The C Word

...if my calculations are correct...

People who (unlike me) have made it past the “Big Bang” chapter of A Brief History of Time tell me that, way into the future, we’re heading for a Big Crunch

I’ve got news for them. It’s already happening.

I’m not talking about the moment the Universe will contract in on itself, like some cosmic Rosemary Conley hip and thigh diet.

No. I’m talking of a sinister foreshadowing down here on Earth. Like that moment in a Keanu Reeves disaster movie when he notices a little blip on a seismic read-out and his friends in Government tell him that, if he wants to avoid snarl-ups on the turnpike and panic buying of Wonderbread, he should shut the flip up.

I’ve done the math. I’ve spent evenings hunched up over a green screen. And, if my calculations are correct, and current trends for consolidation, convergence and contraction continue, we’re sleepwalking our way  to certain catastrophe.

The big lie I’ve uncovered (and that I risk my life in blogging to you) is that, while we’re being fed talk of long tails, fragmented audiences, multi-platform and greater choice, the big crunch creeps ever closer.

Last week, the BBC’s Head of Music – Tim Davie – talked of simplifying its output, of how the best of 6Music will be grafted, like a GMO, into the DNA of Radios 1 and 2.

Of course, that’s nonsense. As more than enough of us have already blogged Radio 2 simply can’t become the Swiss Army Knife of the airwaves. It’s having a tough enough time trying to shoe-horn in The Organist Entertains alongside Radcliffe and Maconie – so there’s simply no way it can make room for the excellent Guy Garvey’s Finest Hour, or Adam and Joe.

But it’s not just the BBC who are attempting to starve us of choice in the name of consolidation.

The painful contractions continue. Take Trinity’s acquisition of GMG Regionals. Trinity have 120 regional titles, GMG Regional had less than 4% of local press.

Georgina Harvey, managing director of Trinity Mirror Regionals, called the GMG titles a “perfect strategic fit for Trinity Mirror’s business and a match made in heaven”. Heaven, in Harvey’s case, translates as “more money, less original content.”

as pure as the PR driven snow

Take a recent story in the Formby Times about snowdrops.*

How local is a snowdrop? Well, according to Trinity, not very. Exactly the same story appeared in the Wirral News. Oh, and the Crosby whatever, and theSouthport thingy. And, tragically, theLiverpool Daily Post.

Only the place names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Admittedly, it’s only a press release filler. It’s not like they’re doing a story about daffodils, or another, more serious seasonal flower. But however you look at it, it’s cheap. And it’s cynical. And it’s not local.  And next year, it’ll be in the MEN too.

This is what consolidation means. This is heaven. It means one size fits all. The Big Crunch isn’t pretty.

Want a family holiday? A generation ago, there was Airtours, Going Places, Lunn Poly, Direct Holidays, First Choice, AT Mays, Thomas Cook, Thomson….

Now, post-big crunch, there’s two players. Thomson and Thomas Cook. Sure, the brands remain, but it’s another smoke screen – they’ve all been mopped up by the big two. The world, for most travellers, gets smaller.

what car? good question

And what about when you get there? Want to hire an economical city car? What about a Citroen C1? A Peugeot 107? Or maybe an (admittedly reckless) Toyota Aygo?

Choices, choices.

But no. Save for headlight-twiddling design touches they’re all exactly the same car – a joint collaboration which results in not one, but three shit cars. See where I’m going with this?

This is what consolidation means. This is heaven. It means one size fits all. The Big Crunch isn’t pretty. (have I already said that?)

But whatever big business does, they’re only doing it with our consent. Because, increasingly, enough of us are happy to accept consolidation in its other form: convergence.

Happy with your iPhone? Sure. Of course, the battery could be better. And the camera’s not great. And, yeah, it’s a shame about Flash.

And, yes, an iPad isn’t as good as the electronic ink of a Kindle. So why are we as keen to believe that multifunction’s better than single function? Or that Trinity Mirror/Thomson/Toyota’s ‘leveraging synergies’ is the only path to evolution?

(* Depressingly, intelligent people were seriously complaining about why a lack of camera could be an iPad killer. What? Just because something’s possible, doesn’t mean it should be green-lighted without thought.

Similarly, just because it’s ‘possible’ to use the same Press Release across 40 local papers without using a single local journalist, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Unless you want to cheapen the whole experience. It only takes one clever editor to say, ‘actually, it would take us ten minutes to ask our readers to email or twitter in their favourite snowdrop sites’. That way, Trinity wouldn’t be outed as being anything but a hyperlocal publisher, by mistakenly including the word Wirral in its Formby re-write. And readers might still believe that their cherished local press still feels genuine.)

Let’s just take a step back from the keynote speeches and hype.  Let’s hear it for divergence, for a change. Darwin knew a thing or two about it. You could read The Origin of Species on your iPad, if the glare didn’t turn you blind first.

Our mums knew better. They flirted with washer/driers. Then they realised that, actually, they were shit. The sum was lesser than their parts. Unreliable, glitchy and cumbersome, the washer drier was all about compromise. So they ditched them for a decent washing machine and a reliable tumble drier.

So what’s wrong with consolidation and convergence? Well, if cost cutting, compromise and convenience is your bag, nothing.

Me? Call me crazy, but I’ll still take two bottles into the shower, thanks. I’ve heard  Wash & Go makes you bald. All those chemical compromises…

3 thoughts on “The C Word

  1. Well I have to wonder, we live in the Information age. The ability to communicate new ideas etc. is like never before. Why do we need the BBC or local newspaper groups to give us choice?

    Is it because people still need someone in authority to tell them what is important?

    Clearly, to run a credible media orgnisation requires considerable resources and yet it is clear that most of the printed media have few staff writers nowadays. They rely on screwing freelancers and lifting material from anywhere they see fit. Often the editor will publish stories that bear little resemblance to what the author had intended. (I speak from exprience :-( ) and what ends up on the page is pure fabrication.

    I have a friend who worked as a photographer for AP, he covered the Balkans war and then was given the Champions League as an assignment to help him recover. He photographs fish off the coast of Portugal now because he is sick and tired of his work being misrepresented.

    Wharhol claimed that we would all be famous for 5 mins, yet we can all be famous for as long as we can get someone to pay attention to us. It is surely matter of magnetic potency. If what you produce has value, more people are attracted to it.

    Most choice equals conflict. How many kinds of toothpast do we need? This *choice* is what is killing the planet, it produces waste on scale that has never been seen before, distracting us from the real issues of the day.

    We desperately need a simpler form of living, that will help us focus on what really needs to be done. Adequate food, housing healthcare, education and a job should be the goal of mankind, not more brands.

    How many people own a video camera that gathers dust in the cupboard and rarely if ever films anything of value? Yeterday it was the Walkman, now it is the IPod. What a waste of the planets resources!

    I am not anti-choice, I am not anti-variety. It seems that variety has always been wanting. People are scared of being unique, they want to fit in. Just look at how young people dress, all wearing the same fashions and if you don’t fit in you will be ridiculed. Variety is frowned upon. Variety, genuine variety is what makes life interesting if you embrace it.

    Bryn

  2. Nicely put. It’s funny, isn’t it, how even stuff like Twitter (the ultimate way for people to express themselves) is fast becoming an exercise in ‘trending topics’ – we seem less able, or willing, to make our own choices. And once we let go of them, it’s very difficult to claw them back.

  3. The worst part of twitter is the automated response of many. I glaze over when 5, 6, 10 Tweets come from the same group/person who has clearly automated their web site to pump Tweets of every change to the uninterested world. On Twitter, the less you tweet the more potent your communication, or so it seems. Twitter has two communication modes, your followers with whom you are more intimate with and then there the Twitterverse communicated to through #tags and reTweets. There is a subtle difference that I can’t quite put my finger on at the moment.

    Many tweets are laden with #tags that have a function but when they equal more than the tweet content it makes you wonder and it makes the tweet almost unreadable.

    I believe the days of megaphone communication are close to an end. I think most people are immediately sceptical of advertising because they are sick of being conned.

    Personal recommendation has always been the most powerful form of advertising. You can’t buy it, your product or service must be quality to evoke it.

    People need to know it exists in the first place to recommend it and so a happy balance is needed to be a successful advertiser.

    By and large the majority of people are unaffected by what is in the media. There might be an event like 9/11 or the “Credit Crunch” that has an impact in their lives but mostly the media contains things that are happening to other people. The world, is something out there, not part of what they are up to and therefore largely irrelevant.

    Bryn