developed-world phenomenon, and that perhaps the idea of it bringing EVERYONE IN THE WORLD together might be a bit unrealistic. I mean, when you think about world poverty statistics, it puts things into perspective. So Friedman is not only a little off the mark when talking about a world shift in economics due to the Internet connecting us all, but its also a little bit offensively insular. Pankaj Ghemawat also wrote much more succinctly and intelligently than me about how Friedman is overstating the transformation occurring, pointing out: "just a fraction of what we consider globalization actually exists."

I would argue that there are many new media scholars (off the top of my head, looking to my bookshelf) like Jenkins, Lev Manovich, and Terry Flew, who all acknowledge the enormous cultural, political and economic power the Internet has as well as recognising the facts of an inequality to Internet access.

I'd be really interested in your ideas on this topic.

PS. I love Last.fm

Links - RedBubble

You find out about the Internet not just on the Internet but in 'real life' too. On Saturday I was at the pub having drinks with a friend for her birthday, and I started talking to one of her friends about what I did and what she did. Turns out she's a graphic designer, working on colour and materials at a major car company, but also produces her own art. When she found out I was into the Internet, she started talking about RedBubble - an online space designed as a community for artist and a wider galley space and business. Often it is the case that ebusinesses are able to promote products that perhaps are aimed outside the traditional typical consumer groups. The products sold can often be described as 'niche' pr perhaps even 'alternative.' Sites like Etsy.com for handmade crafts and Threadless.com (as mentioned in class) for custom t-shirts are good examples of this. RedBubble has that same idea of promoting emerging artists who perhaps have not yet broken into the more typical areas of exposure.

Taking a look at RedBubble and it becomes clear that its business is focused on a sense of community of both artists and art appreciators or customers. This is another big feature of many online retail stores, perhaps the most famous examples is the user reviews at Amazon.com or the buyer/seller peer reviews on eBay.com. I guess customers feel a bigger sense of autonomy and power as compared to a traditional store where interacting with like-minded customers is more difficult.

RedBubble was started in my home town, Melbourne, and now it has offices in San Fransisco and I think also now London. Perhaps its key to success is its focus on community, and also the fairly unique pitch of being an 'online gallery' where art lovers can browse and perhaps the works of artists from their homes. Social photo sites such as Flickr.com already serves the same sort of purpose, but RedBubble has the hook of having 'real artists' (whatever that means in this world of participatory media) uploading their work.