Some selected quotes from an academic paper titled as above, by Searle Huh (second from above), who has a B.A. and M.A. in Mass Communication at Yonsei University in Seoul and an M.A. in Communication at Michigan State University.
“The fact that Internet exists with TV simultaneously even after over ten years of invention implies that Internet is not a perfect functional substitute for TV.” (p. 1)
In the light of the future of music distribution, this means that we’re not even close to YouTube (for instance) as a replacement for MTV or other music channels.
“Whenever a new medium appears, old media usually has been a target to be reconsidered for their fates, that is, survival and death. This question is not different from whether a new medium substitutes old media completely or partially, or has no impact on them.” (p. 3)
“Second, a new medium must have one of the following advantages: “superior content, technical benefits, and cost efficiency” (Lin, 2001).” (p. 3)
Clipped from page 5. Click to enlarge.
“Internet is more preferable for rational or cognitive uses while TV is more preferable for emotional or ritual uses.” (p. 23)
“Heavy use of a medium does not change whole factors related to the use of the given medium. Although people spend more time on a medium, the high frequency of use does not necessarily lead so called ‘all or nothing’ strategy to be adapted to changed media environment.” (p. 23)
These findings must be considered in targeting fans, listeners or potential fans and listeners. High volume consumers of TV or of Internet, don’t necessarily spend less time on the other medium because of that. It’s very possible they can be reached through both media.
The whole document by Searle Huh, Internet Users and TV Audiences, can be found here. You can also get it as a PDF over there.
Also have a look at his paper on Online Game Addiction (.doc file), in collaboration with Nicholas David Bowman.
Was notified about the document by Len, via StumbleUpon. Thanks, mate!
