What’s Next?


, , , , , , , , , ,

A thought that’s been on my mind lately is, “What’s next in the world of mainstream media and entertainment?”

In 2016, we have Spotify, Apple, Pandora, Amazon, Netflix, Tidal, Hulu, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter. Everyone has at least used one of these platforms once, whether it was to purchase, subscribe, sign up or to use with a trial. All of these have been great!

But slowly but surely, all of these Apps begin to morph together and become too similar, such as Instagram’s introduction of stories, and more recently, live videos.  Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon music, and Tidal music all mostly contain the same songs, but for different prices. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon (again) are also becoming more similar by being more original, creating their own shows and content rather than just mediocre movies.

It was only then that I noticed a trend: Amazon is on the rise. Well, not on the rise, a it’s been at the top for a while, I’m just now realizing how forward they are with what they produce. Honestly, I’m waiting for Amazon to release some type of social media app within the next few years. Trust me, they even made their own grocery sore.


Is this the next big thing? Moving one’s digital realty  into physical reality? Will other companies try to create physical stores for their products? Granted, you could call physical social media apps, real life, but if possible, would stores or clubs form where you can just hangout with your online friends in real life?

What else does the future of technology hold for us? What’s going to be the next big app that millions will want to download and share? Guess we will all have to wait and see.


Netflix Viewers V. Cable Viewers


, , , , , , , ,

In Chapter 3, the authors were discussing what it took to be a considered an engaged viewer. The comparison of appointment based and engagement based viewing was discussed.

“Under the appointment model, committed viewers arrange their lives to be at home at a certain time to watch their favorite programs. (p. 116)”

“Engagement based models places a premium on audiences willing to pursue content across multiple channels as viewers access television shows on their own schedules, thanks to videocassette recorders, DVRs, digital downloads,mobile video devices, and DVD boxed sets. (p. 116)”

These two breakdowns of the models really started to make me wonder: What type of viewer am I?

I like to watch TV. But to me there’s a difference of having the TV on, and actually watching a full episode of a show. As of late, I just use the TV as a source for background noise, but in high school, I admit to just mindlessly watching TV to pass the time.

I considered myself an appointment model viewer, but due to not having an “On-Demand” service on campus, I had to watch the show then and there; for example, I watch The Walking Dead, every Sunday at 9 PM. I never had to watch it later online because I would plan my Sundays around that specific timeline.

But when I did have an On-Demand service, I would catch up on all the other side shows I missed throughout the week on the weekends. As of college, I mostly watch Netflix when it comes to TV shows and their past seasons. That lead to the creation of binge-watching; when there’s new season of a show about to air, Netflix usually releases the previous season, allowing fans of the show to frantically catch up on many hours of a show within a matter of a week (or less).

But… will Netflix grow and destroy television all together? What do you think? Also: Check out this video on the battle!

The “New” New


, , , , , , ,

After reading Chapter 2 of Spreadable Media, a certain quote stuck out to me; “A media franchise operates very much like a retro band, with new value generated by inserting Scooby into new contexts or putting him in front of new audiences.”

I realize that happens a lot with a variety of popular characters like; Scooby, Snoopy, Spongebob, and Mickey Mouse. Of the following titles, which of them do you think is made up? Scooby-Doo! Wrestlemania Mystery, Scooby-Doo! and KISS: Rock and Roll Mystery, Scooby-Doo! Batman vs Dogman , or Scooby-Doo! Mask of the Blue Falcon. If you had a tough time figuring it out, it’s okay. (The Batman vs Dogman was made up!)

By putting Scooby-Doo with rock bands and professional wrestling, that’s creating new value for sure. Since when would Sc0oby-Doo and the gang ever have to match up with John Cena to solve a mystery? My guess is to appeal to younger and older fans… and make money as well.

To me it makes sense, who wouldn’t want to see Mystery Inc. team up with other popular characters to solve a mystery? That’s fine, when it’s a cartoon. But when it’s live action, do these actions make the original character lose their… character?

For example, we all know Scooby is going to have to solve a mystery with the gang and eat Scooby-snacks, but when a popular live action character does it, is that character true to their character?

Image result for madeas halloween

Image result for madea's christmas

Image result for madea witness protection



Tyler Perry’s character Madea is like Scooby, in the sense that she is everywhere in every genre. She stays true to her original character from the plays, but the situationsshe are in are far from what she and her movies originally stood for.

My question is, how much is too much before a character (or franchise) becomes too jaded for it to bring in or retain its value?

Riding the Tidal Wave?


, , , , , , , , , ,

Is it a betrayal of trust for your favorite artist to only have their newest album available on only one platform? Tidal, Spotify, and Apple Music has been butting heads in the past about this issue.

For example, Jay-Z had Spotify, Apple Music, iTunes, and Amazon remove all of his “Blueprint” albums and only allowed a few to remain. Making the “Blueprint” albums Tidal exclusive only. I mean, it’s his music, and his music company, he should have every right to, right? Maybe.

As of late, artists who has deals with music platforms can only release albums under that platform. For another example, Beyonce released “Lemonade” as a Tidal-only exclusive. That kinda sucks. It never came to Spotify or Apple Music! I know, ludicrous. (Not the rapper.)

Drake released “Views” on Apple music where it remained exclusive for only a week and then it was released on Spotify and Amazon and other platforms. I think that’s personally a better deal, having “early” access to his album because he’s signed to Apple. As a matter of fact, one of his tracks, “Pop Style” left people scratching their heads, not because of the lyrics, but because who didn’t make it on the final album version; Jay-Z and Kanye, who featured on the Single released on the radio.

Kanye had this to say during a rant from the other night: 

“There will never be a Watch The Throne 2 … I wasn’t on the album version of ‘Pop Style’, ’cause of Hov. It was some Tidal/Apple bullshit. This shit gets me tight every time I perform this motherfucker.”

Image result for jay z kanye tidal

So basically, the rivalry and beef between Tidal and Apple prevented Drake and Kanye from dropping the song they wanted to for their fans. And that frustrates Kanye as much as it frustrates us, he can’t do what he wants to do with his music because of business contracts… Kanye and other artists under these labels can’t release their content freely.

Will the music industry continue to focus on business rather than the actual music?

Stickiness V. Spreadability


, , , , , , , ,

“If it doesn’t spread, it’s dead.” That’s basically how content on the internet is these days. It is true, that most creators intend to have some type of audience, or market, to provide to, and it’s all about spreadability that will lead to success.

Spreadability is the potential for audiences, both technical and cultural, to share content for their own purposes. Stickiness, however, is the need to create content to attract an audience, and that’s what most companies aim for. But, which one is best for business?

In my opinion, I think content that is spreadable will get more success and acknowledgement in the end. Stickiness, has the means to have a clear producer, marketer, and audience. Spreadability is a blur of all these roles, making it more versatile and more likely to be spread around. No pun intended. But either way you define it, the producers or makers of the content want people talking, texting, instagramming, and tweeting about their product. It’s all about how their content is circulated, whether its cultural, personal, political, or economical.

But, let’s talk about Buzzfeed and their need for stickiness. Buzzfeed and other websites that are similar helped create a new term, a “listicle“. A listicle is basically an article with the format of pictures or bulletin points. A typical tagline is, “Top 15 Places to…” or “10 Things You Didn’t Know About…”  The point is to generate more page clicks and more views to bring in more money. And as the book is quoted saying; “If it does’t spread, it’s dead,” and that’s just bad for business. Buzzfeed is infamous for this, yet the listicles lead to getting spreadability because they are always shared on Facebook, Twitter, or links on Instagram. Is Buzzfeed one of those new hybrid mixtures of both Stickiness and Spreadability?



(The future?)

Amazon and Pandora V. Spotify and Apple Music


, , , , , ,

In a new generation of music streaming online,  Ben Sisaro has published an article in The New York Times questioning just how much people would pay to listen to music. 

It was announced that both Amazon and Pandora Media would charge only $5 for their streaming services, challenging both Spotify and Apple Music who respectively charge $10 a month.

Pandora, on one hand, is more of a limited radio stream of songs based off of your personal preferences, while Spotify and Apple music allows you to freely choose what songs you want to hear almost unlimitedly. The question is, would people pay less, for possibly less musical exploration options with Pandora? Or continue to have a greater range of music availability with Spotify or Apple and pay about $120 a year? It may be possible, that if Amazon and Pandora can prove to be equal to, if not better than the competition, consumers may cancel their current subscriptions and opt to save half of what they would normally spend. A lower monthly subscription price would indefinitely bring in more customers for Amazon and Pandora Media as well. The main question is just how much are consumers willing to pay to listen and stream their music online as more companies began to expand, and if successful, would Spotify and Apple lower their prices to bring in a greater revenue?