So social software sites are horrible ad-machines, seasonal fashiony things with fickle audiences, but amazing attention grabbers - maybe the most infectious media we've yet seen. Clearly something is still missing from the web 2.0 revolution and tons of social networks will fail in a few years as they fail to come up with more compelling ideas than 'eyeballs for ads'.
Should we make a distinction between experience media like games, film and TV and connective media like phones, SMS and social software? It seems experience media generate much larger incomes than connective media - but that the attention reach of connective media is better. Or more precisely, experience media generate more direct income, whereas the income for connective media comes from platform fees and not the media content or stuff in the media stream. With experience media the value is transmitted, with connective media its not.
Some terms must already exist that describe this distinction. I hesitate to say experience media are about stories - because I hate the idea of the age of storytellers - but clearly goals are an important aspect of it. Are experience media good ad-machines because we're mentally in goal receiving/validation mode when we're enjoying experience media, which we're not when we're enjoying connective media?