It’s been quite some time since I posted, so I thought I’d dredge up an old article and hopefully that will embarrass me into writing some new stuff. Enjoy.

Oh – and have a look at this link:

Antonio Negri – in prison for writing books… in Italy of all places!

The New Electricity

Andrew Dubber

20 March, 2002

In recent weeks, I’ve been approached by a small number of people who say they agree with (or even like) my past columns about “internet radio” – and as much as I appreciate the fact that they’ve read the words, it rapidly becomes apparent that I’ve used certain terms inaccurately and have failed to adequately explain myself. So consider this an apology, and an attempt to rectify the situation.

First of all, let me state for the record that there’s no such thing as internet radio. You put radio online and it ceases to be radio. You put a play on in front of a movie camera, and you’ve got a film, not “celluloid theatre”. Play that film on the telly one night and cut it up with ads, and you’ve got a long TV programme – not “in-home small-screen cinema”.

In short, put any medium into any other medium, and it becomes the content of that medium – not a compound of the two.

Second, it should be pointed out that the internet is most effective when you don’t notice that it’s there.

In broad and simple terms, the internet is a method of connecting computers together and sharing digital information. It’s a bit like electricity. It’s incredibly clever and useful, but I don’t need to think about it, know how it works or even notice that it’s there, as long as my toaster and CD player are operational. And that’s what’s lacking – useful appliances that rely on the internet in order to function, but make it transparent in the process. As a result, web browser content has been confused with the internet for quite some time now.

The upshot of this is that the element of design has been taken out of new media altogether. Ask a bunch of web users what they require from the internet, and you’ll get a list of features – 3d animation, streaming audio, chat windows, and so on… rather than a plan for a new and simple design. Yes, it’s great to have a Swiss army knife, but what I’d really like is a pair of scissors.

It’s probably not overstating the case that radio stations approach the internet from the wrong perspective. Sure, it’s only fair and reasonable that you want a website – text with some pictures: a digital brochure… but wait! We can add sound to that, because we’re a radio station. And let’s do some interactive stuff. Let’s have an entry form on there as well. What about a discussion forum? A voting system for favourite songs? A webcam in the studio? Features, features, features.

Let’s start instead from first principles. Four questions: What do people want from us? What can we provide them? How best to do that? What’s in it for us?

What do people want from us? Well, sound, presumably. Now, that raises thorny intellectual property issues. Copyright’s a hot potato in online media right now – particularly with the DMCA rulings and record company legal threats going on in the US. Where’s the fun in that?

Want to know the simplest way to broadcast audio in any medium without having to concern yourself with intellectual property issues? Generate your own content.

Of course, people still want music from their radio station. They already get it on air, and the jury’s still out on how it’ll all work online. However, audiences also want local weather, national and regional news, concert information, interviews, features, comedy, companionship, opinion, comment, and anything else you can give them – and they don’t need and won’t use 24 hours of it. You have a team of talented and creative individuals on salary, as well as news resources (if you’re part of a larger group that can supply these things). You can do content with no problems.

That’s also your answer to question number two – with the proviso that internet users expect interactivity: non-linear, non-time dependent, and user-definable (none of which are qualities of radio. See my earlier point about no such thing…).

The third question was ‘How best to do that’? Let’s start by saying the world wide web is not the most suitable medium for this content, because it’s primarily about text. Your strength is not text, it’s audio. I know the WWW can do audio, but like the pictures and the feedback forms, it’s down on the list of added features – not primary design characteristics.

You can, however, use the internet. The internet enables, but is not the same thing as, the world wide web. Think of the internet as the new electricity instead, and you can then specify the right appliance to plug into it, be it software or hardware.

The answer to question four? I have some ideas I’m happy to discuss, and you’ll no doubt have some of your own to add to the mix. I even have some tentative designs to throw around to anyone who might be interested – but you’re just as likely to develop your own with a bit of thought. The designs need to be simple, adaptable, ultimately portable, potentially profitable – and above all, useful and desirable.

Answer those four questions, and you’re well on your way to specifying a design-based internet product that people will not only use, but wonder how they did without it.

Listening to: Standing on a Beach : The Singles – The Cure