Monthly Archives: March 2010

Murdoch vs the asteroid

Sixty-five million years ago – or is it twenty – meganiches dominated the earth, lumbering across the landscape aiming themselves at men or women or teens. They were crude, ineffective monsters, clusterbombing their way to dominance. We’re now entering a new, hyperlocal era of a million overlapping niches defined by our myriad social circles. Precision bombing, laser-guided proto-rats target ever-tinier groups.

The late adopters to this new world are the large media conglomerates like News Corporation.

Only a dinosaur like Rupert Murdoch would think that he could charge a pound a day for a generalist, biased, self-publicising news service online – the same price, you’ll note, as the dead tree version of The Times. I’m convinced this will fail and fail spectacularly.

There’s a well-established buying hierarchy: functionality, reliability, convenience and price, in that order. Given two products, buyers prefer the one with more functional benefits to them; if there are no differences, they prefer the more reliable; then the more convenient; and finally the cheaper of the two. Functionality, reliability, convenience, price. The first three are subjective: a book shop infected with Starbucks is objectively “more functional” than one without, but if I don’t want coffee™ the difference doesn’t matter and they’re functionally equivalent to me.

In the software world, this hierarchy means people put up with shoddy user interfaces (inconvenience) and crashing (unreliability) if the software itself does more of the things they want it to do. And they’ll pay for it. People buy iPhones not because they’re functionally and reliably better than other, cheaper phones but because they’re subjectively good enough in those areas, and much easier to use.

Non-free products beat free products only if they are more functional; or equivalent but more reliable; or equivalent but more convenient. That’s why people still buy Flickr Pro accounts even though they could use Flickr for free. It’s why people still buy Microsoft Office even though OpenOffice is free.

So how would the super soaraway pound-a-day Times stack up?

Let’s say I’m looking for entertainment news online. A site like Digital Spy, flawed though it may be, has more functional benefits to me than The Times will: it targets a smaller niche. The Times might be more reliable and more convenient (all news in one place) but it fails on functionality. Digital Spy could in theory charge for access: but that would fail since other sites are equally functional, equally reliable and equally convenient – and cost nothing.

How about political news? There are hundreds of sites for that, ranging from generalist (eg BBC News) to specialist (eg TheyWorkForYou) to official sources (Parliament). The Times fails on functionality for all but the generalist case; and in that case, the BBC’s site, for example, is either more reliable (unbiased, no Murdoch influence) or more convenient (easier to find things, no adverts) or cheaper (the licence fee per day costs less than The Times’ cover price and gives you much more than just online news). The Times has political columnists that add value; but I can read blogs for free.

People will pay for specialist news, for timeliness, for exclusivity and a few others: these are all functional benefits. They’ll pay for general news on a mobile: that additional functionality (and also convenience) trumps free. They won’t pay for general news online.

It’s fascinating that the lumbering, meganiche conglomerates can’t or won’t see it. But this is entirely common and predictable. The telegraph companies didn’t see the telephone as a competitor. TVs would never be able to compete with cinema, nor would digital cameras ever displace film. Even today the vendors of CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs still graze diplodocally on ancient grassland even as the world moves shrewdly online.

And the Berners-Lee Asteroid has barely impacted the surface.

4 Comments

Filed under Random

Given enough eyeballs, all politicians are shallow

Alert readers may have perceived the thundering cloven hooves of an approaching General Election. Thousands of women are even now bearing down heavily to ensure sufficient raw materials for baby-smooching photo ops with slobbering, faux-chummy moat-owners and mortgage flippers. Between now and – most likely – May 6th (curse my predictive non-skills!) – pols of all flavours, none of them particularly lickable, will promise the earth while secretly planning to deliver a couple of inconsequential sods.

It’s a familiar, draining process. Manifestos full of smiling multiracial faces, hero-posing alongside commitments that mysteriously become aspirations for the n+1th term as soon as the ballot boxes go back into the ballot box box. Those smiling faces, like the swirling angels at the climax of Raiders of the Lost Ark, melt and burn into evil spirits sucking the souls of the electorate into a Westminster-based heaven allegory. Er, spoiler alert.

During the campaign we’ll see interview after interview where the usual reporters ask the usual questions and get the usual non-answers: “I’m glad you asked me that, Krishnan, let me answer something else”; “Look, the real question you should be asking is…”; “You should be focusing on the things the public care about, like…”; “Typical of the left/right wing BBC to…”. And my favourite double act: “The only poll that matters is the one on…” vs “Our internal polling is showing something entirely different”. Over, and over, and over…

This happens because complete honesty tends to be a career-limiting move for a politician. To climb the greasy pole – to even grasp your hands around its base – you need to become one with the grease. You don’t so much climb up the pole as oleaginate via osmosis and rise by capillary action. Dare to level with the electorate – by which I mean truly level, not say “Let me be clear here” because that’s code for “I am saying words to fill dead air while I formulate my non-response” – and you risk a roughing up by the whips, the party Dementors, and possibly defenestration.

Voters hate the evasion, distraction, rhetorical tricks, petty squabbling, dishonesty, finger-pointing, underhand tactics, etc, etc, used by politicians. They also hate it when broadcasters let politicians off the hook. Jeremy “Did you threaten to overrule him?” Paxman’s apparently accidental stuffing of Michael Howard in 1997 is a beautiful, shining, oh so rare exception. Discos and triscos typically degenerate into playground arguments over Top Trumps moderated by freshly graduated teachers eager to please both sides, when what’s really needed is a grumpy old soak not afraid to administer a good, old-fashioned clip round the ear.

I fear there is no great desire amongst broadcasters to fix this problem. It’s mostly all about the news cycle, the trivia, the access. I fully expect this time to see Sky News broadcasting live from David Cameron’s freshly waxed anus. There’ll be breathless reporters deployed like paratroopers at Arnhem to chase after any suit with a rosette, and eager to magnify the tiniest fluff or mullet-related punch-up to grotesque proportions, vomiting Westminster twittle-twattle to a British public thoroughly, self-throttlingly bored of the whole thing by day two.

I’m atypical; I love elections and TV election coverage. Indeed I have an honorary degree in Swingometry from McKenzie College of Psephology and Knitting, Vancouver, BC. And yet even I get utterly sick of the same old faces spouting the same old stories and getting away with it. I’ll be shouting at the screen – while stabbing my politician-shaped voodoo doll with a selection of the very finest cutlery – as reporters move swiftly down lines of suited twerps bleating their non-responses, then wrapping them up because they’ve only got twenty-five seconds before the next update from Jeremy Thompson wedged firmly up Cameron’s bumcrack.

But this election is, I think, going to be different and a little disruptive. This election will be the first bottom-up election.

Linus’ law: Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. This works just as well in politics: given enough eyeballs, all politicians are shallow. We’ve now reached critical mass. Someone outside the mainstream media, at some point during the campaign, will discover something important. It might be one of the ‘celebrity’ political bloggers, like Iain Dale or Guido Fawkes, already breaking stories; it might be an unknown. It could be a street urchin or ragamuffin of some kind who YouTubes a candidate twatting about. There are signs of bottom-up already: look at www.mydavidcameron.com.

Twitter will spread the key stories – true or not – twice round the world before rolling news has cut back from the weather. It’s going to be a shock to the political system, and everyone will be fair game. It might even change a few results.

None of this can prevent manifestos full of self-destructing promises, interviews as enlightening as the test card, and 24-hour CamAnusCam. And the Westminster of tomorrow won’t look that different to the Westminster of today, whoever ends up kissing hooves with Queenie. But it’s a start.

Leave a comment

Filed under Random

A Single Lady

Two contrasting films. One made in 21 days, set in the 1960s; one costing upwards of $200m, set down a rabbit hole. One with a red queen, one with a dead queen. Oh shush you, I’m allowed to say that, it’s here on the membership card in black and glitter.

A Single Man shows one day in the 1962 life of George, a British professor of English at Random College, CA. A closet puddle-jumper, George lost his verygoodfriend Jim in a car crash a few months before. We see him coping, or not, intercut with occasional flashbacks to scenes with Jim.

I predicted in January that Colin Firth would win an Oscar for his portrayal of George. I’m doubtful now since the Academy went gay in this category last year via the medium of Sean Penn. Firth’s still in with a shot; we’ll find out in the next few hours. If he wins, I anticipate headlines punning ‘Firth’ with ‘first’. ‘Firth Among Equals’ perhaps.

Nicholas Hoult, child in About A Boy, yob in Skins, greek in the upcoming Clash of the Titans remake, plays Young Totty Kenny, a student with ambiguous desires. Hoult spouts what seems to my ears a pretty decent accent. Then again I guess Americans loved Dick van Dyke’s, so what do I know?

A few critics have huffed about excessive artiness in what is haberdashergay Tom Ford’s directorial, screenwriting and producing debut. Well, yes, it’s true there’s no Bruce Willis in a grimy vest leaping between exploding buildings, no caped spandex-encased do-gooder righting wrongs with a flick of his jaw. This is a good thing. The camera lingers a little, there are periods of calm. There is what I might haughtily call a conceit: at certain times Ford nudges the colour saturation up to 11. I generously forgive him this; overall it’s an impressive achievement. Production designers nicked from TV’s Mad Men portray that early sixties wood’n’nukes feel convincingly enough.

Artiness aside there is a story to tell, a touching one of loss and heartbreak. Sexuality is pleasingly subdued to a smidge above irrelevance. Not that it’s absent: it’s central, but in the way that heterosexuality is central to a million romcom yawnfests. Heteros won’t be tainted with gay by watching it.

I finished reading the original Christopher Isherwood novel the night before seeing the film. There are one or two noticeable differences plotwise; tweedy litnerds might be all pipes a-quiver at this. The changes improve the story as a film: shockingly, books aren’t films. I enjoyed and recommend both.

Avaragado’s rating: one Twinkie bar.

Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is, uh, a slightly different kettle of pigs. It contains in some venues at least one extra dimension and an audience of Ronnie Corbett lookalikes. Stars include the Burton Regulars and – marginally boggling – Barbara Windsor as the dormouse. Shame Sid James is dead, he could have played the Mad Hatter. Hattie Jacques as the Red Queen. Kenneth Williams as the Knave. Bernard Bresslaw as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Charles Hawtrey as the White Rabbit. Anyway.

As well as the usual cast, all the expected characters are present with full, faithful, bonkers Burton polish. Depp is as Depp does. The stand-out for me is the Cheshire Cat, Stephen Fry purring his way lugubriously through the film. As the Red Queen Helena Bonham Carter isn’t entirely unadjacent to Blackadder II‘s Queenie; a shame that milord Fry doesn’t get to purr a Melchettesque “Majesty”.

The visuals are stunning. From the Red Queen’s bulbous head to interaction between the real and the CGI, there’s barely a join visible. A couple of shots involving the Knave have a mildly fishy aroma, and Matt Lucas’s dual Tweedles sometimes veer away from skin towards plastic; otherwise it’s all entirely believable. CGI people are notoriously tricky thanks to the unique way our brains are funded: CGI mice can prance about with waistcoats and we lap it up; but one dodgy movement from a CGI human and we’re swooping into uncanny valley with klaxons blaring. The flying spaghetti monster gave us this talent so we could spot aliens. IT IS MY FAITH AMEN.

As a story it’s fine. Unlike A Single Man this is no faithful adaptation of the original, more a weird combination of sequel and re-imagining. A few climactic elements don’t feel entirely right; a little jarring, too mainstream perhaps given the surreality of most of the film. Not ruinous, and I’m sure perfectly acceptable for the main target audience.

Worth seeing just to be dazzled by the production.

Avaragado’s rating: cake.

Leave a comment

Filed under Random