I think the inferior good concept is a really enlightening way to think of the true value people place on various media forms, but I also think there's an inherent weakness there. Namely, in some cases you can't make a ceteris paribus comparison, and trying to do so cancels out one of digital media's biggest strengths -- timeliness. This isn't as big of a problem with the digital media landscape at the time Iris did her research as it might be if you tried to repeat that research now.
For example, if I asked people whether they preferred news on a newspaper or Twitter, if they had the same content at the same price, that would be kind of a ridiculous question, because it's simply not possible for them to have the same content. A major distinguishing feature (perhaps the major distinguishing feature) of Twitter is the fact that its content is always coming from just a few minutes or even seconds ago. You couldn't possibly produce a newspaper with that attribute to its content.
So in that case, asking the question of preference with the same content takes away the biggest strength of the digital media platform, which is that its immediacy indelibly shapes its content. If you ask me if I'd rather have a newspaper or have Twitter minus the immediacy (which is what ceterus paribus would be asking), I'd take the newspaper in a heartbeat. But in almost every actual situation, I'd take Twitter in a heartbeat. The ceterus paribus aspect of the inferior good comparison is necessary in some ways, but it's flawed when a medium's form is so inextricably linked to its content that its content can't be placed on another medium.
No comments:
Post a Comment