The Mass Media age is drawing to a close. The media environment is fundamentally changing, with technology as the catalyst. Digital Video, MP3 and PC editing has shattered audio-visual production costs; the Internet has provided every one of its users with their own publishing house, art gallery, TV station and newspaper. Producers and broadcasters, networks and advertisers are becoming increasingly dislocated. Big Media looks to get online, and the new networks look to get some big content. Audiences construct their own schedules, and draw from a greater range of sources as the quantity of informational channels exponentially increases. DV allows audiences to be producers, the Internet allows producers to be broadcasters. Broadcasters become anything they want; selling fast food, music and movies, buying cable and satellites and throwing money at anything that ends in dot com. The clearly defined roles of the traditional media environment are over.
It would appear that very little in the new media environment is clearly defined. The greatest confusion of all enshrouds the concept of 'interactivity'. The conventional model of programme-advertisement-programme will cease to function on the Internet, and will be increasingly subverted in the ultra multi-channel world of DTV. 'Interactivity' may become the advertising of the new media environment ,as products jump from the commercial breaks directly into the programmes. This is not a conversation, it is a transaction. 'Interactivity' in this sense is essentially an old media idea. It is a simple convergence, both of advertising and programming, and of telephone and television. It is however no more interactive than a mail order catalogue; it is a technological convenience.
Interactivity cannot happen without the Internet. For interaction in cyberspace there must be no boundaries other than those the user imposes upon him or herself. 'Interactive' digital television cannot provide this if it is not an IP device, it is inherently limited. In this case however, divergence may prove the solution. DTV will exist primarily as a platform for entertainment, and it will probably perform its task extremely well. The Internet's failings will be DTV's selling points, as it eases the 'off line' population into the digital age with simple interfaces and reliable operating systems. The Internet will develop concurrently, expanding across platforms as well as in number of users. For audiences, there will not just be a choice of what to watch, but how to watch.
The role of the audience is perhaps the most subject to change. As new technology allows audiences greater control over their leisure time, they will encourage the shift to an asynchronous media environment. Schedules will become increasingly irrelevant, with only first broadcasts and live events continuing to have any claim to a definite place in time. Schedules for the most part will be constructed by the viewer, not the broadcaster.
Big Media is not going to take any of this lying down however. 'Merger mania' is resulting in the creation of massive monolithic companies that dwarf their predecessors in size and scope. In a media environment which allows anyone to be a supplier, the suppliers that can shout the loudest will attract the most attention. Content is king in the new media environment, not control. New networks will capture niche markets and will quite likely make a tidy sum doing so, but Big Media will continue to do what it does best: Providing something for everyone. Furthermore, audiences will become increasingly particular in their choice of media product, as DTV and Internet broadcasting markets mature. Big Media meanwhile will have the back catalogue, huge capital reserves and slick marketing campaigns that will help ensure that it remains, well, big.