As I enter into my fifteenth year of interactive/digital media, it occurs to me that there are still many who refer to any media associated with the Web, or anything utilizing TCP/IP protocol as "new media". It truly begs the question: just how long does something have to exist before it becomes mainstream? And why do people still call it new?
I think, perhaps it is because many in traditional media still like to paint the interactive media with a label that implies that, perhaps, the so-called "new media" has not come of age, thus, it is unworthy of being taken seriously along side serious media like newspapers, television, and that recent upstart-cable (which I was blessed to also pioneer in the early 80s). By labeling it as new, it is not something that should be taken seriously.
Maybe by still calling interactive media "new", those who still bleed ink or think news can only be conveyed through the magic of the stoic talking heads that read from teleprompters and still believe most viewers think that they are extemporaneously providing the same information that every other channel delivers, are convincing themselves that they still have time to learn a new trick or two. After all, it is all still new.
Talking to most of those whom I know in the traditional media, the consensus is that only kids 12-18 years old are using the Net or mobile devices to get their news. As I've written previously, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Don't get me wrong. I have immense respect and frankly, marvel at the notion that broadcasters had the courage and conviction to put up big towers and invest in expensive transmitters, operating at a pretty stout monthly cost to provide their programming to an audience at a period in time when only one household in every ten even had a device over which they could receive the programming. Most of the programming in those days was local programming. It is a shame that those who pioneered the broadcast medium have lived to see their investments of money, sweat, and tears in cutting edge local programming reduced to blocks of syndicated shows and network fare.
The Catch 22 that ultimately gets created when one refers to interactive media as new is that we're left to categorize other media. The word "traditional" gets tossed around a lot, but think about it-- the antithesis of traditional is "non-traditional". Maybe interactive advertising should be non-traditional. But to call interactive media forms "new" means that all other forms are, well, old. And no media wants to be old.
By categorizing all media that is not "old" as "new", we're left to create a new descriptor for other forms of media that are, in fact, new. So now we have "emerging media" and "nascent media". I believe the term "new media" should probably be mothballed. It hearkens to the day when the Internet was young, unproven, and had little audience. That is certainly no longer the case.
I, for one, will not refer to interactive media and all the creative advertising forms that have followed it as new. It is what it is: interactive. I'll go along with digital, too. Emerging media will always come into the market, but those who still refer to interactive or digital as new are probably still asking how many hits the website is getting. Take my advice: don't ever use the term new media or ask about hits if you ever have any notion of being considered anything but old.
Comments