High definition set top boxes, mobile TV, digital radio – all contenders for the future of media, right? Well, not exactly. It can be tempting to assume if something is digital it must be good. But there is a more subtle pattern at play. If you want to understand how traditional media is being disrupted – the key is not technology but audience behaviour.

South Korea is about as close to tech nirvana as it gets. Step on a subway, and you will see commuters mesmerised by tiny television tuners embedded in their mobile phones. The number of mobile TV users in Korea has reached 10 million in just two and half years. But as they and other mobile TV markets are discovering - there is trouble in paradise. Despite the hype of digital broadcast - no one is actually making money. Advertising on handheld devices in Korea accounts for a mere 0.2% of broadcast media advertising.

It’s becoming a familiar paradox. Around the world, governments and big companies are sinking billions to build new digital broadcast infrastructure. They are hoping that the lure of higher resolution, better sound and more channels will cover the costs of implementation and provide a bridge to the future of radio and television. But the funny thing is - innovation is already happening. Just not on broadcast.

There is a critical and frequently overlooked difference between broadcast transmission, and content delivered by the Internet. Broadcast is about beaming content to a particular audience at a particular point of time. On the Internet, content is broken into lots of small pieces, stored in the cloud and reassembled when people actually request it. True – at present it is less reliable and lower in resolution than digital broadcast - but it is also infinitely more flexible and adaptable.

Think about it. In February this year, ComScore reported that American audiences watched ten billion videos on the Internet. That is a huge number, but even more tellingly most of that consumption didn’t occur on websites controlled by TV networks but rather on YouTube. Community is a big part of the YouTube experience. Audiences can not only watch online video when they want - they can break it up, share it, embed it, blog about it or even remix it into new forms. Digital broadcasting might look prettier than its analogue predecessor – but the audience experience is fundamentally the same as it always was.

I like to think of the difference between broadcast and the Internet using the analogy of a pipe and a straw. You can pump a hell of lot of volume through a pipe, but its not particularly flexible. A pipe is fixed, pointing in one direction, and only has two settings – on or off. Now a straw, on the other hand, won’t let you draw down as much volume, but you do have one big advantage. You can take a sip whenever you like.

Broadcast is not going to die anytime soon. For a start, it’s a very efficient way to distribute content when combined with clever recording devices. If you own a digital video recorder at home, you will know what I mean. Mobile may soon experience a similar time-shifting renaissance. One of the reasons that Japan’s mobile TV service based on ‘1-Seg’ technology has been popular is because broadcasts are DRM free. Consumers can choose a TV show from an electronic program guide and record the show onto a memory card in their phone to watch later.

Time-shifting is a neat trick, but it doesn’t solve the tougher dilemma facing audiences – deciding what to watch or listen to. In a world of infinite content choices, the real issue is discovery. And that is better achieved on the web. Broadcast networks are programmed by professionals, but content on the Internet is organised by audiences themselves. Today’s teenagers don’t discover content on radio, they use social networks like Myspace, imeem, Facebook or MOG. Applications like Last.FM or iLike learn from the music you listen to and recommend other songs you might like based on other users. Buy TV shows on iTunes, and you can see other content that people with similar tastes to you have selected.

That’s the power of audience networks.

If you a major media company today, digital broadcasting may look like the obvious next step. But actually, you would be better off focusing on the more disruptive technology of web distribution. Broadcasters have done a pretty good job of using the web as promotion for their core assets. Now the real job is to turn it into a platform in its own right. In the last twelve months, the US TV networks have taken action – making some of their prime time schedule available as a free web stream the next day after broadcast. It’s a start, but not enough.

It’s inevitable that all the world’s entertainment will be available free on the web. Most of that content is already there – uploaded by audiences themselves – it’s just not particularly well organised. That will change. And traditional broadcasters need to quickly figure out whether they are going to be the ones to do it.

The magazine lists the book as one of the top "2008 Design Masterpieces". The article has some great quotes from my art director on the project, Vince Frost.

From the article - Will good design ultimately concede to digital books? Art director Vince Frost thinks so: 'The book has been replaced already. A book is an old-fashioned form of communication. We are all writers and publishers. We make our own content and share it with the world with ease. It's a break-down of traditional monopolies that have controlled monopolies that have controlled our literary diet for too long.' Fitting, Frost has art directed a new book called Futuretainment, which is about the amazing things that have happened and are happening in the digital world. Published by Phaidon, you will note that it is, in fact, a book.

I don't think its any accident that social services like Twitter have lately experienced a rapid increase in adoption. Along with email, Instant Messaging was right there at the very beginning of the Web. But now, IM no longer exists in a vacuum. It's integrated in wide variety of other communications ecosystems including mobile text, social networking, blogging, status updates and feed aggregators. For me, Twitter was a toy on launch. Now that I'm addicted to Friendfeed, its utility has increased ten fold.

That's something to keep in mind as China's own IM boom continues to escalate. The China Web2.0 Review blog has posted some great stats on the phenomenon. QQ accounts for about 78% market share among totally 390 million active IM accounts in China. MSN Live Messenger has about 19 million active users, accounting for 4.9% market shared, followed by Sina UC (4.1%) and Fetion (3.7%). QQ have been very agile in using their dominance to introduce a wide variety of other integrated products. But well funded competitors are now in close pursuit, including China Mobile's Fetion service which facilitates free texting between PCs and mobiles, and Baidu's Hi platform. Two weeks after launch Baidu already claims that over 1 million people have tried their new IM service.