What is value in new media, again we look at conceptual views of imaginary new media companies. Here we are looking at agglomerations of points of output, or individual outputs floating somehow on this sea.
Perhaps we could see a number of strands here. Let us hypothesize the process of the move of established media into new media and the process of the move of new media into established media (a).
There is the embodiment of that which the free speech represents (assuming a media operates in that context, by definition), in a highly speeded up more finely grained way (because of the sheer volume of producers of that content, if only that and the introduction of a certain interesting uncertainty in the output). That is, we posit this as inherently valuable (but we ask is there value dissipation in speeding this up).
This also touches on (a) as media comes from the same framework of freedom, in general. In a certain sense this is not about speeding up, as the grain comes to match this: that is, the grain is people using the new media adapting to the same things, but is something more created by this. So we see a different grain from media per se.
Can we say that the production of media, of a much less fine grain is valuable. Well, for sure, as that output is highly valued and fine grained is not, except as it expresses itself in the way it can generate very clear value for new media companies. But of course that is also the case for established media. Yet still, such individual traditional output is given a value in many ways.
Can new media do this, well in some ways it already has, in particular, video and blogs. But can value attach itself to finely grained micro outputs (text, images for example).
Well, that itself is a revolutionary thing, because there is a usual correlation between length or concreteness in a certain sense and value in text or image based output. This is also an issue of coherency from a single expressive format, instead of a divided one.
However that is what it is, in many cases, as the format is used as it is. So we might ask, what would be the consequences of such finely grained distributed coherency itself being valued, as is ? Does that relate to the potential future valuation of new media itself. To me that is the extra, the (c), because our new media company is based inherently on fine granularity, in some sense, even if merging with media.
Can we imagine a new media output process that is not finely grained, yes we have touched on that, in terms of individual sites. But can these sites increase value via finely grained value as well. Well that is a most interesting question.
Inherently perhaps they do, as value seems to comes from multi points of output, rather than a series of books for example (although that can be added to the mix). But how finely grained can they go (there is a limit to how finely grained a site can be, perhaps).
Perhaps it's an issue of a careful meeting of fine grain and larger grain.
What I am getting at though, is a sense of value which is both fluid and static, and in that potentially adaptive. Markets which go up, in a way such that everybody expects them to go up (so for a while it does not matter what happens next), are one thing, but more complex markets which may go up, indeed, but also have an expectation of not going up at the same time, may benefit from a certain value adaptability.
That is, that which makes for a more complex, freer motion of value, may mesh with adaptive value (it may not at all and the way forward may be with large grained expressions of any output).
Now whether this helps create that certain rise, or rather a more stable complexity is another question. The stability here coming from a belief in what happens next, rather than not thinking about what happens next: historically this had had a less than positive outcome, in the end, one might say.
Bear in mind, the markets have already risen, for whatever reason, to new historical highs, from deep, deep lows in the crisis. It has happened, and it happened in uncertain times. Lately, we seem to be ranging about a significant marker that was always there, namely 15,000, with 15,500 a point of interest (as is the region above 14,500).
And in that perspective, we do not know what happens next, we do not have that certainty, or that don't care attitude, and perhaps that is better. But of course, that attitude we can imagine could return as well, and then nothing matters. But historically, it does, but it is just such a wild thing when it does happen (80s, end of 90s, before the crisis).
It is that question, what is it like without that wild ride. So far, it has amounted to the same thing, new companies, new ways of doing things, new highs, the question now is does it result in the same outcome. Or has something changed.
