Is the new ‘widgetised’ online culture set to collapse?
All things 2.0, The future?, Things that make you go "hmmm", Things that make you go "wow" October 30th, 2008At this year’s ad:tech there were a few decent seminars, but one speaker’s comments in particular has stuck in my mind long after the event. Umair Haque was part of the Chinwag panel discussion called ‘Micro Media Maze’ and he drew parallels between the current financial crisis and the state of the online landscape. Now that’s something you don’t usually hear at these types of conferences, so I was intrigued.
Haque explained that the reason for the huge crash in the financial markets was that Wall Street had sliced, diced and rebundled securities and sold them on, to the point where it was no longer sustainable. What made them fall is that they were doing this ‘remixing’ within an old paradigm. He drew a parallel between this scenario and the new online trend for widgets: after all, most widgets simply take existing content, and slice it up, mix it up, chunk it up and then spit it out for consumption. According to Haque (and I’m in pretty close agreement), most widgets today are just glorified redistribution methods for the same old junk, just streams of ads no one wants, repackaged with the shiny badge of being ‘widgetised’.
Haque went on to say that the media needs to shift out of its old paradigm if it is to survive; the old paradigm being the practice of shoving ads down customers’ throats. In an age where consumers don’t have to watch ads anymore, using widgets as ads just doesn’t fly. Tomorrow’s ads need to give value to consumers, tomorrow’s communication needs to improve or enhance the customer’s skills, not dull them with ’stupid passive zombified entertainment’. That’s a shift indeed, but I do have (perhaps naive) faith. I’m just not sure how long it will take for media to catch on to the idea.
There are some great widgets out there – for example, the last.fm / Google Maps mashup that shows where the bands you listen to on last.fm are playing live. But widgets like this are usually created by the developer community, not the big media companies. And with services like Widgetbox allowing people to create widgets without the need for a developer or any understanding of code, the ratio of rubbish to brilliant widgets is only set to get greater.
What media owners need to do is take a leaf out of the book of Creative Commons and the blogging community, where people regularly give things away for the sheer joy of giving or being helpful to another human being. Take for example, the coolest thing since free wifi itself: Londonist’s free wifi map of London. It’s been created and made public for free, is constantly updated by the steady stream of reader comments in the original post, and is the sheer essence of sharing something useful: ‘giving back‘ without needing to be ‘given to’ first.
Whether or not this concept will fly with the business and revenue models of most media companies, is yet to be seen. I guess that’s what Umair Haque meant when he called for a paradigm shift. I only hope that it happens before the days when today’s young people, who have grown up living their lives online, take over. Because I will probably be too old by then to even remember what the hell a widget was in the first place.
Part 2 in the ad:tech London Follow-up posts
February 25th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Miko, perhaps I don’t get it. Widgets are just the distribution mechanism: repackaging content in a widget makes the widget as valuable as the content. Some might argue that 90% of what is printed in newspapers is rubbish but that’s not leading to a collapse in paper.
Widgets are often created for advertising, in fact there is an industry that create games and make lots of money doing it. Companies that have been set up to create widgets for advertising seems to be doing well:
http://www.tumri.com/about/press-releases/02-02-09.html
I think the decline in widgets is wishful thinking when they are just about to become more commercial.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Hi Andy, thanks for the comment. Totally agree that at their core, widgets are just a (re)distribution mechanism. With this in mind, using your newspaper analogy: widgets are more akin to someone taking several different newspapers, cutting out & photocopying some stuff from each, and then sticking it in a folder and giving it to you. If the person doing the photocopying is someone you trust, someone who knows what you want to read, then great. The service (widget) is useful. But if the person doing the clipping & copying is only copying the ads & advertorials, then all you get is a folder full of rubbish, the parts of the paper you never would have read anyway.
I’m not saying there is a decline in widgets; quite the opposite! What I am mourning is the sad ratio of crap to value that seems to be happening with widgets. Perhaps in future, once the novelty has worn off, we will be left with nothing but quality. But I think that’s an optimistic and idealistic view.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Hi Miko, I take you’re point that there’s a lot of rubbish. But I cannot remember a golden era of the widget. Even when the barriers of entry are high (buying a newspaper company) the product isn’t always good. I’m curious what you think of the internet as a whole or even blogs in general.
I can see you’re point about the attempts to make widgets create money. But the widespread rubbish could be a good thing. It indicates other things are happening with the technology and the ability to create is easier. History proves that this leads to greater innovation over time. Quality will ultimately be selected by the users. Put another way, a broad gene pool of widgets will lead to a natural selection of the best applications and implementations: ready for the next generation.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Yup, I agree 100% that having a high barrier to entry doesn’t equal quality. As for my opinion on blogs or the internet as a whole, I am not sure they necessarily draw parallels with widgets…
I think the value in (most) blogs is that they are pure content creation or opinion/commentary, as opposed to widgets which for the most part just tend to repackage existing content. Yes, there are millions of blogs that have no value to me, but perhaps they do have value to someone, and regardless I still respect the creative process and authors’ right to voice their views. I can’t see the creativity behind most widgets; to me, many are just a way of rebranding something not very ‘2.0′ to give it a shiny Web 2.0 badge.
I am all for reducing barriers, and allowing for greater experimentation & creativity. But I’m not sure I agree that quality will ultimately be selected by users and win out. If only that were the case, we would have all had Betamax instead of VHS in our homes, and I can think of plenty of web start-ups that would have survived rather than failed when their VC ran out. Too often it’s the product/company/idea that has the most financial backing or best marketing that wins out, not the best idea. But maybe I’m just a jaded old fool