Communication European Journal Of

European Journal of Communication http://ejc.sagepub.com

What Media Evolution Is: A Theoretical Approach to the History of New Media Rudolf Stöber European Journal of Communication 2004; 19; 483 DOI: 10.1177/0267323104049461

The online version of this article can be found at: http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/483

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for European Journal of Communication can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ejc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/19/4/483

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010

What Media Evolution Is A Theoretical Approach to the History of New Media ᭿ Rudolf St¨ober

ABSTRACT

᭿ The article suggests an explanation for the emergence of new media. Media are not merely the consequence of technical inventions, but derive from a two-stage process of inventing and ‘social institutionalizing’. The technical invention just improves on the old media: for example, Gutenberg improved writing, ﬁlms improved older optical media and wireless improved wired telegraphy. In the next phase of innovation, new media become institutionalized: now, new media such as the periodical press, motion pictures and broadcasting emerge. A process of ‘social institutionalizing’ changes the invented media fundamentally. Society ‘institutionalizes’ inventions by discovering new possibilities of communication; it adopts and formats new media. The theoretical approach suggested in this article combines evolution theory with Joseph Schumpeter’s distinction between invention and innovation. The article deals with the competitive media history of press, telegraphy, ﬁlm, radio, television and multimedia. It provides a survey of the emergence of new media with respect to social, political, cultural, economic and technical debates. ᭿

Key Words evolution theory, innovation, invention, media history, new media

Rudolf St¨ober is Professor of Communication Studies at Otto-Friedrich- Universität, An der Universit¨at 9, D-96045 Bamberg, Germany. [email: [email protected]]

483

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

Introduction

Even old media were at one time new. And every new medium will become old at some point in its existence. Nevertheless, the emergence of new media remains an obscure process. Some say this process is driven by technology; others suppose an economic impetus; some suggest demand driven by the audience; some stress the impact of cultural debates. This article suggests that it is a combination of all the aforementioned with no preference of one aspect or theoretical approach over another. The media mentioned here are neither media in a physical sense, for example air as a medium for the transport of sound, nor am I referring to spiritualistic media such as looking into crystal balls for dead ancestors or for glimpses of the future. The media mentioned here are mass media, i.e. media that transport information and communication messages over space and/or time. These media use elaborate technology, at least on the part of the sender. The audience is the virtual community of a public audience – one-to-one communication is possible, too. This article thus focuses on press, telegraphy, ﬁlm, radio, television and multimedia. Media seem to create themselves out of nowhere. Suppose contemporaries of Gutenberg had been asked about the social consequences of Gutenberg’s invention. Possibly no one would have given the correct answer; no one would have either foreseen the diversity of media or would have guessed its social use. This sounds trivial because more than 500 years have passed since the days of Gutenberg. But even if we had asked our hypothetical question in a more detailed way: no contemporary of Gutenberg would have had any chance to imagine newspapers and magazines. No contemporary of the ominous C.M. (perhaps Charles Morrison) or Thomas Soemmering would have imagined news agencies. Guglielmo Marconi and his contemporaries could not have imagined broadcasting; Paul Nipkow, Eduard Liesegang and Campbell Swinton were not in a position to foresee television broadcasting. But every rule has its exception: Martin Greenberger (1964) foresaw the mass audiences of online computing when, after an interval of 20 years, he reviewed Vannevar Bush’s important, but somewhat overestimated article ‘As We May Think’ (Bush, 1945). Nevertheless, the chance of making the right guess is very low: the future is always clouded. Only when we look back do the historical developments seem to have been rational and straight- forward. This article makes some suggestions regarding media evolution. It shows that new media are not a consequence of technical inventions, but derive from a two-stage process of inventing and ‘social institutionalizing’

484

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

these new technologies. The process of ‘social institutionalization’ changes the media themselves. Society ‘institutionalizes’ inventions by discovering new possibilities of communication; it formats new media functions and adapts new media; it develops new economic models; and, last but not least, society accepts new media by creating a new political framework and a new legal order for new media. When the emergence of new media is accomplished, then the diffusion of newly ‘institutionalized’ media happens. Therefore, the third stage is both very important and very unimportant at the same time. It is important in the sense that diffusion confirms the successful emergence of new media. But it is almost unimportant in the sense that it coins the characteristics of new media. This institutionalization had happened before; therefore, this approach is not a diffusion theory. The suggested generalizations derive from a history of media competition in Europe and the USA. There are countless numbers of books and magazine articles on specific media history. But there are a small number of histories of media competition (Briggs and Burke, 2002; Roberts et al., 2000; Stober¨ , 2003; Wilke, 2000; Winston, 1998). This article first outlines the theoretical framework. It subsequently provides a closer look at the details of media evolution. Finally, it offers some reflections about the kind of processes involved in media evolution.

Proposal: the theoretical set The pattern of interpretation follows a grand (macro) theory and a medium-range theory. Evolution theory is the great framework; Joseph Schumpeter’s distinction of invention and innovation leads to medium- range aspects. First of all, it must be clariﬁed that evolution theory is not a theory at all, but a fact, whatever naive religious fundamentalists may think. Nevertheless, many problems remain unsolved – for example, the start of evolution. Many questions have been matters of dispute since Darwin (Darwin, 1872 [1859]; Dawkins, 1976; Gould, 2002; Mayr, 2001). I am neither competent in this ﬁeld nor is there any necessity to involve ourselves with the discussions of life-scientists. Therefore, evolution theory is not a blueprint for this interpretation, but it serves as an allegory: the evolution of biodiversity and of media depends on time. Both are open and complex processes, cannot be foreseen and create emergent phenomena. Endogenous and exogenous factors have had their impact on the developments of both life and media. In both cases, a great diversity has been created. But there is an important difference: bio- evolution does not follow a grand plan or any intention. Media evolution,

485

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

on the other hand, is a cultural process; it does not follow a grand plan either, but sometimes the direction and speed of the development can be – more or less – planned. There is one parallel that fits especially for the historian’s purposes. Evolution scientists always lack archaeological evidence; they are always looking for missing links. Even Charles Darwin in Chapter 10 of his famous book stressed the significance of missing petrifactions (Darwin, 1872). Historians, on the other hand, very often complain about the lack of crucial historical sources. The chance of discovering the evidence becomes poorer with every year they go back into the past. So they sometimes do have to make interpolations or conjectures led by theory (Esch, 1985). The medium-range theory depends on a distinction made by the economist Joseph Schumpeter (1997): invention and innovation. In using the first term, Schumpeter referred to a technological process; the latter he used to describe the economic and social acceptance of new products. But Schumpeter never gave a complete theory; this was left to various other authors. Schumpeter’s theory fragments started a science called ‘evolutionary economics’. Today, very often three stages, invention, innovation and diffusion, are distinguished. But as mentioned earlier, for the emergence of new media, the third step is not the most significant. Rogers’ (1995) meta-study on diffusion adopted the three stages, too. Invention in Rogers’ sense means the ‘making or discovery of something new’. He defined innovation as the phase wherein consumers, audiences, other individuals or collectives become familiar with inventions; they accept or refuse them. Eventually, the accepted innovations spread through society in the phase of diffusion. Brian Winston (1998) has adopted these three stages in general, too. Without referring to Schumpeter, Winston speaks of prototypes, invention and diffusion. He argues that scientists always start the inventing process. He stresses the significance of ‘social necessities’ for supervening the barriers between the phases of prototypes, invention and diffusion. Both Rogers and Winston emphasize the significance of debates in society for the emergence of innovations. The main suggestion of this article combines Schumpeter’s distinction and evolution theory. In simplified terms, Schumpeter’s theory and its derivations suggest that products (and media) remain the same; consumers (and the audience) change their attitudes towards the invention when they adopt it. With respect to the combined theory, my suggestion is that media also change fundamentally. After they have

486

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

passed a process of ‘institutionalization’, they are not the same as they were before: actually, ‘new media’ have emerged. In a similar manner to bio-evolution, media evolution is a two-stage process followed by diffusion. Some evolution scientists suggest two kinds of improvements: adaptation and exaptation. Adaptation means the improvement of a feature for the sake of its original purpose. Exaptation means a second-stage improvement aiming at a new function. For example, the feathers of birds may have been ‘invented’ by evolution to keep the ancestors of birds warm. Then, they were adapted or improved for this purpose (stage 1). Later on – scientists argue about how, when and why – the creatures exaptated from the first purpose a completely new function: they learned to use feathers for flying purposes; evolution improved the feathers for flying (stage 2). Now, the new creatures had gained a great advantage over many competing animals. So finally, birds were able to spread all over earth (stage 3). In media evolution, the pattern seems to be very much the same. At first, in the phase of invention, the new technology improves something old. For example, Johannes Gutenberg did not invent the printing press, but he invented printing with removable letters. In other words, he improved writing and copying. Gutenberg mainly aimed at the market of highly expensive books. Indulgences and calendars were items he printed, too; but they were a secondary concern. Gutenberg printed these smaller works when he attempted to improve his ‘new art’, thinking of this ‘new art’ as the ultimate enhancement of writing. The editors’ note to the Catholicon of 1460 said: ‘By protection of God this formidable book Catholicon was not written by pencil or feather but printed in highest harmony by letters and types. Therefore I’ll praise though, my Lord’ (cited in Giesecke, 1998: 142). Contemporaries were also astonished by the perfection, not by the speed of reproduction. The later Pope Pious II referred to the invention after he had seen pages of Gutenberg’s Bible at the Frankfurt book fair in 1455: having seen a book with letters of the highest quality which he had never seen before (Hanebutt-Benz, 2000: 132, 338). This enhancement of old and familiar media can be identified in other new media, too. For example, electrical telegraphy improved optical telegraphy. Alexander Graham Bell announced his invention of the telephone as an ‘improvement in telegraphy’ (Coe, 1995: App. 10). ‘Western Electric’ or the German ‘Reichspost’ introduced the telephone as a byproduct of telegraphy first. And Johann Philipp Reis (1859/60), a German who had invented the telephone 15 years before Bell, had wanted to improve the transmission of music. Early films were regarded as

487

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

vaudeville and variety amusement. Therefore, film is a perfection of older optical media such as laterna magica, moving panorama, etc. (The close relationship between vaudeville, variety and early film is illustrated by the fact that famous artists like Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin started at vaudeville and variety.) Radiotelegraphy was recognized as better for some aspects of one-to-one communication than wired telegraphy, especially in communication with ships and colonies. Television seemed to improve telephony by adding optical information. The Cold War scheme ‘Arpanet’ was planned to enhance telegraphy, telephony and computer communication in case of a nuclear attack. When mobiles were introduced in the late 20th century, everybody saw them as wireless telephones. Generally, in the early phase the invention of something new is looked upon as the improvement of something old: new features are adapted for old purposes. Following these developments, a second advancement created actual new media. Printing technology was exaptated for a new media: first, for non-periodical broadsheets and later for periodical press. A wider audience, press agencies, bankers and railway companies, used electrical telegraphy. The early films were transformed into motion pictures. Radiotelegraphy became broadcasting; television became television broadcasting. The Arpanet split into ‘milnet’, non-military Internet services and eventually into the WWW. Mobiles with the option of sending text messages (SMS) offer new and expanded forms of communication, too.

Structures: three stages of media evolution Examining the topic in more detail, we see that Schumpeter’s three phases can be looked at from the perspective of the inventors, the products, the public and the aspects of use. The characteristics of the invention phase are shown in Figure 1. Invention improvements occur at every phase, but only in the ﬁrst phase are basic inventions made. Therefore, the ﬁrst criterion for the separation of phase one and two may be the difference between basic inventions and further improvements. The invention phase ends when at least one complete prototype of a new product is achieved. We can give different reasons to delineate endings and beginnings. Some dates correlate with real prototypes, others with concepts. It is neither the most important problem to be solved, nor are the dates at which the phases end beyond all doubt, but let me suggest some dates for the end of the invention phase and the beginning of innovation.

488

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

Inventor Products Public Users’ regulation Tinkerers, Expensive, Inventors, Uses and without a unreliable scientists advantages master plan; prototypes; patent not obvious; often working experimental ofﬁces, no regulation in isolation production; (industrial or legal order exotic; ﬁrms show various some interest) technical elements invented independently

Figure 1 The invention phase

Gutenberg’s invention was accomplished between 1440 and 1455/6, the phase of inventing telegraphy ended by 1809, the telephone 1861/76, film c. 1895, the radio 1906, mechanical television 1884, electronic television 1908, the computer between 1941 and 1945 and the Internet 1964/8. Gutenberg, for example, did not fix his concept in 1455/6, but printed some lost books, minor works and finished the famous 42-line Bible that year. Soemmering built a first electric telegraph in 1809. Philipp Reis’s telephone dates from 1861, Bell’s from 1876. Edison, the Lumiere´ brothers and the Skladanowsky brothers were successful in producing film in the middle of the 1890s. Paul Nipkow held a first patent for television purposes in 1884, Campbell Swinton wrote down his concept for electric television in 1908. Fessenden’s Christmas radio show in 1906 may serve as a date of the first broadcasting. The end of the phase of inventing computers is as difficult to establish as with almost any other media; for example, Zuse built a ‘von Neumann-machine’ even before von Neumann wrote down his concept – but later Zuse lost every patent trial he litigated, because he had not registered his inventions properly (Petzold, 1998). Various inventors made their contribution before and during the Second World War. For dating the invention of the Internet, one can choose either Paul Baran’s concept of ‘distributed networks’ in 1964 or the installation of the Arpanet in 1968. The end of the invention phase cannot be termed precisely, but rough dates for the end of this phase can be given. However, when it comes to looking at its beginnings, we cannot identify a single inception date. This is due to the fact that many isolated inventions have been

489

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

combined to make new media. Gutenberg’s press was based on the alphabet, on paper, on the wine press and on inventions in metallurgy. Electrical telegraphy’s early forerunners may be ﬁre signs mentioned by ancient authors from Homer onwards. Radio broadcasting is based on telegraphy and so on. Every new medium encloses older media; thus, no exact date for the birth of an invention can be given. Another characteristic of this phase is that many inventions have been made more than once. (This phenomenon exists in the evolution of life, too. Life scientists call it ‘convergent’ evolution.) In media history, for example, printing was invented in Asia and in Europe. The telephone was invented by Bell and Reis; ﬁlm was almost invented three times; the television camera by Farnsworth and Zworykin. Inventing telegraphy, the computer and multimedia was the task of many brilliant scientists, idealistic tinkerers and others. The end of the invention phase is the beginning of innovation. At this point, a blueprint, concept or a prototype exists. Many details are uncertain and many features will be further developed, but the framework of a new medium is set. The characteristics of the innovation phase are shown in Figure 2. While it makes sense to discuss the invention phase from the perspective of its technical aspects, the innovation phase ought to be discussed primarily from the aspects of its social use. Here there is not one, but a series of aspects. First, the basic inventions have been made previously and, now, only further improvements are left. Then, society is

Inventor Products Public Users’ regulation Industrial Prototypes Economy Advantages ﬁrms; become (commercial become ﬁnancial reliable; interest); clearer support by production politics (legal in the the state; becomes interest); begining systematic cheaper; mass regulation improvements material audience orientate becomes (general towards older cheaper and interest media law, at better awakes) its end new laws are developed

Figure 2 The innovation phase

490

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

given a glimpse of the new possibilities offered by the new technology. The more ‘conservative observer’ will only notice improvements of an older technology. More innovative individuals will discern quite a different and revolutionary use of the new tools. This innovative aspect can be identified in at least three stages: developments in new media content, in new economic models and in innovative legal regulations. These are all significant for the invention phase. Gutenberg’s invention changed its character when people began to use printing for present-day information in broadsheets, leaflets and news-sheets. Serial newspapers emerged from handwritten news, as far as we know now, for the first time in Strasbourg in 1605. The analogy in telegraphy is the innovation of news agencies. The telephone had to be emancipated from telegraphy; its first use was as telegraphy’s byproduct, then society began to use it as a medium for commercial and private communication. But the innovation phase is a phase of experimentation, too. Music and news programmes were sent by telephone wires in some cities in the old and the new world. The innovation in film was the emergence of motion pictures: movies. Radio had to be emancipated from one-to-one telegraphy; its innovation was the development of broadcasting information and entertainment for a mass audience. Television was first thought to be a telephone combined with binoculars. This combination was obvious, because the use of new technologies tends to copy the use of older media. But, once broadcasting and movies existed, a new blueprint was available. From then on, television was seen as a combination of broadcasting and (home) cinema. Originally, computers just did computing, even the ‘number crunchers’. But computers gained their media qualities when the public started to write documents on PCs and then began to use computers for multimedia purposes. The innovation of the early Internet for military purposes was the multi- useful worldwide web. Seen from the perspective of the economy, the innovation is accomplished when a new economic model comes into being. To look at printing first: the innovative model was a new serial or semi-serial product such as leaflets, broadsheets and news-sheets. The religious Reformation in Europe created this new market. The economic innovation of telegraphy was the commercial network; it was opened in approximately 1850 to a broader public than the state-run optical telegraphy had been. The economic innovation in film consisted of two different aspects; first, films left the vaudeville tents and went into cinema buildings. Second, early films were sold; from around 1905

491

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

onwards, motion pictures were lent. New economic models in broadcasting started shortly after 1920. Three models coexisted first: the subsidizing of programmes by selling radio receivers, public fees and advertising, with only variants two and three remaining. The economic innovation of the computer was to sell the tool to a mass market – not only to the business market; the PC was the new tool ready for use by the masses by approximately 1980. The economic innovation of the Internet started with the worldwide web around 1989/90: the Internet opened for e-commerce, ads, etc. The termination of the innovation phase by aspects of legal regulation and communication policy is not as easy to determine. From country to country, the dates will differ. In the beginning, the laws for older media are being used; by the time the phase ends, laws for the new media will have been developed. Laws for older media mean regulations for the medium from which the new one emerged. These are used immediately after the start of the innovation phase; laws for the new media come about later. Therefore, in the beginning, censorship was much the same as it had been for handwritten books. Later, in the 16th century, specific regulations that aimed at the new medium press were fixed. In telegraphy, the first regulations and international law contracts existed around 1850. Specific film laws were enacted between 1910 and 1920. Broadcasting regulations in Europe and the US – not regulations for wireless telegraphy – date from the 1920s. The US ‘Telecommunica- tions Act’ and similar laws in the UK and Germany date from 1996/7. With the end of innovation, the diffusion phase begins (see Figure 3). The only phase with a distinct beginning and an end is the innovation phase: the invention phase has no exact start; the diffusion phase has no exact end. The new medium becomes a new cultural technology for mass audiences in the phase of diffusion. Becoming cheaper is a crucial feature of this phase. Handwritten books before Gutenberg were exorbitantly expensive and illustrated books cost a fortune. Gutenberg’s Bible was very expensive, too: one could buy a house in the city for the same price. But it was three to five times cheaper than handwritten and illustrated bibles at that time. Printed books steadily dropped in price. Crafts workers and even farm labourers could afford Luther’s New Testament when it appeared in 1522. Printed newspapers of the early 17th century were also expensive, but they were 10 times cheaper than handwritten newsletters. The reduction of prices continued during the next 200 years. Newspaper prices reduced much faster owing to the significant improvements in paper, printing and typesetting technology made in the 19th century: penny papers and mass papers, which even workers could afford,

492

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

Inventor Products Public Users’ regulation Industrial Marketable At the Uses well firms; products for beginning known; new financial everyday use; dymanic legal support by reduction of growth of the regulation state complexity; at public established reduces; stable prices audience; further products then rate of systematic becoming growth slowly improvements better; at flattens; same quality, satisfaction of products market becoming cheaper

Figure 3 The diffusion phase started to circulate. Radio and television sets became signiﬁcantly cheaper, so that today these devices can be found in almost every household – even in many non-developed countries. A modern PC is one million times faster than the ENIAC in 1946 was, and (at today’s prices) 3000 times cheaper. And it is a real computer, i.e. it is freely programmable. Modern computers are 150,000 times faster than a 1977 Apple II – and (at today’s prices) twice as cheap. Speed and cheapness continue to increase. But becoming cheaper does not automatically convince consumers and audiences of the new medium’s value. With respect to the rational choice theory, consumers (and audiences) will always demand an excellent cost–beneﬁt relationship. The better this relationship, the better the media success will be. Other factors supporting diffusion are standardiza- tion and easier media operation. Operation seems to apply only to the technological media (radio, television, PC), but headlines, photos, information graphics and other press features make the reading ‘operation’ easier, too. Research on diffusion has suggested a succession of innovators, early adopters, early and late majority and lingerers. The earlier individuals accept the innovation, the younger, better educated and better earning they are. Reception research on multimedia shows this pattern very clearly. But the cinema was amusement for young people, too. And even in the days of the Reformation we have some evidence that ‘young urban

493

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

professionals’ studied leaflets and broadsheets with the highest attention. And for the press in general: only well-educated people can consume it – readability is essential. But, as research on diffusion suggests in general, the public wants to be convinced by the usefulness of innovations before they become widely accepted (Rogers, 1995). Figure 4 shows the ‘ideal type’ of diffusion. This pattern is widely accepted, but one critical remark has to be made. The function is equal to Gauss’s function of normal distribution. The normal distribution – for example, of IQ – is measured at a fixed point in time. In diffusion analysis, this does not fit: diffusion happens over time; its left edge (the start) is fixed, the right one (its end) is not. Thus, the graph suggests an equal length of all phases, but this is impossible. Therefore, the graph is only approximately correct.

Early majority: Late majority: growth rate slows market mature down

Early adopters: dynamic market growth Lingerers: Innovators degeneration

t Life cycle Sales outlet (cumulation)

Figure 4 The life cycle of new media in the diffusion phase

Institutionalization: an important process in media evolution The process of media evolution is a complex one – as all social developments are. Therefore, no single model fits all purposes. Since every model has to be a simplification, we can choose a rather simple one that fits our purposes (see Figure 5). Let us take a look at four subsystems or discursive cycles we can encounter in society: first, in culture; second, in politics and law; third, in the economy; and fourth, in technology. Every

494

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

culture

technology law/politics

economy

Figure 5 Cycles of media evolution system can be understood as a discursive platform, every system works to its own rules, every system can be looked at separately; but no system is independent; all the systems interact with each other. This interaction is part of the institutionalization of new media. Society thus formats and adopts new media and their new functions. Very often improvements in society and also in media derive from dissatisfaction with the cultural and social, political and legal, economic and technical status quo (see Figure 6). But there are always some people who are more conservative than others, and others who tend to be more progressive. Some are innovators; others are not. So, the debate on status quo or progress goes to and fro. The outcome of the discussions largely depends on uses and gratiﬁcations; people identify with new cultural and social technologies. Dissatisfaction and – subsequently – the wish for change are very often unspeciﬁed. For example, universities, schools, the administration of the state, church and business demanded more and more handwritten media since the height of the Middle Ages. Therefore, enhancements in writing did not come unexpectedly. In consequence, many contemporaries praised the new invention, as Martin Luther did: ‘Printing’, he declared to his companions at table, ‘is God’s latest and highest gift’ (Aurifaber, 1566: 626). Other new inventions were praised in comparable words. US Senator William Seward said in 1856: ‘After the telegraphic wire is once laid there will be no more war between the United States and Great Britain’ (Winston, 1998: 246). To date, Seward

495

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

looking for solutions: hopes and fears

identification and dissatisfaction discovery of new use with older media

Legal and political debate on new media

Figure 6 The cultural debate on media

has been right; but others, who had supposed telegraphy would create ‘human intercourse and . . . harmony among men and nations’ and bring men ‘into closer moral contact with each other’, unfortunately were not (du Boff, 1989: 209). Praise of the great potential of new media was common until the computer and Internet came into use. On the other hand, negative quotes from sceptics were common too – from the earliest days of printing until the most recent days of information technology. Pope Innocence VIII, for example, pointed out positive and negative aspects in 1487. Cultural critics of newspaper reading in the 18th century compared it to drug addiction. Clerics and teachers in the early 20th century expressed their fear of ﬁlms: movies would destroy young people’s morality. With a similar argument (destruction of society’s morals in general), television was banned in some countries until the late 20th century. Computer and information technology provoked the fear of Orwellian nightmares. In general, the discussion of pros and cons makes the character of new media clearer for society. This gives a hint that new media are no longer regarded as something old. The debate very often led to discussions of legal aspects. These discussions have their patterns, too (see Figure 7). As long as the potential of a new invention is not realized, there will be no reaction at all. For example, clerical censors in the 1480s in Freising (near Munich) inspected every copy of a newly printed prayer. They thought the books were handwritten and therefore some copies might be faulty. No medium

496

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

assimilation under old medium’s law

debates no reaction on new laws at all

enacting new laws

Figure 7 Political and legal reaction to new media just invented ever became an object of legal regulation immediately. Every medium was at ﬁrst subordinated to an older legal regulation: censorship of printed books followed censorship of handwritten media; the regulation of wireless telegraphy and radio (in Germany, some continental states or in the US ‘Radio Act’ of 1912) was just the same as the regulation of wired telegraphy. Censorship of early ﬁlms was put into the hands of local authorities: they treated it under aspects of public order. But as soon as the media were really accepted as something new, debates on new and special laws began. And each new legal regulation incorporated features of older media regulation. This is a political keystone of institutionalization: when politics regard media as new media, it is certain that society itself has accepted new media as the new tools of communication. We have mentioned dissatisfaction in cultural discussions already. In the economy it is much the same. Economic theory tends very often to be one-sided. Some consider price competition to be the most important; others suggest quality competition; some say, it is the demand-pull; others say, it is the supply-push. But it is a mixture of all these. Price and quality competition cannot be separated from one another and neither can be separated from competition in innovation. Supply-push and demand- pull cannot be separated either. Every successful innovation has to be advantageous for both producers and consumers (Schumpeter, 1997: 208–16). Producers’ dissatisfaction very often depends on price reduction during the products’ life cycles. But the price reduction and increase in quality is advantageous for consumers. In general:

497

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

• Everyday media reduce in price especially when a mass audience is aimed at. Newspaper subscription, radio or telephone fees are ﬁxed costs for the consumer’s budget. • Prices of one-off products like leaﬂets or movie tickets can remain more price-stable. The ‘sales departments’ just have to calculate prices cheaply enough, so that labourers with regular income can afford the luxury sometimes. • Price reduction speeds up in all electronic media, because the prices of electronic devices tend to fall with every new generation of products. • Media sometimes reduce in price directly, sometimes indirectly: they become cheaper in absolute terms or their quality improves. This is due to better and cheaper production and the consequence of enlarged market competition. • Financing of media can be obvious or hidden. Media audiences pay with money for press subscriptions, radio fees, electronic tools and so on. When listening to or looking at ads the audience pays with its attention. • Obvious prices are the older form of media payment – in general. Hidden prices like subsidies through advertising were ‘invented’ later. But, television proves the exception to the rule: for technical reasons, Pay-TV started much later than advertisements on television. • There is no rule whether media can be paid for in a totally hidden way: free newspapers are the latest development. But radio paid for by ads is one of the oldest economic models. • Nevertheless, one general rule is: media tend to become cheaper throughout their life cycles. But this is not a speciality related solely to media; the rule is correct for almost every consumer product in the phase of diffusion (Schumpeter, 1997: 346–7).

So products offer poorer margins of proﬁt at the end of their life cycles than at their beginnings. Therefore, business people are always interested in new products and new business models (see Figure 8). But the invention of new products or media does not supply new business models automatically. Rather the contrary seems to be true: a brand-new invented medium offers a new market in an old sphere. But when the old market is satisﬁed, often an economic crisis occurs. The crisis occurs shortly after the innovation of the medium. For example, the market for high-priced books fell into stagnation c. 1500. Market competition in the old book market had increased too much; some books like the World

498

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

development of a new business model

diffusion of the new older business model business model gets unsatisfactory

competition increases margin of profit decline

Figure 8 The economic cycle of media evolution

Chronicle by Schedel could not be sold off properly. Therefore, the Reformation came just in time to rescue printers and publishers. The new business model of selling broadsheets, leaflets and news-sheets was an opportunity for a starving business. When Johann Carolus of Strasbourg (probably) invented newspapers in 1605, he declared in his supplication addressed to the Imperial City Council that he wanted to combine two businesses: selling handwritten letters of information and printing. In both markets the competition was higher and margins lower than they used to be. But a combination of both, that was the solution! Telegraphy seemed to be a business that had such poor prospects that US Congress renounced the state monopoly. In Prussia, electric telegraphy was closed for private use in February 1849 and reopened in August of the same year. Stock markets, railroads, newspapers and news agencies ended the minor economic crisis. In the film business the crisis occurred shortly after 1900: the travelling film salesmen had fed curiosity. Selling film copies had led the market into stagnation. Cinema tents, put up at fairs, were left empty. The new film business model was hiring, not buying film copies. Now it became lucrative to build cinema palaces: the cinema enter- preneurs could change programmes much faster than before. The business model for radio seemed to be that the electronic industry subsidizes the radio programme. But the crisis of this model came very quickly. The new business model leading out of the crisis was either advertising or public fees. Compared with this, the ‘new market’ collapse in 2001 seems quite normal. With the exception of television, every new medium has

499

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

had its economic crisis. Television seems to be the exception to the rule, because the diffusion of television coincided with a phase of an extended economic boom after the end of the Second World War. And the crisis of new e-commerce will end when new business models for e-business are found. The reason for the crises’ regularity seems to be that every new medium has to find its proper business model. This is part of the ‘social institutionalization’. The problems are solved by trial and error, but when new economic models are found, the diffusion of the new medium has supervened its biggest barrier. Or to put it more negatively, no new medium (since Gutenberg) would have ever succeeded without having offered an opportunity for making money. The economic cycle bears the most obvious similarity to evolutionary theory. Economic markets can be compared with habitats. In evolutionary theory, there are two possibilities: one is the ‘survival of the fittest’; the other is segregation or emigration. Within species or within the group of food-competitors the creatures best adapted have the greatest chance of survival. We can compare them with highly competitive media. The losers can give in or embark on new innovation so they may be better adapted to a new economic market in the future. In both fields, in bio-evolution and in media evolution, creation of diversity is due to competition. Innovation is like virtual segregation, but real-life segregation is very common, too. Creatures might migrate to find better living conditions or may be segregated by the sea or by a barrier of mountains; media concepts can emigrate towards other countries (and markets). This feature was usual from the 15th to the 21st century. The export and import of new radio, television or magazine formats may serve as an example here. Last but not least, we have to correct a cliche:´ the stereotype of the inventor who is ‘unfit for business’. Of course, some inventors were not able to earn money; for example, Philipp Reis (telephone) or Paul Nipkow (television). Others did not earn much, but they were fit enough for media entrepreneurship: for example, Gutenberg, the Skladanowsky brothers (film) or Konrad Zuse (computer). And some were business geniuses; for example, Samuel Morse, Alexander G. Bell, Thomas A. Edison, or Bill Gates – a minor inventor, but great businessman. As mentioned earlier, the invention of new media had to resolve some deficits of the old. Writing developed slowly and was not very exact. ‘Transportation’ of news by mail was slow and expensive, too. Optical telegraphy was much faster but was still expensive. Its capacity was poor. Therefore, it was not available to the general public anywhere

500

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

except Sweden. Electric telegraphy solved this problem. But it still relied on an expensive and fixed infrastructure. The infrastructure in the vast colonies and countries was too expensive; the use of wired telegraphy for naval communication was impossible. Wireless telegraphy solved both problems: one could use it on ships and for communication with people in the middle of nowhere. But it was impractical for communication with soldiers in the World War’s trenches or with aeroplanes: here telephony by wire or by air was much better. The invention of every new medium always combined earlier inventions. Every revolutionary invention only happened under fortuitous circumstances. For example, Gutenberg: his invention is very important because he started a new cultural technology and also invented the first pattern of industrial mass production. But the fact that he became one of the most important inventors of all time derives from a combination of circumstances: first, he lived in a culture with an alphabetical system. The Phoenicians had laid the basis of its invention in 800 BC. Therefore, the Chinese had no chance of inventing printing with removable letters although they invented something very similar. Second, Gutenberg was a goldsmith. Therefore, he was used to metallurgy and the technological basics he needed. Third, Gutenberg lived in the Rhine valley where pressing wine was very familiar to everyone. As his press derived from a wine press, he had no need to invent this tool, too. Fourth, he lived in Mainz, a rich trading city; there he could borrow a large amount of money. Fifth and last, Mainz lies in the centre of Europe and, thus, the invention could spread quickly. Film technology combined physical science, camera and projection technology and the invention of celluloid. But film had no chance without the invention of the electrical light bulb and without the installation of an electrical infrastructure. Radio required electrical installations, too. Without amplifier tubes and loudspeakers it did not work. Television was much the same: it started as a combination of radio receiver technology with the cathode ray tube. So every new medium combined earlier inventions. The purpose of placing these discussions of technical details at the end of this article was to demonstrate that there is no technical a priori. As shown, technical inventions always are based on earlier ones that have always been ‘institutionalized’ by society (see Figure 9). So it is impossible to separate the technical developments from political, social, economic and cultural aspects. All fulfil their part in creating new media.

501

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

new technology: isolated prototype solutions

new technologies old technology insufficient/ combined working at its limit

new technology as a new system entity

Figure 9 The technology cycle of media evolution

Conclusion

What is media theory good for in media history? Theories would be overestimated if they were recognized as exact ‘ex posterior predictions’ of what has been going on. The combination of evolution and innovation theory neither provides us with exact dates nor gives us ‘scientific laws’ for the process of diversification of media. The innovation theory does not produce exact phases; it merely produces a more or less correct description of media history. Invention, innovation and diffusions are categories in a Weberian style: they are ‘ideal types’. Max Weber introduced ‘ideal types’ not as exact descriptions of reality. Instead, he was convinced that ‘ideal types’ do not occur in reality; ‘ideal types’ were used by him as an instrument in research (Weber, 1988: 104). In Weber’s sense ‘ideal types’ help to structure the process of media evolution. Evolution theory is not an exact blueprint, either. There are significant differences between the evolution of life and cultural evolution. First, as Ernst Mayr (2001) suggested, reproduction is the hard criterion of difference between species. Only individuals who are able to have sexual intercourse and reproduce fertile offspring belong to the same species. Genes are the replicants of this process. Media evolution lacks a comparable hard criterion. Second, bio-evolution is a stochastic process. Modern science refuses the Lamarckian interpretation that individuals could pass on acquired attributes. But in media evolution this is quite normal.

502

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

On the other hand, both processes of evolution sometimes go on faster, sometimes with reduced speed and sometimes they seem to stop completely. Bio- and media evolution are historical processes: historical processes cannot be foreseen, however clear they may seem to be in retrospect. Evolution theory opens the view for accidental momentums of media evolution. It prevents us from looking for a rational ex post explanation of media evolution, as we probably would do if we used Schumpeter’s theory alone. Both evolutions have produced a great diversity of species and media. Endogenous and exogenous factors have had their impact on diversiﬁcation. Here and there new functions emerge

Invention’s ﬁrst Innovation, the function: second function: improvements on the emergence of new old medium media Printing Improvement on Development of serial writing (and quasi-serial) press Electrical Improvement on News agencies, telegraphy optical telegraphy for railroad coordination, political and military stock market purposes information Telephony Improvement on One-to-one medium telegraphy for business and private purposes Film Vaudeville and variety Programme medium amusement with newsreels and movies Wireless Improvement on wire- Broadcasting with telegraphy/ based telegraphy entertainment and radio information programmes Television Improvement on Broadcasting telephony combined with ﬁlm Computing/ Improvement on Multipurpose devices multimedia arithmetic

Figure 10 Improvements on the old and emergence of new media

503

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 E U R O P E A N J O U R N A L O F C O M M U N I C A T I O N 1 9 ( 4 )

from older ones. Evolution theory stresses the importance of emergent phenomena. And in both cases, evolution changes its environment: species change their habitats and media change society. Media are ‘agents of change’ (Eisenstein, 1979). But the most significant parallel of all seems to be the two-stage functional change that takes place. At first, various people made a smaller or greater number of inventions or discoveries. After that, society discovered that the new technology was not only an improvement of an old medium, but could be used for new purposes and forms of communication (see Figure 10). In conclusion, it remains to be stated that this proposed theory remains open for further research and is by no means intended to be the definitive approach to this subject matter. But I am convinced that the combination of Schumpeter’s theory and evolution theory offers a framework for the interpretation of the emergence of new media.

Acknowledgement I am grateful to Kenneth Wynne who revised the language in this article.

References Aurifaber, Johannes (1566) Tischreden oder Colloqvia Doct. Mart. Luthers, so er in vielen Jaren gegen gelarten Leuten, auch frembden Gesten, und seinen Tischgesellen gefuret:¨ nach den Heubtstucken¨ unserer christlichen Lere zusammen getragen. Eisleben: Gaubisch. Briggs, Asa and Peter Burke (2002) A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Bush, Vannevar (1945) ‘As We May Think’, Atlantic Monthly 176(1): 101–8. Coe, Lewis (1995) The Telephone and its Several Inventors. Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland. Darwin, Charles (1872 [1859]) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 6th edn. New York: D. Appleton. Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selﬁsh Gene. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Du Boff, Richard B. (1989) ‘Telegraphy’, pp. 208–212 in E. Barnouw and T.L. Worth (eds) International Encyclopedia of Communications. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eisenstein, Elisabeth L. (1979) The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Esch, Arnold (1985) ‘Uberlieferungschance¨ und Uberlieferungszufall¨ als method- isches Problem des Historikers’, Historische Zeitschrift 240: 529–70.

504

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010 S T Ö B E R : W H A T M E D I A E V O L U T I O N I S

Giesecke, Michael (1998) Der Buchdruck in der fruhen¨ Neuzeit. Eine historische Fallstudie uber¨ die Durchsetzung neuer Informations- und Kommunikation- stechnologien. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Gould, Stephen J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Greenberger, Martin (1964) ‘The Computers of Tomorrow’, Atlantic Monthly 213(5): 63–7. Hanebutt-Benz, Eva (2000) Gutenberg. aventur und kunst. vom Geheimunternehmen zur ersten Medienrevolution. Katalog zur Ausstellung der Stadt Mainz anlasslich¨ des 600. Geburtstages von Johannes Gutenberg 14 April–3 Oktober 2000. Mainz: Stadt Mainz. Mayr, Ernst (2001) What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books. Petzold, Hartmut (1998) ‘Die Muhlen¨ des Patentamts’, pp. 63–108 in R. Rojas (ed.) Die Rechenmaschinen von Konrad Zuse. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Reis, Johann Philipp (1859/60) ‘Uber¨ Telephonie durch den galvanischen Strom’, Jahresberichte des physikalischen Vereins zu Frankfurt a. M.: 57–64. Roberts, Nancy L., Michael Emery and Edwin Emery (2000) The Press and America: An Interpretative History of the Mass Media, 9th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education. Rogers, Everett M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The Free Press. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1997) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung uber¨ Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunk- turzyklus, 9th edn. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. Stober¨ , Rudolf (2003) Mediengeschichte. Die Evolution ‘neuer’ Medien von Gutenberg bis Gates. Eine Einfuhrung¨ , 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Weber, Max (1988) Gesammelte politische Schriften, 5th edn. Tubingen:¨ J.C.B. Mohr. Wilke, Jur¨ gen (2000) Grundzuge¨ der Mediengeschichte. Von den Anfangen¨ bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Weimar: Bohlau.¨ Winston, Brian (1998) Media, Technology and Society: A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet. London and New York: Routledge.

505

Downloaded from http://ejc.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 27, 2010