Media Only Works Because We’re OK with Low Quality
I’ve been thinking about the inconsistent audio and production quality of podcasts and I don’t think it matters. Now, admittedly I’m no audiophile, my podcasts prove it. My point is, if we as people were finicky about production quality, whole sections of media wouldn’t exist; books, text-based video games, instant messaging, and in fact, mobile phones.
In all of those examples, what makes the medium work isn’t rich graphics, expensive production values, or high definition special effects. It’s the power of words and a connection between people (you know ‘medium’). Plus, lower quality is easier to sustain as illustrated in these posts from Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine:
…I started broadcasting via webcam on MSNBC and they love it. It’s real, they said, it’s immediate.
In fact, I’m writing this and you’re reading this on a screen with 72 pixels per inch. My 8 year old laser printer does 4 times that before it’s warmed up.
Think of all those grainy, out-of-focus shots of Bigfoot and UFOs, they only work because of their low quality.
4 Comments
I suppose that there is a difference between low-quality content and low-quality delivery or production. Consumers may put up with poor quality production, up to a point, as long as they consider the content to be worthwhile. However, the producer is still going to have less of an audience unless both production and content become ‘good enough’.
Roger, if the content (mobile phone conversation, Bigfoot himself) isn’t there, then no, no ones going to pay attention. It is more important for the message to be interesting and engaging. Delivery and polish, aren’t as necessary to attract an audience, and I’ll bet high polish detracts as many people as it attracts.
I think we need to make a distinction between media, short-term vs. Longterm. Newspapers, TV, Podcasts are inherintly low quality resolution. Newspapers have horribly printed photographs, low quality of printing. TV… we are just barely seeing the improvement of the quality of this medium. I think people realize that temperary forms of short-term media are likely to have low quality, and are ok with it. But when it comes down to long-term media (movies, music, etc.) we are more likely to demand higher production values.
But then again, Fox news really does gain it’s audience based on presentation rather than quality of the reporting. I think it may come down to the individual. I’d be willing to sacrifice some quality of the presentation for a bit more substance.
Mark hit the nail on the head. I can’t stand the sound quality on my cell, and I don’t always get reception. And yet I wouldn’t be caught dead without it. Why? Because it is important to me. My lifeline to my family, friends, and work. It’s the fact that I can connect with someone. Same with podcasting. It is a connection with the content. That someone may have something that I want to listen to.