Fragmentation to Re-formation
The idea of fragmentation within the media context can be generally applied across various situations and mediums. Discussed in the chapters of Chris Anderson’s book (The Long Tail, Chapters 10-12) is the chaos of choice overload on consumers and audiences and the resulting fragmented focuses and preferences. The abundance of products are increasingly accessible and available via media technologies. Anderson asserts that the dominance of the digital age on consumer habits, audiences and thus culture is affecting the way that people are categorized into cultures.
Dually noted is the portion of this week’s reading assignment, The end of TV as we know it: A future industry perspective (http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/ibvstudy/imc/a1023172), and the diagram that features the new divided consumer/audience. This model paints a very clear illustration as to how there are now parallel cultures that are consuming media in their own fashions. This reinforces the idea of fragmentation. Like Anderson says the audience (consumer etc.) is distributing as wide as the choice (2006, p. 176). The IBM article provides a business model affiliated with the changes in the tendencies of the fragmented consumer/audience. This includes the explanation and justification of at least six premises to build from: segmentation, innovation, experimentation, mobilization, openness and reorganization. All of the business premises can be linked to the sentiment and necessity to stay open and super available to the consumer. The more open, comprehensive, accessible and flexible that an entity can be in the digital era, the more inclined toward success the entity becomes. The chart or diagram within the article’s summary features three different types of audiences. They are the traditional (“Massive Passives”), the geekster-type whom drive the control end of media and are all hands on (“Gadgetiers”) and the “Kool Kids” who can be interpreted as the members of the audience who keep themselves very linked and exposed to the content being featured, but they don’t necessarily take the initiative to produce. Unlike the Gadgetiers they chose not to have as much control of the media in production or being consumed. This interpretation is done by translating the very technical and business geared wording of the article summary.
There is definitely the chance that I personally have misinterpreted what was meant to be conveyed in the diagram. More thoroughly understood (and demonstrated) are the overall underlying issues. Again this being the fragmentation that divides the consumers into categories as the culprit of what the IBM article defines as the generational chasm. This is the prevalence of behavior differences among the three groups “Massive Passives”, “Gadgetiers and Kool Kids collectively designated to be most notably present because of the age differences of the members of each group. The massive passives having matured as an audience in a time of limited means of mass media controls in contrast with the Gadgentiers or the Kool Kids who are a majority of a younger generation highly active within and exposed to the internet boom.
The arguments in opposition or support of increased consumer/audience determined outcomes weighs the issue of to much choice heavily (Anderson, 2006, p. 170-172). Anderson expresses that he is in support of the increasingly popular niche culture and the transgression away from common mass culture (2006, p.180-182). He offers the observation that people are not pulling away from cultures and commonality entirely they are just identifying more freely within their own selected contexts and specifics. Anderson denotes the habit of individuals to identify and be a part of more than one culture as living amongst parallel cultures (2006, p. 181-184). Repeated multiple times within his writing is his ruling that with infinite choice comes “ultimate fragmentation” (Anderson, 2006, p181). Although some argue (i.e. featured Christine Rosen) that there is an issue with an overly individual and “narrow” selection affiliated with personal choice, Anderson defends the benefits over burden approach to high volume and high accessibility supported by the digital era. He includes in his argument that as long as businesses latch on the positives and produce effort towards complimenting consumer behaviors there can absolutely be capitol success. He exemplifies Google as the picturesque example of the utility of displaying abundant choices in an organized fashion. As corporations and business models cater to the new demands of the consumer it is vital to latch on to the trends but continue to assist in selection of the goods. Make anything and everything available to the user/ consumer/ audience but if someone needs your help jump at the ability to help them search (Anderson, 2006, p. 174, 190-191).
