Time to put an end to media ‘newism’

Is it still usual to describe things as ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ media?

I heard a marketer use these frames of reference a couple of weeks ago, and I didn’t think I’d heard them for a long time. But then I started looking out for the T and N words…and yes…I heard them again another 5 or 6 times in the following week. It’s clearly still a much more prevalent frame of reference than I thought.

And then I looked out a little more for euphemisms for the same thing. ‘The new players.' 'The established media.’ The sorting into old and new is definitely everywhere…a very delayed reaction to the shock of a now not very new ‘new’.

It is understandable that when a major change has happened, we do a bit of ‘before and after’ sifting. A bit of Gestalt, sorting what you know better and what takes you by surprise into different hats. I once saw Andy Lipmann, one of the founders of the MIT Media Lab, put it well. “Anything that happens before you are born is normal. Anything that happens before you are 40 is technology. Anything that happens after you are 40 is witchcraft’. Wise words, from a smart man.

But I worry about ‘Newism’. It brings with it a series of dangers that can create double standards and bad decision making, and even, at its worst the potential for social damage. An inventory of potential negative effects:

-      You assume that the ‘old’ is 100% reliable, based on its heritage

-      You assume that everything that needs to be explored is in the ‘new’

-      You assume that the ‘old’ is gradually fading to nothing (aka ‘endism’)

-      You assume that the ‘new’ is all one kind of thing (see WeWork)

-      You get unnecessarily scared of the impact of new things

-      You split your teams or organisations into camps or siloes

-      You apply different standards of responsibility to different channels

We are in mature digital times now, and there must be better classifications available to us, based on the role platforms play in people’s lives, or the essential nature of their creation, and I’ll propose a classification at the end of this article. But first, why is the old/new classification so far off the mark?

1.    Because the ‘new’ is not new.

Digital advertising is now 25 years old. Google advertising is 18 years old. Even whippersnapper Facebook is now 15 years old.

For context, TV advertising in the UK is only 64 years old. That’s obviously a bit longer, but 1/3 of its lifespan is now in the digital advertising age. And, of course, the speed of uptake of search and social has been so much faster than the growth of TV.

For some personal context, I’ve now been in the marketing industry in some capacity for 17 years. The first media plan I was ever involved in producing was roughly 50% digital (admittedly it would have been for upgrading internet access, but nonetheless.)

Also, of course, these players are some of the largest companies in the world, and some of the most valuable in the history of the world. They have deeply maturing capability, organisations and all the growing pains you would expect. They are not new.

2.    Because the ‘old’ is not just old

Make no mistake, some long established institutions have had a very tough time adapting to some new media realities, and sadly one or two of them are them are no longer with us, and are mourned by their fans or audiences.

However, one kind of transformation or another has come to every kind of channel, and few of them are without a viable strategy, transformation plan or a new form.

News brands have pivoted their mindset and have UK audiences that have risen by 2 million year on year. And TV businesses have deployed their commissioning prowess to produce original content that they commercialise well beyond their core platforms.

The exception of course is my favourite media brand of all, Private Eye. Who are in rude health, having shown that sometimes the old can stay old and still be at the cutting edge.

3.    Because ‘old’ doesn’t mean ‘ending’

We have a natural tendency towards ‘endism’, and the echo chamber of marketing is probably worse at this tendency than most walks of like. But just because something has been around for a while does not mean that its goose is cooked.

There’s no medium older than the humble poster, and it is now at the biggest, most ubiquitous, most interesting and most commercially rewarding in its long history.

The language of disruption is persuasive, and it has an undeniable truth underpinning it. But Uber does not mean the end of taxis – it means more taxis. Airbnb doesn’t mean the end of hotels, or even of travel agents, but a shift in the form factor of both things.

If an organisation is able to change its mindset and its form factor, there is no reason it can’t thrive.

4.    Because this ‘new’ wave may be nearly over

I’m definitely about to go on a limb here, and it is certain to come back and haunt me. But I think the wave we’ve just seen, the rise of mega-businesses based on user utility and advertising-driven funding models, is on the wane.

Of course, there is plenty more room for digital audience growth, quite a bit more room for the flow of marketing investment into digital channels, and probably some really smart new models of social platforms incoming beyond the rise of TikTok.

But I believe that beyond the availability of information (search), the ability to connect to other people (social), and the ability to do everything wherever you like (mobile) the rise of totally different commercial media technologies is going to be pretty limited in the coming years. Therefore the ‘new wave’ of media technology may be, if not quite over, at least a question of colouring in rather than windows to the unknown.

Please note I exclude from my prediction:

-      The likelihood of media industry consolidation and/or fragmentation

-      Massive disruption in non-media technologies (eg service & process)

-      The rise of new entertainment media with limited scope for paid advertising (eg VR)

Hopefully that’s covered me adequately, and that brings me onto…

5.    Because the new ‘new’ will be a totally different form

It is extremely (indeed historically almost certain) that what we are still prone to call the ‘new’ is at the very end of the old.

For a lateral frame of reference, I bring you the current revival of another 25 year old phenomenon, the favourite band of my youth, Oasis. When my 15 year old self sung his heart out at Knebworth, it seemed like the beginning of a totally new era of music, bigger, better and brighter than anything before. But as Noel Gallagher himself observes in the excellent documentary Supersonic, not only was this going to be the high water mark of his particularly volatile band, but really it represented the last flourishing of a way of thinking about music culture that is now basically obsolete (though clearly still very alluring).

The next wave of media technology disruption is not going to come from advertising-driven businesses, building audiences and selling their targeting capability. It will come from businesses that derive most or all of their revenue from audiences and subscriptions, and offer privacy and user experience as the reward.

This isn’t going to happen overnight – like other old things advertising isn’t anywhere near the end – but I do think this shift overall is inevitable and at some point we will see some rather more hurried change.

So the new competition will not be between old and new advertising channels, but a battle to create the best value proposition between different financial models and data principles. And in this context, there is by no means a guarantee that the newer media business models will be the most robust or enduring.

What do we call these things?

If it’s not old vs new, what is it that’s most helpful? I’d argue for a new categorisation, that focuses on the essence on the essential process and value of the medium, regardless of the channel. Perhaps editorial content, information access and utility, social connection technology, public spaces, audiovisual entertainment.

But this is a question as old as the hills and a tough one to solve. I’d be more than open to suggestions. Anything has to be better than ‘traditional’ and ‘new’.