t took the radio 38 years to reach 50 million people, TV 13 years, Internet 4 years, iPod 3 years, and Facebook 2 years, but now through live streaming you can easily reach a few hundred million people within 24 hours.
That is 38 to 13 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 24 hours
Video as a media is rather new. I mean to say that it became mainstream in the 20th century. Because it is still new, we are still figuring it out. So we went from movies to TV to cable TV channels to youtube relatively quickly. But as we did so, we have not radically changed how we use video. We use it as a set piece or art or entertainment or information delivery.
There is nothing wrong with any of the above. Except that this particular use does not foster more and deeper connection to the people around us. Indeed, video games may actually limit real world connectivity. Can video become a better connection tool?
Good question. The answer depends on how we understand the word “connection”. We connect via stories. Video can distract us from real world stories (as perhaps video games do). They may also distort our understanding of the real world. Some say that Fox News does this. But they also help us see more clearly stories that are unfolding around us.
One can argue that the more video we car create, the better our chances that at least some of it will have that enhancing or engaging effect. And the ability to make and stream video via mobile devices means that that we are likely to be exposed to a lot more video over time. Hence the “streaming revolution”.
What will this mean? Here are some thoughts.
- better education tools – imagine more stuff like TED)
- better advocacy – imagine advocates showing us what we need to see
- better reaction to disaster – we can wee the problems unfold and record that
- better markets – closer connection to what gives us value
- better innovation – seeing what we can get next