Armed fundamentalists are dangerous. With a view of the future firmly locked in the past they march onward, crusading against all who may believe in a different world. Today we have some new fundamentalists who are well armed, yesterday Leo Hindery spoke for them.
Some years ago, more than a few centuries, fundamentalists ran England and a few groups (Quakers, Puritans, etc.) left the country to come to the US. They were not free to have open discourse about their religions in the King's England. So they set off to the New World and founded America. They set up a series of rules to make sure that this big huge country could let people live freely. Over the years, there have been movements - both foreign and domestic - to curtail these freedoms.
Among these is the freedom of movement. The Internet is the "information superhighway". It's how business and individuals get around. We pay for access to it as it is - it is a toll road. We paid for the construction of it with out tax dollars and we pay ISPs monthly for service that, on a global scale, is substandard.
Hindery's speech is quite a service for all, actually. In it he shows a particular slide which pits "portals" against "content providers". In other words, it pits self organization against centralized organizations. It shows quite clearly how the traditional media outlets misunderstand the Internet and the real profit potential it provides them.
Broadcast media has solved a 20th century distribution problem. It whacked that nail good. Now it sees the Internet as another nail to strike at with that same hammer.
But the Internet isn't a nail, it's a vine. And if they whack it with that hammer, it will die. But if they take that hammer and build a trellis, they will have a plant that makes money hand over fist.
So I was having a chat with my friend Ken yesterday about Net Neutrality and he said that the argument, in essence, had become shrill and no one was willing to discuss ways to solve things.
So I'll start here with some media assumptions and see if I can come up with better ways for media to make money.
Assumption: Content is created by media
Inside this assumption is a secondary assumption, that the net steals that media. This simply doesn't hold water. DVRs should be much more threatening to cable / big media than the Internet. I'm creating content right now. Today it will be read by thousands of people. (Hi!) I am not alone. Many people I know will create content this day. It will be text, audio, video and all points in between.
The view that Media creates all content is important. It's their business model. That business model is in the fat side of the long tail. The strength of the Internet is the skinny side of the long tail. Media may be the base of the tail (which is also important), but the actual length (and a vast majority of mass) of the tail is all people like me.
The rest of the tail cannot exist without the base, but the base has no majesty without the beauty of the tail's length.
Media and the ISPs would be much better served looking at how people are entertaining themselves and then supporting those activities. This empowers and enlivens your users (what you call eyeballs) and gets them to use your service more. Sometimes this may be in relation to your other products, other times not. But it's your brand that gets out there, it's your banner ads that get viewed.
Assumption: Use is Theft
Here's a funny one. Media views use as theft. This is because their profits depend on a direct relationship between exposure and income. If you are exposed to their product, you should pay for it - or at least someone should. But Media has dug its own hole here. Here's a secret the Media doesn't know yet:
People consider TV and Radio to be free.
Since we don't see that our box of corn flakes is inflated by 30 cents a box because of television advertising, we mistake that cost as a cost for Corn Flakes as opposed to a cost for television. The government has this same problem with roads. Since people drive on them for free - they think they are free.
So, since people consider TV to be free, it is inconceivable that we would have to pay for it on-line. Cable doesn't count because we really aren't paying for a particular show, we are paying for a communications pipe.
So, Media, you have 50 years of history in the systematic devaluation of your own product.
The good news is, you also have a proven history of finding indirect ways to subsidize your content creation.
Right now, on YouTube, some of the most popular short films are in fact ads for things. Do the corporations get upset about this? No way, it's free distribution of advertising. You can do the same. Make use an extension of your advertising power. Do more product placement and maybe release downloadable versions of your content with an ad bar or something.
Then track the downloads - yes some may be indirect but it's not like the Neilsen's were ever very accurate - and then say to advertisers "50 Million people downloaded 'Everybody Loves Raymond' last month." It doesn't matter who controls the pipe then. The desire is content distribution - not channel control.
After that Use is no longer theft, it's direct money. Use is Life. Users are empowered. Everyone wins.
And distribution is forever. You'd still be making bank off I Dream of Jeanie.
Closing
That's my two points for today. I'll add more in future days.
Photo: Brian Ward
Technorati Tags: nbc, cbs, abc, aol, google, microsoft, net neutrality, mainstream media, leo hindery
Comments