]]> http://www.blogonomist.com/links-for-2008-07-03/feed/ 0 http://www.blogonomist.com/the-top-10-media-properties-in-the-usa/ http://www.blogonomist.com/the-top-10-media-properties-in-the-usa/#comments Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:53:40 +0000 Marc Baumann http://www.blogonomist.com/?p=256 Well, I always liked Top 10 list about the media industry. According to Silicon Insider, these are the 10 biggest media properties in the USA:

1. 1. Google: 128 million unique visitors
2. 2. Microsoft: 123 million
3. 3. Yahoo: 116 million
4. 4. Time Warner: 108 million
5. 5. News Corp.: 79 million
6. 6. eBay: 66 million
7. 7. InterActiveCorp.: 65 million
8. 8. Wikimedia Foundation: 57 million
9. 9. Amazon: 55 million
10. 10. NBC Universal: 51.2 million (estimated unduplicated audience after Weather.com acquisition)

Mmmh.. very interesting. In the ‘old days’ there were only traditional conglomerates like Time Warner and Disney on this list. Now you’ll notice online retailers like Amazon, auction platform eBay and open source encyclopedia Wikipedia. By the way: Where is Disney? Also noteworthy: With the acquisition of Weather.com, NBC will push the New York Times, the largest newspaper company on the Web, off the list…

My take: 1. Newspaper must learn to embrace Google instead of fighting it. Plus: They won’t be able successfully monetize their content on the World Wide Web by themselves in the long run (the Big G is already too dominant in online advertising). 2. I am sure these comments by Eric Schmidt weren’t exactly consoling for the old media managers.

His assessment was pretty devastating back then:

“The American media produce a product of very poor quality. Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it’s sold without warranty. It’s flashy but it’s basically junk.”

Now, 15 years later, the online magazine Slate caught up with the writer and published a very interesting piece of Crichton’s current opinion of his predictions, titled “Michel Crichton, Vindicated”.

Bottom line: He still believes that the “old media” will be fossilized. “I doubt I’m wrong; it’s just too early,” Crichton said.

Slate writes:

“Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover.”

My take: I mostly agree with Crichton. The journalistic quality of mass media is poor, the concept of their “talking points” is based of sensationalism and old-fashioned marketing philosophies. Their business model is outdated (they lost their role as content and distribution gatekeeper a long time ago – without substitutes). The real conversation about relevant topics happens on the web (in blogs, forums, activist and other non big media websites), where the MSM is trying hard to catch up with the new technology and radically different information and communication world – and become part of the conversation.

So does the “shoddy mass media deserve its deadly fate”, as Crichton wrote in his Wired essay in 1993? I think, as the “junk news” provider moves to the World Wide Web, there is a good chance that traditional newspaper can continue to be successful for what they’ve been famous for a long time ago: In-depth reports, intelligent op-eds and comprehensive analysis of complex topics.

Plus: A couple a articles which are a must-read if you’re interested to get some more insights about the status quo of the mass media:

- Slate: Chronicle of the Newspaper Death Foretold

- Economist: Who Killed The Newspaper?

- The New Yorker: Out Of Print – The Death And Life Of The Newspaper

And as a bonus – two old media watch websites:

- Newspaper Death Watch

- Magazine Deatch Pool

What do you think? Are old media really going to die? What are their chances for survival? And: what news resources do you trust in the digital age?