Rachel Wieringa

The Cost of Multimedia

In the four articles I had read, I found that “multimedia” only ever gets defined in terms of products and/or software. Although never actually defining the word, it seems as though the authors of each article were writing under the assumption that the reader would understand and be able to picture what multimedia entailed. The 1990s was an exciting time for new technology development — MP3s were introduced and video gaming took on even greater ambitions and strides — and corporations and businesses sought to take advantage of these new forms of multimedia as best as they could, while also working to maintain control over such rapidly expanding forms of media. Multimedia was used more as a blanket term, usually to introduce a new kind of technology or media, with the promise of more interaction and engagement than what was previously available to the public.

Depending on the writer’s profile, there was mixed anxiety and excitement about how expansive and pervasive multimedia was becoming in each article. Although they generally agreed that multimedias were more engaging than they had ever been before, the pertinent question was: at what cost? For example, Kessler gave the general sense that this engagement and increased interaction due to multimedias would lead to multi-billion dollar companies taking advantage of the viewer’s (or, more accurately, the user’s) attention and using it for “subtle and even not so subtle” advertising — something that has indeed been happening and continues to happen at increasingly pervasive levels today (140). In addition, Kessler’s article makes use of word choices such as “couch stupor” and “sweaty-palm game developers,” suggesting a submissive and unaware type of consumer — and even developer — obsessed with these new kinds of engaging technologies that more effectively con the consumer into absorbing advertising (140).

In contrast to Kessler’s 1993 article, Spiwak’s coverage on the MP3 file six years later is riddled with excitement. The very presence of this article under the section “Multimedia Watch” implies that there was an overabundance of multimedia being released during the time that needed to be explained and displayed to the public. Although Spiwak addresses the concerns of what the MP3 file format could do to both the music industry and the general public, he takes a hopeful and realistic stance to the issues raised: “I see no way of stopping it, because it started on its own” (5). Despite the multi-billion dollar companies that sought to control or use multimedia for their own commercial benefit (as was what Kessler had anticipated), Spiwak, who is speaking six years in the future, recognized that there was no way of stopping or controlling some forces or aspects of multimedia. Even the major record companies who were most directly and negatively effected by the MP3 file format had to learn to adapt to this new form of multimedia and all other forms that were created in response, like MP3 players or websites who handed out MP3 files for free (5). Although corporations would constantly be after how to best profit from our attention in more engaging forms of multimedia, it was (and is) possibly the multimedia itself that has the most control — over both the developer and the consumer.

Works Consulted

Kessler, Andrew J. “In Your Face.” Forbes 27 Sept. 1993: 140. Print.

Ozer, Jan. “Entertainment Will Be Virtual.” PC Magazine 22 June 1999: 136. Print.

Roush, Chris. “ESPN wants to reinvent the coach potato.” Business Week 23 May 		1994: 88. Print.

Spiwak, Mark. “Portable MP3 Music, Canon Peripherals, and More.” Popular Electronics 	May 1999: 5-14. Print.