Which is really the bubble? (And is it bursting?)

Comments

katherine writes:

It may be true that blogs are

. . . just another turn of the wheel in communications technology.

But where is the cart going that the wheel is attached to?

katherine writes:

Spar's book that is cited above draws an interesting conclusion which the review closes on,

while technology can gravely wound governments, it rarely kills them. Instead, governments survive because, ironically, both society and entrepreneurs want them. Governments provide the property rights that entrepreneurs eventually want, the legal stability that commerce craves, and the stability that society demands. For in the end, even pirates and pioneers want order. Once they have staked their claim or claimed their loot, they want someone else to protect it. And that someone else is usually the state.

She speaks of the proto-typical gold rush. Gold is found. Everyone rushes to stake his claim. Someone strikes a rich vein and wants to protect it. It is inefficient to stand with a shotgun guarding the strike. Can't get much gold out that way. So a sheriff is needed and taxes from everyone, not just the rich miner, are used to bring in law and order and regulation.

Spar's research found, to her surprise, that it is invariably industry (that is on record as despising regulation) that wants government regulation.

When the first radios started to proliferate, everyone was on the air, often on the same channels. It was argued that while there should be freedom of the airways, it had to be regulated, and the FCC was established to manage that monopoly.

Blogs, in their own way, challenge the media monopoly.

History shows that monopolies are usually vulnerable to technological advances. Will the television networks respond flexibly or will they dig in? Hard to say and we see both responses.

The power of the media comes when people tune in. It is not the licenses or transmitters or slick studios with "Henny Penny" and "Bucky Lucky" giving us the information that they think is important.

Even if fragmented, when people blog (or read blogs) instead of watch mass media, the power of the media starts to fade.

The audience is vast, highly fragmented, and getting wise to being "pitched." What can the network say that will rivet them? Content is expensive and it is not profitable to put reporters into the field.

Blogs are a disruptive technology. Clayton Christensen of Harvard popularized that concept that new technologies disrupt existing firms' markets. Why did important firms like Polaroid, Xerox, United States Steel, Wang, and Digital Equipment, simply vanish one day? Why did the mini-mill steel firms drive out the big integrated steel mills? Because the big, highly-profitable, integrated-mill firms left the less glamorous, less profitable, and small markets to the "other guy."

Once the wheel has turned, we will look back and see how blog disrupted the media networks and how the "network news" retreated to more profitable pastures and into history.