Bruce Sterling might think blogs will die out within ten years, however, memes like the The Ageless Project may be what’s needed to keep them going. Ageless, if you’re not familiar with it, lists bloggers by their birth year, with the topmost two being 95 and 93, respectively. Listings for each decade range from 1910s to 1990s – the youngest blogger listed is twelve. (My father, whose health blog I’m trying to set up, is nearly 80.)

This sort of categorization is what will continue to keep the blogosphere interesting. I think that Bruce Sterling misses the point of why blogs are so popular. He is a popular, experienced writer (and one of my faves), but there are many people who are not, who crave to communicate. Proof of that is evident in the current success of widgets like Twitter.

Granted, people will get sick of reading about how many minutes ago you picked your nose. However, as long as humans feel the need to communicate in print/digital, I can’t see how blogs will not have some cultural value. They may not stay the cash cows that some blogs are today, but if consumer electronics goes the way that some think, there may be hope yet. I’m speaking of rollable screens and electronic newspapers with wireless content loading – why not blog content on there, too? Especially tech news, health, politics, etc.

What’s more, if more twelve-year old bloggers follow the one listed in The Ageless Project, in ten years, they’ll be out of college, past the diary blog stage, and have many more friends and readers than today. A whole generation of bloggers, who’ll learn what it takes to keep their blogs fresh and interesting. On the other hand, maybe vlogs will replace blogs entirely, though somehow I don’t think so.

Originally posted on March 16, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

Bruce Sterling, the author of some incredible cyberpunk/ science fiction novels, doesn’t think there’ll be a lot of blogs around come another 10 years. At the recent SXSW (South by SouthWest) conference, he pointed out that just because there are many millions of blogs doesn’t mean any of them have to be any good. He’s quoted as saying

I don’t think there will be that many of them around in 10 years. I think they are a passing thing.

Truth be told, I was surprised, two years ago, when blogs started becoming a phenomenon (as far as I’m aware). Back in the early to mid-90s, while publishing a monthly print rag, my research found studies by the publishing industry that suggested that North American males, for example, simply didn’t care for reading as an activity. Females in Canada and the US were more likely to read books and magazines than males. The exception would be girly mags and sports mags, and possibly specific genres of novels.

Blogs changed all that, or so one would think. Are people, particularly males, actually reading more on the Internet than previous generations might have in print? Or are they just browsing blogs? If the latter, then maybe what Sterling says is true. I’ll be honest: I used to read a phenomenal amount of printed matter weekly. But the Internet seems to have ruined my ability to read lengthy documents online, and dissolved my interest in still reading printed matter. I can no longer read full books in any form – something I find deeply disturbing. And yet, I subscribe to over 1000 blogs and try to visit them at least once a month, if not daily. That’s because I have to, as part of my new career as a “pro” blogger.

So am I worried about Sterling’s prediction? Not at all. I’m a fan of his novels, but feel that if blogging goes on for another ten years (having already been around for close to ten years now), it will have “touched” a substantial demographic of the world by then and become a rather persistent facet of world culture.

Even if he’s right, there are other types of online content that tomorrow’s bloggers can shift focus to. Resource content will always be valuable on the Internet (which isn’t going away). Then there’s the next wave of the web, the Semantic Web, which will mark the effort to attach meaning and structure to content in a way that both humans and machines will benefit. Machines will be able to extract data for complex queries for specific information, such as finding all homes for sale in the US Midwest, less than $200,000 and within 5 miles of a public school.

Right now, this sort of information exists, but is hidden within the Invisible Web. I’m betting that blogs that adapt to the ideals of the Semantic Web will be those that remain in ten years.

Originally posted on March 15, 2007 @ 11:00 pm

So you make the best film you can possibly make. You’re rubbing your hands in anticipation of all the people that’ll see your pic. Except, getting distribution has reputedly always been a bit of a problem, especially for smaller studios. (I’ve known people in the biz, and there’s always personal politics, they say.) But what about online distribution?

IP Democracy had a post earlier this month, indie films caught in a technology transition, that bounces off of a recent NY Times piece about how the closure of outlets like Tower Records is hurting the DVD sales of artistic films. That’s because giants like Wal-Mart and others have certain quota rules that typically mean such DVDs get pulled off the shelves sooner.

Now IPD stated that the NYT piece barely mentioned online distribution, then rightly pointed out that that it’s still a technology in transition. Thing is, online distribution could be a small studio’s saving grace. I recall reading something about the Firefly TV series and how it got new life online, as well as advanced monies from fans. Here’s a very brief summary of online guerilla film/TV marketing and production, based on what a number of studios have done, both for TV shows and films.

1. Establish a presence.
   Setup both a website and a blog. The blog can be about the studio’s projects, the people, the biz, related films or TV shows, etc.

2. Tickle their fancy.
   Show meaty trailers online, downloadable for free. Blog the heck out of the “product” to draw fresh regular visitors.

3. Bootstrap funding.
   Pull a PR stunt like offering “co-producer” credits to each person that donates $200 (or whatever). Get a thousand people and you have a long list of credits, but you have an extra two hundred grand for promotions. Or a good webmaster and a blogger for a year, and web hosting costs.

4. Sell involvement.
   For series with a small but loyal viewership (like Joss Whedon‘s Firefly), ask your viewers to buy a season’s worth of DVDs up front, before the season shoots. One million viewers is nothing for regular broadcast TV, but online, with each fan paying, say, $50-$100 to get early access, that’s $50-$100M in capital. How many episodes could you shoot with that? Don’t forget to thank your fans on the website. I’m sure that for the right show, loads of fans would be happy to participate in extending its life.

5. Invite criticism.
   As a long-time amateur film and TV critic, I’m pretty sure that you could invite film/TV bloggers to “criticize” your content on their blog. It’d be incredibly easy to show them trailers, or even a copy of your content, possibly DRM’d. Bad or good, each review would get your website a link, building it’s presence. I mean, who the heck listens to critics anyway :) The real value of criticism is to create awareness of existence.

6. DIY distribution.
   When the show or film is ready, distribute it online via your own torrent setup. Or for a few dollars in shipping charges, have DVDs dropshipped to fans. Of course, you run the risk that someone could post a copy online, but that might happen whether or not you dropship.

7. Alternate distribution.
   With IPTV soft clients like Joost and Babelgum in the works (still betas), and with a dearth of content, you may be able to strike up a deal with one of them. There’s also Apple’s movie store, and their upcoming wireless iTV set-top box, which lets users stream video content from computer to TV set. Getting a packaging deal might be quite the marketing coup. There’s also mobile TV on cell phones, but despite being a TV junkie, I hold very little hope for mobile TV on stupidly small screens. (In case you throw video iPods at me, figuratively speaking, research shows that most owners don’t use the video functions. Though I’ll have to find that reference later.)

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but it seems to me that a determined studio can get around the politics of regular distribution by going online. Then the really good shows and films with a small viewership have a chance of surviving, instead of falling into oblivion.

Originally posted on March 13, 2007 @ 5:40 pm