It is perhaps surprising for me that the word “blog” seems to come out very often in the conference. I mean, even though blogging is perhaps the buzzword (or is videoblogging now the true cool?) for many of the new participants of the Internet, it is perhaps not that powerful as an agent of voice. Yet, are we perhaps seeing a change where the blogosphere, with its timely reports of events that might not even be covered by the traditional media, might one day usurp the traditional media in the very quality that they look for in new values: timeliness?

Professor Kishore Mahbubani, the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in NUS, noted that the traditional media can still usurp the new media in terms of impact. Despite the rage and fury of the blogosphere in terms of the Virginia Tech incidents, the fact is that the traditional media has done more for the United States to take a closer look at gun laws. I am actually wondering about the voice of an online media, the very fact that whether an online voice will be influential.

Shekhar Kapur, one of the speakers in the forum, definitely feels that the online voice will be powerful. On my personal opinion, the realm of the online voice for now, and in the near future, will only remain online. The thing is that despite the proliferation of the Internet, the truth is that not even 1/4 of the world’s population currently has any form of access to the Internet. Much more has exposure toward the television and other forms of traditional media.

The Internet is also free, free to talk what you want. That is perhaps a good thing sometimes, but sometimes, this ability to be free creates a lot of junk. How does the common man defuse the rubbish from the truth. There is a common saying that 90% of all data is often rubbish. I believe in that myself, and I wonder if the online voice, without any form of editorial, can really rise up as a voice of influence in reality.

I have my doubts. What do you think?

For more photos, please click on the Flickr.com widget that appears on the sidebar.

One thing that struck me about the discussion of business models was how future business models for monetising content may depend on goodwill and trust. Cory Ondrejka talked about variations of payment in which people willing to pay even when they could get the content for free as long as there was the right price – this would include Rhapsody, the subscription-based music system, as well as tip jar systems.

All these made me think, how much does the concept of paying even when you get it for free depend on the convenience of the service (the same way I use iTunes to buy my music, because it’s so easy to download songs from the service), and how much depends on the goodwill idea of paying the creator for content, similar to dropping money into a busker’s hat? Take the tip-jar concept, for example: by the point you’re tipping, you would have viewed the entire content, so the entire payment is based on goodwill. Now how much is this like the Annalakshmi restaurants, where you pay a combination of how much you think your meal was worth and what you can afford? I’ve certainly given a tip to websites and blogs that have entertained me, but is this kind of behaviour necessarily very common?

And how much does goodwill and trust extend beyond borders? Would someone from China, say, be less willing to give money to content creators from Hollywood – whether because they are from a different culture, or because there’s a perception that Hollywood stars are much wealthier?

And how much does it depend on the existence of a tipping culture? If we’re used to paying service charges rather than tipping, can a tipping system work?
It’s one thing to work based on trust with fellow workers. But how much can one trust the consumer? I think we can, but I think that’s one of the things at the heart of some discomfort with new business models.

After the conference, this question is probably lingering around each and every one of us. What is perhaps the future of the new media? Will it be a benign or a malicious force, one that will swallow us whole in the near future? I will first talk about pornography and regulation, one of the issues that has popped up a few times in Deep Dive Session 2.

It’s Saturday and the conference frenzy has died down. We’re left with tons of information to digest.

One of the feedback given by participants was the lack of time for the Q&A session. This is hardly surprising, considering the expanse of topics that were supposed to be covered within the short period of time.

Hopefully, by next year, we’ll have manageable bites of New Media issues to chew on and more time would be allocated for questions and discussions.

After sitting through Session 1, one issue that really struck me was how powerful Asia could be if a regional standard of new media was created for everyone else to follow. As what Dr Madan said to me, if there was a consolidation of responsibilities and involvement, Asia could very well surpass the EU in terms of technology and expertise. The crucial key to achieving that is to avoid making the same mistake that the EU is making. The latter’s progress in New Media has been largely hindered by bureaucratic policies and red tapes. These would only serve to slow down the various cooperatives planned by private industries.

Perhaps that’s why some business owners are so adamant that the government have no say at all in how the media business is run. Having seen the slowdown caused by inefficient policies, most private companies are more than happy to run the show by themselves.

However, knowing very well the kind of cultural context Asia has, media business owners might as well find a way to live with their civil service counterpart harmoniously. After all, a little public protection here and there for the time being might just help ease the society into media freedom, slowly. Who knows, governments would eventually feel that they are not needed when it comes to policing the media?

“He who predicts the future lies, even if he tells the truth.” An Arab proverb that was used generously (and rightly so) during any moments of prediction at the conference. I suppose it served as a form of disclaimer.

However, allow me to share an Alan Kay quote, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it”.

Perhaps after knowing the sentiments of delegates from all around the world, we are in a better position to create a more desirable future. A future that would have the right mix and balance of involvement, entrepreneurship, innovation and…. nanny-ing.

You know, in Deep Dive Session 3, Thomas Tsao made the very valid point that $20 for a DVD is a huge amount to pay for a Chinese consumer, and then went on to say that by charging such prices, they are denying the Chinese a fundamental human right to entertainment.

Which sounded good, upon first hearing it, but the more I think about it, the more a rights-based point of view seems flawed. Surely we do not really believe there is a fundamental right to being entertained in a specific fashion i.e. by Hollywood actors? With every right comes a countervailing obligation, and if it is a fundamental human right to be entertained in the exact same way around the world, then indeed one should make the same argument that the poor in Singapore or indeed in Hollywood itself (and, come to think of it, Hollywood and Vine has not always been exactly the most salubrious of street corners) should be allowed to walk into cinemas for free. Or that football fans should pay for their stadium tickets based on how much they earn.

That’s not to say I necessarily think the movie industry pricing strategy is a good one. Charging $20 may or may not be a bad business strategy in an age where content is so easily duplicated. (One could argue that cinemas thrived during the Great Depression because they had a smart pricing strategy.) But to couch the debate in terms of rights is not necessarily correct, in my opinion.

After the event, I had the privilege to exchange an email interview with Paul Saffo
, one of the panelists for the New Media @Arts House, and here are some of the replies he gave for my questions!

Viswa suggests that the future conference committee could come up with certain topics to dwell deeper into next year, instead of coming up with new topics.

Paul from California quoted the cases where new media businesses have been bought over by various incumbents. It seems that ultimately, the game is still largely played by big players in the industry.

Mr Chow feels that it’s not only for the big boys, but it’s for people with the passion for it. Web 2.0 wasn’t started by the big boys but by various businesses. Nevertheless, like it or not, without the real world, the virtual world doesn’t exist.

He also added that relevance is of essence, whether you are the new media or the old media. As long as you are relevant to the media landscape, and of course, the society, you will still find a place to play in this ever changing field.

How can traditional media transform to adapt to the new media business models? Youngsuk Chi responds that it is not that traditional media is reluctant to go to new media business models, but that they don’t know what these new models are. Web 2.0 has different paying models (sponsor-pays, author-pays), rather than user-pays which is what traditional media is used to, and this may be difficult for content with inelastic demand.

Paul Saffo discusses reverse-mentoring – where the young teach the old. Take the 19-year-old to be your guide through the new media. To make it work, it has to be part of both persons’ job evaluations throughout the year.

Lucas Chow notes that traditional media should remain flexible and relevant, no different from any other industry. For example, Mediacorp has launched “visual radio” that delivers visual information to cellphones. It’s not a question of traditional or new media, but of finding relevance and use within the society and community we live in.

John Kao notes that doing new things in any organisation is an invite to a clash of cultures. People will design the innovation process so that there are parallel organisations or ‘skunkworks’ (citing Xerox PARC and Lockheed-Martin), so that by insulating the innovative activities, you can do things that are edgy, and let both sides of the house flourish.

A rep of the French broadcast service notes that the average French person listens to radio 3 hours a day, and notes that they broadcast in both traditional and ‘new’ media. Without new media (whatever that is!) they have no future.