Bloglines - NY Times Headbutts New Media

0 views
Skip to first unread message

kab...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 4:30:48 AM7/11/06
to ic...@googlegroups.com, kaba_...@googlegroups.com
Bloglines user kabaism (kab...@gmail.com) has sent this item to you, with the following personal message:

NY times認為不論新舊媒體都從世界盃得到很大的好處,但舊媒體(TV、NP、RD、MG)仍然是最大的贏家,而新媒體則是擔任支援性質的角色。
雖然大家都喜歡賴在床上看世界盃,但是NYT的文章似乎有點貶低了網路服務的表現,例如Yahoo-Fifa網站的流量在6/4就排名全美500,000個網站中68名,平均停留時間10分8秒,光台灣FIFA的pageview每日都在150萬以上。
為什麼要在新、舊媒體之間區分而不是進行匯流呢?除了聽主播鬼叫之外,難道就不能在電視螢幕上加入一些新媒體(或者說網際網路科技)的互動嗎?例如電視公司自己推出widget,讓user桌面能夠即時更新賽況,更能在比賽的播出上加入一些互動的科技,例如投票、聊天等,誰說TV一定要很傳統。
我覺得這個看法很有趣,其實台灣之前也常常加入一些電話、留言板之類的電視節目互動,不過像sports這種許多人關注同一件事物的情形,在電視螢幕某個角落設置聊天互動似乎是不錯的主意。


Read/WriteWeb
Richard MacManus on Next Generation Web and Media

NY Times Headbutts New Media

In New Media

That headbutt The NY Times reports that old media won out over new media when it came to World Cup coverage. The Times notes that television and newspapers benefited from the World Cup, but seems to overlook (or at least downplay) that Internet services did well too. While the Times article stated that live video feeds were available in "several countries" and that mobile coverage was popular in places like Australia, they neglected to quote other relevant online stats. For example Hitwise reported that the official Yahoo-Fifa website (which I reviewed a month ago) ranked No. 68 overall for the week ending June 24, 2006. 

The Times does have a point that new media played "a mostly supplementary role". Certainly in terms of video coverage, because if you wanted to watch the matches live then you had to tune into the major TV networks. But even if Internet coverage of the World Cup was supplementary to TV, one question which should be asked is: why then didn't Old Media take more advantage of the online tools at their disposal? For example, Jeffrey McManus (no relation) notes that television networks could easily have made use of desktop widgets:

"It's interesting because the various widget platforms (not just Yahoo's) are totally open. TV networks could be creating these experiences for their audiences without asking anybody permission or paying the platform providers like Yahoo a cent. Why aren't they?"

Perhaps by the time the next World Cup comes around, we'll not only be able to use widgets on our desktops - but on the TV. How much better would the TV coverage have been if we (the audience) had real-time stats and chat options available on the TV set, rather than our computers? I expect that kind of Web-based technology to be available on TVs in 4 years time.

In any case I think we all agree (apart from the NY Times) that all kinds of media - old and new - benefited from the World Cup. But rather than butting their heads against new media, old media should be finding ways to leverage the two-way nature of the Web and utilize the online tools and services at their disposal.

Photo


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages