You heard what here first?

So with a multitude of 2006 recaps and 2007 predictions flying around the place at the moment, I figure I will a) add my 2 cents worth, and b) point out how baseless and pointless these things are. Why, just because I can (and I got sunburnt today so am feeling a little moody).

Now is the time of year when publishers the world over seem to have trouble filling out their publications with news and advertising. But not to worry, there is always the tried and true fallbacks to rely on. Nearly every "2006: the year that was" contained exactly the same news, and none of it really mattered in the grand scheme of things. I couldn't care less which celebrity couple finally got married; got pregnant; came out; broke up, but that and the novelty human interest story was what was completing the page count. Never mind the death/destruction/poverty/inhumanity that is happening right now!

Thats my rant on the pathetic journalism that goes on around this time of year, because now we have the future to look forward to, and everywhere we look we are being heralded into the era of Web 2.0. Now that mainstream media have jumped on the bandwagon that is Google and You Tube, we can sleep soundly knowing that the investigative genius's have cracked it! Now the web is in the hands of those who use it, and the ones that really matter, us! I don't believe it for a second. Time magazine were very brave to to pick you as their person of the year, and if it came with a cash prize I would happily accept, but I don't think they have got it quite right.

Web 2.0 is based on the assumption that all content that is created is worthwhile. It's not, but it is betting on the infinite monkeys theorm. I don't like to think that monkeys can do my work! And they shouldn't be doing the work of paid journalists who supposedly know how to gather this information and evaluate its quality. So a word to all you online (and offline) publications who think they have found an easy content generator in bloggers and the like, invest in your reporters because you might not have enough monkeys to write Shakespeare.

And while I am on the topic of 2007, my prediction is:

Online audiences are incredibly fickle, so MySpace had better look out. Whilst it is showing impressive growth (which will be making Rupert Murdoch happy) think for a moment how many duplicate and inactive accounts there are on there. We will see the rise of the next hot new thing, and watch the exodus take place. All of you so called "web 2.0 generators" are on notice!

Peace, love and a whiskey neat

Demographic revenge

I read something in a book I received for Christmas which I did not whole heartedly agree with. With 90% of all Christmas gifts comprise of either CD's/DVD's/books or tickets there was a fairly high chance that I would receive one of the above. And the book it was.

Chris Anderson (the Editor-In-Chief of Wired magazine) has developed a great economic theory (and accompanying book) which he calls "The Long Tail". The basic premise of this is that with the advent of digital technologies etc etc things that were once considered "misses" are now proving to be a rather profitable and therefore important part of the business model. Case studies for this theory include the itunes music store and Amazon.com (can sell many millions more songs/books than a physical store ever could).

Now I have nothing against the theory. Upon reading it, all seems to be in order and in makes practical and financial sense. What I do take note on however is his remark on page 166 that the 18-34 demographic is highly coveted by advertisers. Now, all target demographics are highly coveted by advertisers because they select their target based on numerous things (most importantly swayed by what they are selling and who is buying it!). If you wish to look at the population as a whole in terms of how attractive they are to advertisers then you cannot go past the Baby Boomer generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) who have a lot more disposable income than any other segment of the population and are more willing to part with it too.

Now, this assumption is not isolated to this one book, it just happened to be the catalyst for my frustration which has also given me the impetus to start this, my very first blog. I guss you can say I am just late on the early adopter curve. Whenever TV ratings and channel shares are up for discussion in the press (and we know that the inked cousins of moving pictures like to have a go at their competitor of the advertising dollar) there is always an "expert" who announces to the world that the most desirable portion of the audience for advertisers is this younger age group. Yes it makes sense if you have a product that has an edge to it, and will be utilised by members of this audience but what about every other product or service in the market!

Enough of a rant from me, but it is one of those things that is talked about everywhere and the consequences are never really considered. By the way, it is a good book and a good read.