FBI Director Says Cameras Increase Crime

Let’s review: One of the “sure bets” for the future is the continuing cultural disruption of what Jay Rosen tagged “The Great Horizontal” — everyday people being connected and able to communicate as media companies across-the-bottom of culture. Every top-to-bottom institution of the West will be disrupted, assuming net neutrality continues to be the law of the land. Of course, the predictable reaction to disruption is to defend, and we’re seeing this in ways big and small.

As I recently wrote, for example, the Israeli narrative machine is finding it harder to maintain hegemony in the face of citizen videos, like this one, that show a brutal and mistaken arrest.

FBI Director James Comey

FBI Director James Comey

Last week, during a forum at the University of Chicago Law School, FBI Director James Comey actually said that police anxiety over ever-present cellphone cameras and viral videos partly explains why violent crime has risen in several large U.S. cities. According to CBS News, Comey said it has negatively impacted relations between police and citizens.

Ya think?

“I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year, and that wind is surely changing behavior,” Comey said.

He added that some of the behavioral change in police officers has been for the good “as we continue to have important discussions about police conduct and de-escalation and the use of deadly force.”

Comey likened the strain between law enforcement and local communities to two lines diverging, saying repeatedly that authorities must continue to work at improving their relationships with citizens. But he added: “I actually feel the lines continuing to arc away from each other, incident by incident, video by video.”

We’ll all just have to adapt, because this is only going to get worse for institutions that depend on information control in order to function. We’re going to require tort reform of some sort to deal with the liability issues that will arise, but mostly, we’re just going to have to function as better citizens, all of us.

We’re also going to be seeing a lot of “what if” stories in the press from various players who have a lot of lose in flow of information at the bottom. The institution of medicine, for example, will fight hard to keep others from what they will call the “practice of medicine” along the bottom, which they will lobby hard to protect. Think of tools, for example, that have the best interests of the patients in mind — like the sharing of individual experiences — rather than those of the institution. Third-party insurance will be impacted, because cost is such a big part of medicine.

So get yourself ready for a bumpy ride and keep the network free. The cries of Chicken Little will surely be heard, because institutions don’t know how to function absent equilibrium.

We’re going to have to learn.

One size fits all (or not)

With the dawn of the network age, institutions that used to flourish in the analog communications era (every year since before the network) continue to respond as if nothing has changed. Nowhere is this truer than with broadcasting, where its audience has become atomized in and by the network. But it’s more than that. People now have weapons to actually assist their escape from actual audience seats, which makes ignoring reality even more dangerous. And rather than invest in the very real opportunities of the network — especially at the local level — broadcasting continually works to redefine the disruption as just another obstacle to overcome in routinely trudging the road to its money tree.

Adweek was given a preview this week of Nielsen’s new multiplatform measuring tool, total audience measurement. This is Nielsen’s attempt to take that atomization and shove it back in the bottle from which it came. Here are key takeaways from the Adweek article:

…total audience measurement is real and, given the industry’s growing cries this fall (in the face of more live TV viewership declines) for a tool that will finally allow them to fully measure and monetize viewers, it’s spectacular…

The result is total audience measurement, Nielsen’s single-sourced platform to account for all viewing across linear TV, DVR, VOD, connected TV devices (Roku, Apple TV and Xbox), mobile, PC and tablets…

(Nielsen evp Megan Clarken) “What we’re acutely aware of is our measurement underpins $70 billion worth of advertising,” she added.

Make no mistake, this is entirely about advertising and the potential collapse of the top-down, stage-to-audience hegemony that runs everything. Why else use the word “audience?” With that word, Nielsen is saying, “Hey, everybody, nothing has changed. You needed us to figure out how to crunch these numbers to tell the story of how relevant you’ve stayed through this whole disruption mess. Thank God, right?” With $70 billion at stake, the back pats are deserved.

Or not.

“Audience” is defined as “the assembled spectators or listeners at a public event, such as a play, movie, concert, or meeting.” Mass media requires a mass (an audience) in order to get paid by advertisers who want to reach those audience members in order to advance commerce. Audiences are captive. They sit in seats and pay attention.

Or not.

Everyday people — those who Jay Rosen brilliantly tagged 10 years ago as “The people formerly known as the audience” — are using technology in their war against manipulation by forces that could do whatever they wished in the mass marketing era. Television advertising still works and probably always will, but it’s nowhere near what it used to be. According to the Adweek article, “live” television viewing makes up only 45% of a program’s total “audience.” Those technologies that Nielsen is putting together include those that run without commercials or can be skipped. Moreover, even if people don’t change the channel during commercial breaks, they are on to secondary screens, and their attention is diverted. Not all views are equal in the eyes of increasingly educated advertisers.

$70 billion is a lot to lose, and to a certain extent, defensive strategies like this are to be expected. What’s hard to fathom, however, is that in a competitive environment like the network, it’s fiscal suicide to only play defense. Meanwhile, money continues to flow to those in Silicon Valley (and beyond) that are doing the innovating in playing by the network’s rules.

They should. After all, they invented it.

Acts of citizen media

For as long as I’ve been blogging, I’ve been saying that the ability of everyday people to communicate across the bottom of culture is a disruptor that will completely alter the modernist world. This is because those influences that have always spoken from the top-down are no longer the only ones capable of speaking to everyone. The price of participation in the process is no longer reserved only for the elites. Dan Gillmor was the first to really explore this with his brilliant and prescient book “We, the Media.” In his book, Darknet, J.D. Lasica coined the phrase “personal media revolution” to define the phenomenon of everybody functioning as a media company.

I’ve long used the Middle East as an illustration of this, and while the subject truly angers those who unconditionally support Israel, citizen media in the region is making it harder and harder for Israel to maintain the narrative that it is always the victim. In the news today is a report from a human rights organization that describes the matter perfectly. From its press release:

While the Israeli government has to date escaped serious accountability for repeated human rights violations, “citizen journalism”—in which excessive acts of force are caught on camera—now is making it more difficult for the acts to be obscured or brushed aside, says the report.

“Thanks to the courageous acts of activists, family members and bystanders, Euro-Med has collected video footage and eyewitness testimonies documenting numerous, egregious abuses by Israeli soldiers during the last few weeks, which we believe is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Daniela Dönges. “In our report, we name eight of them, because they are not just numbers. They are human beings with stories that must be told.”

Here’s the video itself. It’s not easy to watch.

The Middle East is a laboratory in which this cultural disruptor can be studied, and yet, very few do. That’s because it shakes us to the core and raises the difficult question of the permanence or reliability of anything.

That may be discomforting, but this is only the beginning.

The Handwriting on the Wall is Now Shouting

A few headlines and items in the news point to the continuing decline of legacy media, now especially television, and yet nobody is reading the tea leaves properly in terms of what to do. This will only hasten the inevitable end.

First up, Ad Age asks Where Did Everybody Go? TV Première Week Ratings Sag As Young Viewers Vamoose. This doesn’t really require comment except to say I told you so. Yeah, I’m going to be pissy here.

Next, the New York Times reports Fall TV Season Opens Onto a Shifting Ad Landscape.

The current television landscape is a challenging one for advertisers. Ratings are down but the amount of programming is sharply up, along with the number of streaming options available, many of which allow viewers to skip commercials altogether.

Now, as advertisers consider the best ways to spend their money, the excitement that once greeted the beginning of the fall television season has given way to anxiety. Industry analysts and advertising executives said the upfront market — the annual ad sales period that begins in May with lavish presentations by the networks — was unambiguously weak this year.

Then a remarkable (for its lack of focus and leadership) Wall St. Journal interview with the head of the IAB, Randall Rothenberg, on ad blocking, viewability, and click fraud, none of which he deems a really serious problem for digital advertising.

And, finally, the first of a two-part series by industry watchdog promotional group, TVNewsCheck on digital, Digital Turning ‘Broadcast’ Sales Upside Down.

The digital advertising revolution sweeping through the media world has reached local TV, upending the lives of broadcast salespeople, requiring them to do more and learn more, while sometimes earning less.

In markets of every size, stations and station groups are creating and offering a host of new digital products to prospective and long-time clients to keep pace with the invasion of digital and other media on their turf.

The broadcasters are re-emphasizing training, creating new digital-only positions, hiring digital specialists and even establishing whole new units to sell digital products and consulting services that often have little or nothing to do with selling traditional TV time.

Sorry, one more: TVNewsCheck also reports: FCC’s Lake: Time For Exclusivity Rules To Go.

The comments on some of these articles suggest that at least some people within the industry understand what’s going on. The problem is the industry itself can’t and won’t talk about the elephant in the room — culture is advancing horizontally every day in what is now clearly a revolution against the established way of doing things. Unless we accept this, we will continue to flop around like fish on the dock gasping for oxygen when none is there. Death will come sooner than most think, and I will not be happy when it occurs, because it all could have been prevented.

Marketing in the traditional sense is done. Put a fork in it. It truly is the fish out of water, for the rules of marketing all apply to a mass, and that is quickly going the way of downtown shopping. And here’s the important thing: the people formerly known as the audience are REJOICING! This is what media and advertising people simply won’t accept, because it means the end of their money trees. Instead, they’re pleading with Washington for relief. Mr. Rothenberg’s comments to the Wall St. Journal are oozing with denial, including his assurance that the “sky hasn’t fallen.”

There is a real issue. I’m not worried because the marketing and media value chain has shown remarkable resilience. There is a natural human need to have businesses proposition you with goods and services and vice versa. You need to have that communication. I’m really not worried about whether advertising will be able to find its way through digital channels. I am concerned — very, very concerned — that costs of ads will go up and up and up from this unethical obstruction.

“There is a natural human need to have businesses proposition you with goods and services?” This is delusional, and that’s being kind. As Dave Winer wrote last week, “Advertising is unwanted.” It’s especially unwanted when it’s friggin’ everywhere as if it has some special right to be! One-third of prime time is commercials! One. Third. Why do these people think that viewers are ignoring or skipping them? Why do these people think the same users are blocking them online? Mr. Rothenberg (and others) would be well advised to read what Dave his written here and what The Cluetrain Manifesto published 15 years ago.

Times are changing, folks, but that’s a dead horse I’ve been beating for far too long.

Headlines like the above are like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. The industry rejected me and my message, and you’d think I’d find a little joy in watching my prophecies come true. I don’t.

I’m very angry, and I’m very sad.

Online video discontent — a rant

Eleven years after Microsoft established the standard for pre-roll video advertising at 7–12 seconds, the online video “industry” is still stuck on the idea that broadcast standards should prevail. This is a sickness, my friends, and it’s killing opportunities for legacy media companies who cannot or will not accept that the Web is a different animal entirely. I am so angry about this that I could spit, so I apologize ahead of time for the rant.

My dander is up over a piece on Digiday (great website, BTW) offering quotes from its publishing conference in Miami this week. The issue is pre-roll advertising, and the article is The biggest hurdles publishers face in monetizing digital video:

What’s your biggest challenge in monetizing video? In short, too many agencies are still trying to recycle their 30-second TV ads for the desktop and mobile. There are viewability requirements to be satisfied. What works for the advertiser often results in a bad user experience.

Why, oh why is this still an issue for us?

Let’s review. Legacy media did NOT invent the Web. Microsoft, a tech company, was ahead of the game back in 2004 when MSN created its “Video 2″ ad product and ventured forward in the field of online video. They may not have invented the pre-roll, but they studied it, pioneered it, and found in 2004 that 7–12 seconds was optimal length. Here’s the money quote from an article published in MediaDailyNews back then:

Hadley (Eric Hadley, director of marketing and advertising for MSN) said that ads on MSN Video 2 will appear “somewhat like TV ads,” except that only one 7–12-second video ad will appear for each piece of content. Hadley added that while consumers don’t necessarily need a broadband connection to view MSN video, the video capabilities are limited for narrowband users.

The day after I published my story on this, MediaDailyNews — at Microsoft’s request — altered the text of the article and changed that 7–12 seconds to 15–30 seconds. Why? Because that’s what Madison Avenue would go along with, and they controlled the money that would be spent via MSN Video 2. They wanted nothing to do with 7–12 seconds. I know this, because I investigated and spoke with Mr. Hadley and others, including those at MediaPost.

The point is that Madison Avenue is still calling the shots, while online legacy video companies are sinking fast, because people — as Microsoft knew 11 years ago — won’t sit still for anything beyond 7–12 seconds. Rather than accept reality, we chose to stick our fingers in the eyes of consumers, and now we’re upset because they’ve respond with ad blockers.

Here’s the thing. Corporations don’t have to change. They can do what they damned well please, including acting like fools in the face of compelling evidence of such behavior’s danger. If they do, however, they give up the right to whine — especially to the government — about matters that originate from this unwillingness to change, and that includes anything associated with the money tree they’re trying to protect.

I’ve begged people to open their eyes about this since even before 2004, but the industry would rather die than change, and that’s the truth!

End of rant.

The Nasty Lessons of Ashley Madison

AMThe real story in the Ashley Madison scandal is the crime of the hacking, yet I’ve seen little in the way of follow-up on that and no reports about efforts to remove the database. What and who’s working on finding and punishing the people who did this? While there have been some stories about this, media outlets seem far more interested in exploiting the crime for their own profit. I’m seeing headlines like “Head of Louisiana GOP had Ashley Madison Account” or “Christian YouTube Vlogger Had Paid Ashley Madison Account.” This is journalism? I saw a report this morning on how the stolen database is now searchable. Really, people? Who does that serve if not those who wish to exploit the sordid underbelly of murder by character assassination?

My friends and family know I’ve struggled with issues of addiction my whole life. It’s a very long story — and one that has a happy ending — but before recovery, I lived two lives. Most addicts “live” their mask in order to hide the very deep shame they feel. I, too, had an Ashley Madison account, one that I obtained before addictive behavior in this very private side of life was discovered. I was curious, and what I discovered inside was fascinating but a far cry from what’s advertised. I’m also a cultural observer specializing in the Internet. It’s my life’s work. Nevertheless, I cannot be honest with myself if I were to say that my only motive with Ashley Madison was curiosity or work. We have a saying in AA that “the longer you hang out in a barbershop, the greater the likelihood you’ll get a haircut some day.” That awareness acts as a hedge against what the saying teaches, and besides, my relationship with God is such that I fear very little these days. The point is I never gave AM a dime, and that’s required if you want to make a connection. That doesn’t make me innocent, but it does give me a perspective you may not have.

So here are what I view as the real issues of this scandal.

1. We’re a society of hypocrites (what a shock!), and I’m not talking about those who may have used the site to have an affair. The joyful, self-righteous, and condescending energy behind the “stories” in the wake of the scandal bears the cloying marks of a vindictive form of murder by character destruction. While I have no pity for Josh Duggar, his case reeks of rationalization for the heinous nature of the real crime — the release into the wild of the private database. I honestly wonder how some people can look themselves in the mirror without seeing the enormous mote in their eye, for the exploitation of this leak for the sake of personal or political gain is as much a part of the crime as the leak itself. What have we become? We all need to be careful when stoning our neighbors like this, for the very glass houses we occupy could explode into millions of dangerous shards.

2. This is an early example of the legal system encountering the chaos of the network and attempting to wrestle it to 20th Century ground in service to the hierarchy. For one thing, lawsuits over breach of privacy will bankrupt Ashley Madison’s parent company, so the only people who’ll make any money from this are the lawyers. It’s simply too big a mess, and this is sanctioned and sanctified extortion. Secondly, do we really wish to live in a world where hackers can force this kind of ambulance chasing? If we’re ever going to reach a point where identity is a network requirement, this kind of breach simply cannot be tolerated, for the rules of real life that govern behavior run smack dab into the world of thoughts online. This is why membership in the site does not necessarily indicate intent to act, and why public assumptions to the contrary are such an egregious invasion of privacy and the purest form of “The Scarlet Letter.” My hope is always that we’ll rewrite some laws that will prevent lawsuits in the wake of such actions. There’s little hope for that right now, because our legislatures are filled with the same lawyers who profit from the laws they create. As I’ve written many times, it’s the biggest conflict of interest ever known to humankind. There’s no protection against time and chance.

3. This case reveals the true extent to which modernist hyperbole has replaced fact as a determining element of human understanding. Ashley Madison advertises itself as a place where men and women (can) find each other to have an affair, without strings attached. Hell, there’s even a guarantee and the boast of over a million “satisfied” members! The brand’s photo of a comely woman holding her finger to her lips is provocative and full of meaning. Really, people? Have we forgotten caveat emptor? It’s a business, and businesses are all about money, no matter what’s on the sign out front. These people will do anything and say anything to get a renewable fee from users. And like everything else in the world of adult entertainment (a.k.a. porn), therefore, the promise vastly exceeds the delivery, and it’s hopelessly naïve to think otherwise. Even if their hype is to be believed, for every “satisfied” customer, there are 36 dissatisfied members. What is Ashley Madison to them, if not, at best, a fantasy?

4. There are a staggering number of unhappy people in our world. Rather than slinging stones, we ought to be taking a deep look into the cave that’s home to all of these souls. My Evangelical friends would submit that all they need is Jesus, but you’d be amazed to discover the degree to which many of these people have been utterly rejected by the church. And now, the elbows and winks that accompany our self-righteous judgment of others in the wake of this scandal makes us the ones to be pitied. What is it about modern Christianity that produces such arrogance? The degree of discontent demonstrated in a website alleged to be for cheaters that has 37 million members ought to give us pause that maybe we’re not as perfect as we think we are. What does it say about our institutions? I think it discloses (again) that what we’ve built as a culture isn’t working. Let’s face it; Ashley Madison wouldn’t exist without demand. Shut it down, and that demand will retreat once again to the shadows, but it won’t go away.

Look, if this whole thing inspires discussion about infidelity, that’s a good thing. But during the discussion, let’s also look at the root causes (like the soul sickness of selfishness) and not dismiss it with the oversimplified notion of blaming a symptom instead of the disease.

The Ashley Madison story is one of the biggest of the 21st Century and a harbinger of conflicts yet to come. It has the potential to destroy not only real people but freedom itself, including one that’s most precious to all of us, the freedom of thought.

We all ought to be concerned.