This blog is about a very large & important trend involving a key part of the American infrastructure. As a nation we are presently doing to media what we did to establish the US as an industrial force more than a hundred years ago. Many naturally occurring circumstances surrounding the first industrial revolution helped the US to a quick competitive edge. This time, however, many of the key mitigating factors (think technology) are matched around the world so American's main advantage will be our very freedom, creative flexibility, and development speed attached to these defining alterations.
In the US during the 20th century broadcast media was a great business and the rules that confined and defined these markets allowed it to develop both deeply and broadly. Now, the digital era has changed so much in a very short time and the pace of this change is increasing.
My perspective (because of my age) is naturally divided between pre-digital media and AS (after Search arrived). To some extent, we are all products of our experiences. For instance if you learned how to use Yahoo and Google as an adult then these powerful tools are an adjunct to the universe of media in your head. If however, you are younger and have come of age in the past 13 years (when search entered the mainstream) then search is more than a thick phone book option for when you do not have a first choice; the process is more thoroughly integrated into a pattern of behavior. Different generations think about (organize) media differently and that is evident in how search is utilized.
Yesterday's NYT offers a brief discussion of how the Search business is now splintering its efforts to distinguish real time search from query oriented search. When you think about it, this is the equivalent of a wizard bottling the magic power of TV or radio's immediacy into a universal potion for access to the collective consciousness without regard to geography. wow! If you are a user, it is a great development. If you are an established media company, your challenges just got more complex.
Search engines and YouTube put the amateurs next to the professional (assuming they want to be there) and let people choose because that is what the market wants. After all, it is an era when the Choice of the consumer is what really matters. Now however, it is not just Viacom's long form creative content at risk of being swept up in a social land rush. Real time search positions 140 character Twitter tweets competing with the beautiful scripted talking heads. Here's what I do not see discussed: One side of the world, the older folks, will see no contest between the two. The younger portion of the media consuming world, however, are going their own way. This generational divide will define opportunity in the years ahead but to think of it as a demographic divide would be a mistake. Profits can certainly be strip mined using the old way of doing things for the medium term but, increasingly it will be older audiences that stay fixed to old ways. A generation that has been socialized having Choice will develop in ways unimaginable to an older generation less comfortable with constant change. The mistake now being risked is to underestimate the extent of the social impact these tools are bringing.
These days, as social acrimony always feels nearby, the right way of seeing what really matters is not about who gets more eyes or ears now. Going back to my first thoughts here; our mission (regarding media's evolution) is about building competitive advantage using our freedom and creative prowess to connect everyone using an updated media infrastructure that makes us better, faster, more connected, and effective. Media is not just a business, nor is it a social institution. It is a higher order social tool that must be guided by the people using it and not government deciding what is best for us (or for loud special interests). Real time search is showing us that the magic of markets (think TV and Radio in the 20th century) is better off being set free because that is likely how our American competitive advantage will be innovated and reestablished where it has lapsed. Free people organizing themselves in a competitive industry will innovate better over time.
Yes, it is bound to be messy along the way for many indebted media enterprises but the real point I am making is that it is essential for Americans to use this period of technology enabled deflation as the great opportunity that it is....and not allow (or ask) government to focus precious resources preventing a necessary culling of outdated enterprises.
Yesterday's NYT article on real time search is a very positive, short read, when you see it from this very broad comparative perspective. It highlights the amazing success to date of the search business because of the unprecedented social utility. The specialization now happening in the search business is exactly what must happen in the media business at large. As a nation , if we impede this process (in any way at all) and the social needs driving it, we will ultimately risk losing more than a few classic American brand names; we risk losing ground in almost every industry we are competitive in around the world. I do not believe this statement to be an exaggeration. One of history's best lessons regarding freedom is that people make and keep the institution (or nation) successful, not the other way around. Great ideas must be innovated from some form of trial and error in the changing light of circumstance.
Somewhere, down deep inside of this developing discussion is the topic of intellectual property (IP). I'll glance over it: At present it is a very difficult topic precisely because neither side is willing to be forthcoming. The key to a successful societal negotiation in this matter is why technology enabled deflation cannot be mistakenly confused with changing standards of relative value. Moreover, value measuring systems cannot be unevenly applied. If royalties to creators are fair then (in a digital era) somehow, Pay for Play must be fair provided it is disclosed openly to consumers. Didn't search teach us this? Apply this evenly to everyone and I wonder if Viacom will rethink their position in their suit of Google/YouTube? The Viacom Google suit is about laws but what I am discussing now is how a society gets to laws...how we agree what is fair. Like it or not, the digital universe has changed everything so we must change how we share, and we must take responsibility for it. As all manner of behavior changes (who cares why) then businesses must eventually mirror those changes by how they meet their markets to do trade. Using Gov't resources to deny that social change is happening is beyond foolish; it is the antithesis of marketing. Alarmists are everywhere and still, opportunity abounds for those who look around and notice what is changing.
Changing generational dynamics will ultimately guide the workout for IP in the best interests of a nation. In the meantime generational friction will cause more problems than can be solved. The status quo for new media does not exist yet and it will be a while before it does. What really matters(?) depends upon the angle from which you choose to see this discussion. Google and Yahoo sit atop the search business for now much the way Ford once did in their new industry just because it was early and they were polished at one point in the game before competition changed the business. As surely as search will see a lot of competition in the decades ahead, media companies are being forced to specialize too. This is the message search is showing us. The goal that will be arrived at is "what really matters?". It is the same thing driving this very large media trend. If you can see it and act upon it, the profits will come. If not then that will tell us all a lot about the relative value of a particular enterprise as we all change in the years directly ahead.
Markets see corrections from time to time because societies (and corridors within them) cannot always expand. Sometime those gains have to be consolidated while everyone figures out "what really matters?".The changes in media are central to who we will be as a nation. Public funds for failing businesses is not the answer. The Search business is showing us the way for all of our media tools: Innovate and specialize.
ps. To some readers it may seem that nationalizing the discussion of media evolution is unnecessary because the nature of the tools I am discussing is no longer confined by borders. And while this seems to make sense there are at least a few strong reasons against doing that and none has to do with a nationalistic sense of pride. Chief among them is the idea that loosely applying social mood to how some of these solutions will be shaped over time requires that we consider individual societies one at a time. Social mood is a societal function even when there are times in history when mood can be seen to align between nations. Moreover, existing generational dynamics in the US are exaggerated compared to other nations around the world. These two factors can be seen to have both individual impact as well as offer overlapping considerations in how the influences will shape outcomes.
10 30 09 update: A VC in NYC posts a great blog and his latest discusses the IP issue as it exists in the marketplace right now. It is the comments below this post that reveal how the market is already responding to these IP related challenges. Choice is The Trend. Younger consumers that are more deeply versed in Choice related issues are the cutting edge of this trend. It's not just new for the sake of new...it is about this being The Era of Choice as it relates to media consumption.
Comments