My best friend hasn't had a raise in 3 years. That's because he works for a TV news station in a small market. He's been laboring under ever-changing workplace conditions, and frequently taking on the responsibilities of others (who have quit or been fired). That's more work for the same amount of money.
Why?
Because the station is trying to cut costs. It already has to overhaul its entire process to become HD compliant by 2009, so additional investments -- like employee morale or new market exploration -- must be postponed.
We talked last night about all the cool things his station COULD be doing, but isn't -- ways in which new media could be utilized to bring in a whole new audience AND make the station more relevant. But, as he explains, the powers that be in his company see the web as the enemy, something that steals the TV news viewers, and they see no reason to invest more money in that losing proposition.
This discussion reminds me of
a video I just saw today at New Assignment -- a "MAC vs. PC"-esque debate between two Chicago newspapers that sums up exactly why old media is lumbering toward extinction.
Before you or I get too smug about being ahead of the curve, we should instead stop and ask ourselves the same question: namely, what IS that hot new thing everyone is buzzing about, and how AREN'T we using it?
For example, I don't use
Twitter or
Groovr. I see no reason to, based upon the way I currently live my life. But then I freeze in my tracks because that's the same kind of statement I would have expected my grandparents to make about email 10 years ago.
With the speed the world changes today, we're all one trend away from becoming our grandparents -- or worse, extinct.
Labels: evolution, extinct, groovr, new media, old media, twitter
