Do not be very upset, but the reason for which recently nothing new really revolutionary was invented in the media is that we do not have any media experts at all.

I will not argue that the examination I have conducted has to do with television or radio, since I can not consider myself to be any significant expert in this field. The information below is for networking, online media.

Structurally, the algorithm of nucleation, launching into orbit, "take-off" of most networked media looks roughly the same:

  1. For some reason, for the reason I still do not understand, the initiator of the creation comes up with the idea that right now, today, and even better yesterday, it is necessary to create radically new, interesting, necessary, necessary, modern and that the most important unique networked media!
  2. "Genius" is the initiator, to which a thought no less genius came than he himself begins to carry out long and extremely painful research, the result of which is the title. It is so amazing that any Internet user who does not find it before he does not find himself a place before he does not find it in the project on the Internet, does not "otlaykaet" or "reject" all his posts!
  3. After having selected literally all the strengths of the brainstorm, thanks to which the brilliant name of the project was born, his team sits down to write his radically new concept, which, by an amazing coincidence, is an accurate tracing-paper from most supposedly successful projects and absorbed all of them both achievements and flaws.
  4. After the implementation of the "unique" conceptual idea, there is a small gag in the design of the site. The site must be filled - you need content. And here, in 99% of cases, a new, state-of-the-art way of extracting content is invented - it will be rebuilt if it does not break in (copy-paste) from the pages of the publication from which the concept was actually lapped. In rare exceptional cases, content is written or removed, but, again, thanks to its "unique" form of presentation, the "exclusive" model of behavior of the leading, "unusual" format, for some reason it does not inspire viewers / readers.
  5. "Mediagenia" come to the idea that the promotion of the project is necessary! Following the ideas of the genius thought (which advertisers themselves thought up) that: "Sorry money for advertising can not" they turn to expensive advertising PR or SEO, SMM and SMO agencies that promise to bring their "unique" projects +100500 million users. They certainly believe - because it is relatively cheap, convenient and neither do not need anything, nor think!
  6. "Unique" media projects are overgrown with social accounts where +100500 bots appear, which in turn do not react to the genius creations of project authors - because - what? Because they are bots - and in reality they do not exist!
  7. The initiators of the project have a panic. The money is spent. +100500 bots in social networks give 0 traffic. The result, in fact, no. And then they follow the old proven path! They buy traffic!
  8. I will not advertise the suppliers of the same traffic, I just say that I do not know yet any "ingenious" media project that would not pay as a tribute to $ 200 a month to a well-known Ukrainian botanotherm for the fact that the counter on their websites is daily wound on 3000-6000 users.

Result: we have another, which we already have without this mass, "unique, ingenious, innovative" media, with:

  1. Stolen or frankly boring content
  2. The Army of network bots that enhance the sense of self-importance Project owner
  3. Wrapped traffic counter allowing him to compete with the same as it fake mass media.

Is it possible to monetize this solution?

In the normal sense, no. Monetization of such media is garbage, as well as its content. Media owners, on the other hand, earn clicks that are provided to users who accidentally come to their pages, who are attracted by replicating stolen content through a network of such garbage sites. And this is at best.

What is the plus of this solution? Are there any prospects for such a project?

While there is a demand for garbage advertising, there is a demand for replicating political, customized information - there is.

In terms of sound economic approach - no.

These projects are dinosaurs of the media world, whose death was predetermined long before their birth.

What to do? How not to repeat the mistakes of garbage media? How not to become it?

First you need to understand that creating a new project you have every chance to make it unique and exclusive if you initially will not try to make it a parody of other successful projects.

You have to put your raisins in the roll you excised, and not try to steal and put a stranger. And this is in the first place.

Secondly: you have all chances to create a more interesting, better quality and advanced product if you can conduct a competent examination of the media market. But not one-sided, not only from the media content producers, but also from the consumers of it.

Thirdlythe biggest trump card is time! Until you are steeped in the work on the project, you have time to analyze the problems and mistakes of others, to see the reasons for their ups and downs, to come up with something really new and innovative. And all this you will get only because you will have time to do it calmly, slowly. There's no point in hurrying if you do not make a copy of someone else's idea. Your idea will become "hot" or "burning" only after you begin to embody it. After they learn about her, read and try to steal. Here it is really necessary to hurry with its implementation.

Well, the last thing: for consultations on the project, look for media experts, but not media dictators.

Not so long ago, I had the honor of talking with one media expert, who voiced to me this idea about the expertise:

"Why actually do it? Who is interested in consumers' opinion, their tastes and preferences? Do only that, and only as the author of the "brilliant", "unique" or even "perfect" project can see it!"

The opinion of others is always wrong!

An interesting approach is true? But he easily explains the reason for the "popularity" of the media project of the "expert", the reason why he will never take off and become not in demand.

You can not deny the existence of public opinion, you can not deliberately try to go against it. It is always necessary to understand what is really in demand and what is in the trend at the moment. In order to be a trend yourself, you must already have an audience, be able to keep it.

The fact that you should know the best audience, not you yourself. Their opinion of you will be the cause of your success or failure.

The mistake of many "experts" is that they are in a hurry, that they are too presumptuous or even narcissistic.

In reality, before implementing any innovation in life, it is extremely necessary to conduct at least some minimal analysis of the market, do a cut, collect data. Analyze information as much as possible, make its expertise from the point of view of various market participants, and only then make judgments on the issue

The confidence of many in their own genius, in the exclusivity of their opinions, in the uniqueness of the decision can collapse after such an examination. This is the main reason why they do not.

Another of the problems to which the denial of the utility of the expertise leads is that in order to obtain a qualitative increase it is necessary to learn to speak with one's viewer in one language.

It is necessary to actually involve him in the dialogue. Find approaches for the viewer, lure him, carry him away. This is unlikely to happen if you forcefully impose your opinion on the audience - dictate it.

Narcissism and self-confidence, excessive ambitiousness are not good qualities. They will never help make the right decision. You can dictate your opinion, but you can do it only when you rely on the data of in-depth analysis, and dictate it to those who already speak to you in one language. By whom you will be understood.

The idea built on the foundation of conjectures and assumptions, whose rationale is most often the undoubted confidence in one's own genius is a deliberately bad, erroneous idea.