The (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media

Viacom's suit of Google-You Tube is making media's long term challenges very clear

 For readers who do not realize, this is my second blog. The other other blog I write, The Root Trend is about big picture social trending issues that matter to marketers and business owners. Yes, that is a very broad subject area. It uses a specific model to see social trends that originates with the general idea called social mood. This blog  (iroM) is intended to be an extension of that view and a discussion about how three specific trending forces are impacting the business of media right now. Social mood, generational issues, and what I call the era of Choice are each worthy of separate discussion but can be viewed together to see where media is headed as a business (where we are taking our media tools).  Each of these three exerts a different pull on the business of selling content but together they offer a strong directional argument for how the business model for media enterprises must now change in order to better serve their markets. And while I have not shared that specific vision yet, I will in some format soon.  In the meantime there is plenty of connected issues to look at from this same perspective.

Oftentimes, I begin looking at current (social) trending dynamics over at the Root Trend blog and later it'll migrate here. That is how this blog came to be in the first place. This blog was first inspired by this lawsuit 3 1/2 years ago though it took 2 more years to develop into its own blog.  For instance, right now the latest post over at The Root Trend is about how shared values toward privacy issues change (over time) and how they are expressed as different trends depending upon from where you are viewing it. 

From the perspective of a media company, the issues surrounding intellectual property rights (IP) are being shouted about right now and for the past 3 1/2 years. IP rights are  being argued as if  they = expressions towards privacy in the world of enterprises. There's no better example of this pomp than Viacom's suit of Google/You Tube for $1 billion dollars. Viacom is not able to police their own products, does not want to pay to do it,  and in keeping with decades of media's protected market status, they are suing someone else to do it for them. Now, that last sentence contains a pretty strong opinion...no doubt. When you take the time to see where we (society) are taking media broadly and according to the large trending forces (read as "shared values), you cannot help see the falseness of Viacom's position while knowing they'll never admit that much. They can't. No matter how this turns out they'll lose money because the old media business model is falling further and further behind. Why? Because it is not serving the larger, changing social need these days....because shared values have changed (are changing) with the adoption of digital technology. The technology did not change us. We changed as we realized that more is possible from our media tools and there is no going back. The FCC and other large barriers to entry into the business of selling content that previously existed, have now disappeared. The flood of competition was inevitable. The sharing that exists as a result is part of the emerging social norm. In the years ahead many cases surrounding this core issue will be decided in courts incrementally but right now it has already changed the business of selling content. The unspoken truth is that no one realizes how to do it differently. The best businesses surf the unfolding social trend....and do not fight it.

In a article last night in the FT, Viacom and Google's lawyers exchange jabs in initial arguments, only now in a 3 1/2 year old suit. 'You Tube is an obvious attempt to circumvent copyright infringement laws and Google should be responsible as if they are a media company'. And, in order to prove the position, Viacom has been seen uploading protected materials to the You Tube site and them complaining about the material being there. First, get the free promotion, then a slap em with a suit "as if". It's the American way!

The fact that this last statement was alleged in the FT, a paper usually beyond reproach, I submit that millions of our own tax dollars are being wasted by a company gaming our own system instead of doing the work they should be doing...or paying another competent company to do it for them.

Google is a behemoth. It is a giant that is almost an oligopoly. They deserve to be watched closely. They also deserve considerable praise for delivering us Choice even if it is disruptive. The age of broadcast began dying with Google. I suspect it is hard not to blame them as if they are responsible but trends are not caused by technology.....social momentum is required for trends to happen and history shows us clearly how technology has often existed for decades before being adopted and used. The industrial revolution in the US was just such a trend. It took the rift between large generations to expose this overdue need for change then, and now again....and these times are exactly when history shows us some pretty damn huge examples of social change!

The most obvious lessons of the new industrial revolution are simple and straight forward. They are also remarkably similar to what we learned last time: 

1. Recognize the fact that we have all changed for the better;it's not a fad.(How we values things changes as social mood changes and different time horizons matter a great deal when using this view)

2. Understand that generational rifts are where the largest changes happen to social contracts. The generational perspective is essential to understanding how to prioritize social developments but is always secondary to social mood.

3.  Specialize your function to gain competitive advantage. Competitive markets require more specialized focus, not broader. Vertical integration and exclusionary software strategies will be socially rejected as a business strategy unless it is demonstrated to add value not available elsewhere for market participants.

The FT article link above is worth reading.

NYT story 2 24 10 re Italy's bureaucratic courts on Google:  Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case (in Italy) NYT  (read the entire article because every time this story is told it is like hearing two different movies)

For further reading @ The Root Trend: What is social mood?

Social trends reflect the polarity of shared values

More on the link between social mood and consumer behavior: the most basic social expressions

Revolution or Evolution of Our Media Tools?

A question I see often is, what is the difference between the evolution of media and the industrial revolution of media? There are a few ways to answer that and each are relevant to seeing 'right now' as it is.

For instance: In 1789 the Bill of Rights was drafted and adopted in 1791. That's the document that gives us the first amendment to the Constitution and a "free press". 143-145 years later in 1934, the FCC was created to lord over the airwaves in the US and regulate the scarce public resource for the good of The People. 55 years later we witnessed the birth of the world wide web in 1989.  Several years after that the name Yahoo entered our consciousness as we bought shares in the future of Search (1996). During the first 13 years of search we witnessed many new wrinkles and conflicts in the markets for information and content.

From this broadest of perspectives, we see the evolution of media as a primary social tool in our society as it has become increasingly important in our daily lives to both individuals and as a nation. The shorter spans between critical changes suggest dramatic transformation is possible right now. The main thing holding media back, right now, is the business structure wrapped around this most important social tool(s).

Anyone who has read of evolution is familiar with how long periods of stability are often punctuated by rapid periods of transformation.The same is often true in significant social trending processes too.

The industrial revolution that occurred after the US Civil war was a dramatic social trending process. It was based on the mass social adoption of technology that had been conceived many decades earlier. The key development was the social momentum that swept our society. This all happened during a time of social expansion and that characterized and fed how the trend unfolded in the US (and other parts of the world too).

The industrial revolution of media has begun but the critical growth part of the trending process has yet to begin. When it does it will occur during a period of social correction and that is an important dynamic to consider. The social momentum that brought about the adoption of technology and processes to use these tools effectively is exactly what is happening right now to our media infrastructure. Our use of content has, and continues to change. Digital social technologies are helping to more clearly define what really matters. Enterprises will soon make major changes to better reflect the changing shared values relative to content use.

Both the similarities and critical differences between this time and last time are a great vantage point from which to view this approaching growth phase of the media trend. Differing time horizons are a critical part of seeing right now properly.  I am excited to be living in such a time even if it means creative destruction of key aspects of the existing tools need happen in order to move towards what really matters. And since all macro social trends develop slowly, outside of the daily hustle and bustle of quarterly earnings, we will not wake one morning to a new media universe. The point of our evolution of media is to make us all better at being individuals within the productive groups we associate with in our lives. Media is not some monolithic institution outside of ourselves. It is us. It is a clear reflection of who we are as Americans. And while many of the enterprises we build cross societal boundaries, the emphasis must be about Americans exercising their freedom as granted in our founding agreement to empower ourselves to a brighter future. Entertainment fits neatly into this macro discussion but the tools we use to share ideas and information are a critical part of being a productive, free people.

So, we see media evolution continuing on as it has for 234 years as a republic. And at the same time, we see a brand new revolution occurring around one of our most basic freedoms as Americans. It goes well beyond profits, even if the result will be more profitable enterprises in the not too distant future. What really matters? That is exactly what will drive the next phase of the media trending process.

As social mood changes what people pay attention to changes and that how's to figure out what really matters.

 

Will the iPad unintentionally pierce the cable TV bubble?

A few months back in November I wrote a post titled The Cable Bubble Through the lens of Media's Dominant Trend

Back then the new iPad had not been announced and the notion of Price had been, as always, a tightly controlled feature of modern TV programming unexposed to the chaotic forces of a truly free market.  The value proposition offered by cable TV in the 1970's and 80's was simple. Free TV, plus programming not available otherwise, and the best picture possible, all the time. A small fee for such a service seemed reasonable in an age when chimneys were all adorned with TV antennas in need of frequent attention. We witnessed the birth of "premium channels" and in lieu of going to the movies (as often) we began recycling movies using this secondary distribution platform that was immediately in tune with a generation willing to relive the past over and over.  Cable companies had a virtual monopoly for a long time and even with the advent of satellite TV, the critical urban markets were in little danger of fragmentation.

The notion of "ala-carte" pricing of cable TV packages has never been seriously considered because managers know well that revenue would probably decline if people got to Choose. Lacking competition, the idea has been dismissed over and over.

Enter the iPad which may as well be called the "iPay". Cable companies get $5 a month for an addressable box that offers a universe of on-demand choices. Apple somehow generated a tsunami of promotion over a $400 box that allows you to pay for content on the go. They deserve an award for two reasons: First, they are being congratulated for creating a portable cable set top box-Kindle and got incredible amounts of free promotion for the launch as if was an innovation that would change our lives. Second, they may well have pierced the cable bubble's hold on pricing of content experienced previously by the record labels, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and broadcast TV. In lieu of this development, ala carte pricing cannot be far off for consumers of TV content in the Era of Choice and the popping of the cable bubble may not be such a long wait because the cable itself may become an antique soon in urban areas. 

I've read some thought provoking ideas on this new market dynamic recently and from this perspective, the main ingredient of what I call the industrial revolution of media is the removal of barriers to competition that all media are experiencing in this digital age. Cable company's stranglehold on consumers in terms of pricing power has been exerted despite dramatic waves of technology enabled deflation in other segments of the media industry. Up till now cable execs on both the distribution side and production side have felt confident of their control on the market and yet, in the blink of an eye, Choice is being introduced to the market for content otherwise limited to cable TV.

I've admittedly been surprised initially at how much Apple seems willing to charge for TV shows in iPad. It feels a little outrageous but the dutch auction has only just begun and will play out over multiple business cycles where the market will bear out the true costs of delivering programming (with and without advertising) to desired markets. Moreover, the app market that has grown strong with Apple's iPhone is likely to expand, eventually, into multi-platform coding that forces competition even upon Apple's iTunes. This may not be the case right now but this is the direction of competition out on the digital frontier.(open source is a giant force that will not go away)

The era of Choice is media's dominant trend in the US right now. The second key trend to monitor is how generational dynamics are rolling over and how that will dictate changing values in all areas of American life. Finally, there is the idea of social mood, (a very macro social dynamic) that expresses itself amongst us and each of these three dynamics will shape the ongoing evolution of media in the US because it is a primary social tool to all Americans.

The next shoe to drop in the revolutionary phase of this evolution is the Cable bubble. Like most bubbles, it developed so large that it became the new reality. In a few years time it will be like those scary styles of the 70's and 80's. True market bubbles unwind faster than they grow. This may be best described as a damn being removed from the river of competition to sell video content to consumers.  Viacom's suit of Google's You Tube was the tip off that this development was overdue. Besides a virtual pricing monopoly for content in the market for cable TV, there is also the trend related to IP (intellectual property). Eventually this trend will be viewed from a very different perspective too and when that happens, the real revolution will have begun. For right now, however, I place my bet on how Google (and other search competitors) will be the surprise players in the leveling of the pricing field for video content. Free markets create change through Choice and that bestows benefits to the markets (people) they serve. Barriers to entry, like government sponsored monopoly, regulatory indifference to vertical consolidation, and patentable software do the exact opposite.   

Senator Franken comes out swinging against Comcast NBC deal (another worthy read in this area)

Tablet PC's, fences, and information ownership as seen through the generational divide

The PR buzz created around today's launch of a tablet PC device is astonishing and a testament to a marketing machine that is currently setting the standard. I've read no fewer than a dozen posts on it in the past few days and avoided three times as many on reputable sites.

It makes me think back to the larger trend thread in the media universe that began (for me) with Google's You Tube v. Viacom...a billion dollar lawsuit because Viacom is not capable of protecting their own content in this new age of technology. So much has happened since this suit began 3 1/2 years ago. It seems like it will die from old age and irrelevance before any real attempt is made to acknowledge that the issue is not framed correctly.

Of the content I did read about Apple's new tablet PC is how it may save old media by creating a new channel for content. Another new channel !?  It may be wrapped up prettier and more convenient than others but it will fail later (if not sooner) if it leverages itself on the incremental revenue from this new channel for content. Why?

Distribution Channels Continue to Multiply But Are They The Ultimate Answer?

The defining characteristic of the past decade in the media business has been expanding Choices of distribution channels for content. 

In today's NYT an article stating how Microsoft's Xbox will offer streaming content through its existing system and how it intends to compete with other providers, namely, cable.  Disney is mentioned as part of the discussion. (It's a quick read)

In the past I have saved articles like these for the trend thread as if they could be significant developing alternative channels of distribution (even if not immediately). In the coming months and years efforts like this have great potential to serve the Era of Choice since pay TV is increasingly shifting the burden of slowing ad sales to consumers....while still running long commercial stop sets anyway. I see no mention of this dynamic anywhere in the consumer realm.

The NYT wants and needs a pay model but ads continue as an important a part of their culture now as ever.

Cable companies want more and more money for the most basic TV but commercial breaks are as long as they've ever been on prime time shows.

The Era of Choice is being ignored whenever convenient to do so.  Is it possible that the lessons of the record labels are pertinent as to why this is dangerous? This position is less my opinion and more an observation that reflects the single minded determination to do business one way; the old way.

Silent customers do not mean happy customers. An Xbox distribution platform is a long shot outlier right now but, if and when present dynamics change in the market for content, it may move up to "definitely worth the effort". Indeed, if it serves Choice it is already is worth the effort.

Is it unrealistic that many content distributors hopes remain pinned on a national recovery in disposable income that won't come for years**...and that will then only spur the changes demanded by Choice deeper into our behaviors as consumers?  Xbox is demographically skewed and therefore remains a limited threat.  It is not a far stretch to imagine downloading a movie to your smart phone on the way home at a good promotional price just for that night and pointing it at your home system to watch. How far away can that be?

The Era of Choice is media's dominant trend in the US and other places too. Cable's business model is rigid and inflexible in an economy where the supply and demand (for content) has shifted forever. So it is easy to see how distribution channels will continue evolving and in the short to medium term (2-5 years) and will be a dominant theme.

What are the other facets of the era of Choice?  Choice is a broad idea that reflects our shared values and will expand beyond new distribution models. Ultimately, the new two way street in the media universe is telling us that solutions can no longer be two-dimensional. The real obstacle preventing media's new business model is its existing business structure and the relative inflexibility that public ownership presents. I suppose if we are perpetually stuck looking back over our shoulder, then you can just heap blame for this on the gang from Wall Street for transforming media companies into stock owned entities(back in the late 90's)....yet again....hey, they are used to it by now.

I submit that it is all part of a larger social correction where we examine our allocations of our available social capital (and other kinds of capital) in many directions at the same time.  US media companies have become risk averse at a time when experimentation is demanded. Beyond this fact is a key question: Just how much of our national economy is leveraged toward selling content for profit and how beneficial is this allocation to our future? Yes, that's a deep question. Maybe a better question is this: In an era when barriers to entry no longer exist as they did in the past, can we rightfully expect content to be valued the same when there is five or six times as much available? And if your answer finds you quibbling about quality issues, isn't it up to the consumer to distinguish what is reasonable? 

The Era of Choice will not be denied; any part of it. It will, however, reveal other changing shared values that will go beyond who, what, where, and when. Two or three years after the tipping point in "social media", the drum beat from the market keeps throwing ever more ways to get content of all kinds from every conceivable source.

The key question is; what's missing? Is it really all about price?...the latest cool gadget? Limiting Choice (or availability) is the antithesis of the Choice trend. It seems like a very good time to revisit the 4P's.

**  15.6 million unemployed in December &  26.5 million underemployed in December...with these kinds of numbers how long will even a slowly recovering economy take to put the fundamentals back in good shape? Link here (the link suggests at least five years, if it doesn't get worse before it gets better)

The (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media in 2010

It was June 2007 when I first noted the trend I use as the name of this blog. That post over at my other blog began a category of posts and those led to this blog in August of 2008 and by that time I decided it would be a good idea for a book, never having tried to write a book before. The past year has been something of an internal wrestling match for control of this idea. What matters more? A description of a likely set of destinations for the business of media or a thorough discussion of the whys behind that reasoning. And while it is easy to suggest both are necessary, the amount of work and reading that would require from both of us may not be the best way for me to launch this project in book format. 

Since beginning this discussion I have offered a breadcrumb trail of important behavioral threads that make up the big picture of this subject -- Where are we (collectively) taking our media tools as a nation?

In the spirit of the New Year here is a list of the posts I think matter most from this past year along with the promise that I am on track to launch the first part of this project as a book later this spring. The initial effort will focus specifically on the business model for media enterprises and how it must change in detail. Each of these posts will be represented in the book and sewn into the big picture appropriately. Up to this point I have left it all somewhat disjointed because of the wild west (frontier-like) feel to the world of content these days. What is proper attribution for ideas to one person is completely missing in another. We live in unique times and on the edge of a huge wave of social change (that has not happened yet). From this perspective, this wild west dynamic is an inconvenience to be managed. The human capacity to share is muted by the human capacity to take. Both live in abundance on the web and are an important part of the social energy that will get us to where we are going with media.   

Where are we taking media and how will that change the business of media?  Here are the posts worth reviewing from 2009 and a promise that the first edition of the (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media will discuss why and how the business model will change in the years directly ahead of us. The business of content is both a good and important business and it can be made profitable if we are willing to change like the blacksmiths ultimately became mechanics and engineers (among other specialties). 

(listed in reverse chronological order) 

The Cable Bubble through the lens of media's dominant trend

The Search Business Offers an Important Lesson For American Media Companies

What Single Social Trend Matters Most to Media Enterprises (& Marketers) Today?

Getting Media Companies to adopt Better Metrics requires honest discussion (part 3)

What the Viacom-Google-You Tube suits are telling us (entering year three)

What characterizes the qualities of "partnership" during a social correction?

What does it mean when business models of venerable industries break down?

Happy New Year!

Rupert Murdoch's Op-Ed in his WSJ today was opportunistic and not terribly surprising based on his recent comments. He seems to be making a realistic case for his own set of challenges which are shared by many in the industry worldwide.

I have only one question for people to think about: Why do people everywhere insist the advertising business model for content is dead? It's not. It is as good an idea today as it was decades ago. The only thing that has changed is how efficient a business must be in order to be profitable.

The hidden challenge in the media business is that the empires that exist today suffer from the same social illness as the rest of America. Leverage.

The ad based business model is not going anywhere and among the many examples of why, Google may be the best. In fact, if you look closely at Ad Words, you can see a lot of reasons why it works so well.  Likewise, if you look at Coca Cola's success over the decades, it was not harmed when the bottlers became a business by itself. The US drinks as much soda as it does because the bottling industry is as good at what they do as Coca Cola is at making their products.

This AM's merger agreement for Comcast to take control of NBC Universal can be looked at from a few directions based on the news surrounding it. The FT, a great newspaper, has a story titled "Comcast's NBCU move is no joke". It's worth a quick read.

If you look back at my last post here and consider that broad view, my takeaway from the merger and what I read in the FT is fairly straight forward.(What follows are my own observations and did not come from the FT article in any way, though it was good reporting)

#1. Comcast just bought a bunch of programming we used to get first and for free on broadcast.....no doubt there...so, potentially, there will be even less on regular TV now. Some of the syndicated programming on cable will be migrated more to NBC and the first run new shows will likely migrate to cable as they justify the expenditures by limiting the free Choices. I see this as a potentially Big strategic mistake in a world with a digital universe and fewer barriers to entry.(Am I wrong about this? Let me know)

#2 Forcing viewers in what this article calls new "non-linear" choices into the old model of cable and on-demand is a recipe for new competition, not market control...though I am sure a few legislators have been recruited to help them slow change down. The article suggested that owning more long form content would be good for on-demand inventory but that should already be working if the economics were in balance. 

#3 To my eyes, Comcast is buying near a current top in order to diversify into programming when they should be specializing in distribution methods that are more friendly to Choice.

#5 The industry's overconfidence in existing revenue streams will be a mistake in the 5 year time-frame as pay TV turns out to be more discretionary than anyone imagines right now. Add competitors like Hulu and you can see the long term decline already if you squint just a little. (Simply buying these new competitors will not change the demand for the new channel.) 

The titans of media are right when they say quality content can't be completely free but forcing the solutions into unrealistic tired choices so that government regulation (or even approval) can be obtained is cheap and insincere at best. Business titans and legislators who think media distribution must be regulated are not working for the citizens they serve.  Back during the first industrial revolution (in the US) every part of our economy saw distinct specialization as people went from being highly self sufficient to more dependent upon interrelated systems for their needs. The very same thing is happening to media right now and this demands smaller parts that do what they do better than ever, not bigger, monolithic, vertically organized caretakers over our content Choices.

The FTC is holding hearings this week and the FCC is also involving themselves in matters that are best handled by private enterprise. The Bailout mentality lives but it is also wearing thin. How long before cable TV is considered a tax? We are inches from health care being a tax. The big banks had to be saved though doing that produced exactly what? (there's a lot to fight about on this point)  These political sounding issues are really echoes of the same dramatic social change being brought to us in the form of the industrial revolution of media. Fixing media won't fix banking (of course) but I submit to you that the media construct in the US is more important in order to keep us connected and aware now that we have grown to be such a large and complex society. Encouraging overt vertical concentration in these businesses is as dangerous (in different ways) as having five investment banks that each pose a systemic risk by themselves. Large closed systems do not produce a diversity of ideas and that will only add to social polarization. It is time to end legislatively supported consolidation of our media resources. That is the only way we will see the true innovation needed to revive a core component (freedom) of a mature nation.    The disruptive qualities of distribution over the internet is positive for consumers and only negative for companies that cannot figure out a different way to do it. Supporting even more media consolidation while attacking the search business is like telling the voters, 'we know what is better for you than you do'. There's just too much of that these days. Think about it...A lot.

The Cable Bubble through the lens of media's dominant trend

Charlie Rose interviewed a USA cable exec last night (11 23/09) about her part over the years in taking the network to its current success. Here's a link to CR's main site. She attributed USA's current success to its two streams of revenue as well as good people and management. Right now, this structural difference in cable companies is overwhelming the business model for broadcast TV.

I remember thinking to myself "wow, do they see the bridge out ahead?", and I immediately recanted (to myself) because even if they do see the change coming they probably would not acknowledge it. The hard truth about long term trends is that very few who are wrapped up in their development are ever willing to acknowledge dramatic change is coming in advance (unless it is good) no matter how many solid (fundamental) reasons are in your face demanding attention.

The success of cable TV's business model was touted this week in both the NYT and on this respected nightly show as being a result of their two revenue streams. Cable TV is crowing about its success because of revenue from selling advertising and also from revenue from cable systems paying for the programming (and that money comes from your monthly payments).

That cable networks are counting this revenue from cable systems as a given is a likely sign of reliance on a trend that, remarkably, stands alone as unaffected by the larger changes in the media universe. If you can remember the late 70's you can remember the first cable boxes being offered into homes at very reasonable prices with free HBO. Collectively we bit and the hook for endlessly higher monthly payments was set firmly. Free TV was made to be a joke over the next couple of decades (as Choice was seemingly teased in our faces) and the utility-like nature of cable became established.  If you can remember that you also remember ATM's introduction into the mainstream with free use and no mentions of transaction fees for years.  Rather than have this sound like a bitch session about fees, it is the opposite. Both of these new technology oriented services offered great utility in our lives and we collectively adopted them and made them a part of our everyday lives.

So why am I now suggesting the opposite will soon develop for cable TV?

The Era of Choice is Media's Dominant Trend - even News Corp can't stop it

An article in the FT this AM indicates News Corp's Rupert Murdoch will sue the BBC. The story indicates he thinks it won't go so far as court,

“They know the law. They will adapt.”

Like all media companies that sell their content using a combination of advertising and consumer revenues he bemoans the difficult competition these days for revenue in a consumer market that has seen traditional distribution channels become secondary.  He acknowledges change in how audiences are aggregated but he also blames most profit oriented woes upon what he calls product theft.

When you think about it though, we've heard this tune before and if it sounds different this time it is only because Mr. Murdoch's voice and reputation stands out more than record label CEO's blaming file sharing kids for all their problems. Still, for many decades the record labels enjoyed a technological edge that forced people (young and old) to buy over and over again the same recorded material if they wanted clear sound. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the debt piled up in a decade+ of mergers is choking the entire media industry. At the same time technology enabled deflation is making many of these mergers feel pointless as profit forecasts go unmet. It's not the recession.

Technology has the power to change things and history shows us this clearly. Technology is not enough however. It takes social momentum using that technology and the difference between the two is not subtle. It takes crowds of people experimenting, trying, failing, and trying ten more times to come up with what we like to call 'best practices'. In an era when technology is enabling Choice we must expect change to be the norm. If this is the case then businesses serving people must be as adaptable.

If Mr. Murdoch relies upon the market to change because he cannot then he will become a dinosaur no matter how large or how much he paid for the Wall Street Journal last year.  

Asked how he reacted to the challenge of Google and others for newspapers such as his to remove their newspapers from search results, Mr Murdoch said that once they had in place the means to charge for news, “I think we will”.

The same FT article points out how he is thinking of removing his content from search results on Google's platform as if another company is the cause of his problems. (quote above)

Here's the crux of the issue, the meaning of what I call the era of Choice (we are in now), and the message of this blog: Think of Google as Henry Ford thought of his Model T. We are only just beginning the era of Choice and it was Google that figured out how to mass produce first even if Yahoo was first to market.  Up till now Google's main product is useful, works fairly well, and though it comes in mostly black, it is considering other colors (real time search versus query only). Eventually many competitors will emerge as innovation flourishes. It will...many times over.

It will because this is the era of Choice and what is driving the world of content right now is what the consumer wants. This is the first time this dynamic has ever existed in the marketplace for content. That may seem somehow wrong if you are in the business of selling content but up till now the market for content has been very one-sided in favor of 'if you build it they will come' because they have limited other choices. All of that changed and it is not Google's fault...nor will it change back, ever. As a matter of fact, either Mr. Murdoch's company will adapt or they will perish in the wave of new competition (new supply)that is descending upon media consumers now.   

The business model for media must change because of changes in how people use content....not because evil search engines are helping others to steal their products. From a generational perspective, the aging leaders of media companies are not likely to be who will solve these challenges. This is not a business issue nor is it a shot at older leaders. It is a social issue and it is about how we share is changing. It's not about the difference between songs, current events, movies, or books. It is about ideas and their usefulness in a social setting. 

The next generation of media entrepreneurs will allow for change in how content is used. They will not leverage their company on any one idea that is not derived from their customers. They will not leverage their company up buying assets in anticipation of government regulation that will hold us back now that the expansive digital universe is available. Think of the digital universe as a frontier we are just beginning to settle. Land is cheap. Content is currently the primary product moved across this resource.  Future media companies will base strategic decisions on a marketplace that provides real time metrics. Anything less is just not good enough because change is the new normal. Journalism will not die; don't be fooled by these alarmist claims. Journalism will change as it separates from the business of selling content. Eventually, more kinds of businesses will develop but for now the business of content is the business that must adapt.

You can't sue to stop the most dominant social trend of our time no matter how contrary it seems to your business model.  It should be celebrated and it can be if you reorder the pieces. The answer is not as exciting as a trip to Mars but it is what will get us there. It is not quite like a "warp speed" engine but so far the precursor to the answer has made distance on earth almost irrelevant. From a social standpoint, the era of endless fat media profits is over because it was socially inefficient. That is why the change is happening. Like it or not, crowds have both memory and a sense of purpose (even where individuals are indecisive) So, Mr. Murdoch, pulling your content from Google instead of trying to innovate how your content is monetized is only demonstrating frustration.  News corp is better positioned than most to benefit if only you look forward, not back.

The Guardian takes a swipe at Mr. Murdoch too