The (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media

The last two posts here were parts one and two of the core idea that drove this blog discussion to begin several years ago. I am passionate about the subject because I know a little about how content has been monetized in the US for many decades but, more important is how this exercise is part of a very basic freedom offered to us as part of being Americans.  I write it for everyone but the story can and will take different turns for different nations as social mood turns everywhere.

Part three in this series gets into the granular picture I see developing for the US. Again, this view was developed by me using what is called aggregate social mood and it comes from learning the socionomic model and adding that to real world experience. It is a pretty straight forward set of ideas that is about a book's worth of new thinking.  In part three of this post I suggest how the digital transaction for content has altered perceptions of value to the extent that the structure of content markets will be altered as social mood corrects in years ahead. This is big picture thinking and is very important to most businesses that use the ad based business model. I do not think anyone appreciates the enormity of th coming changes...kind of like in early 1999 even after broadcast properties and others had drastically consolidated anticipating change following Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act but, before the greed went way too far.   I submit that right now is a lot like that time, only different. 

Rather than study part three as a highly specific forecast, try to see the broad suggestions as you might like exiting one highway and merging onto another. What I suggest in the specific diagram can take us (collectively) to many new places and not just one dominant super business/platform which seems to be the misguided goal right now.  Every market can be re-imagined in any number of ways. Put the customer first, really first, and not just saying so, and then there will be many new opportunities to profit. I submit that when enterprises see opportunity lacking, there is either too much competition or the true needs of customers are being ignored somehow. Focus on the customer and not on gaining permanent exclusive access to a narrow channel serving those customers.  That era has already ended. 

Part 3 is posted now over at my trend site, The Root Trend.

 

 

 

 

The growing importance of permission and accountability related to our digital data

This started out as a post about changes to a familiar social contract but the key business implications of the discussion suggests how structural change to the industry is likely as part of the longer term fulfillment of Choice.

First, a very basic assumption:

Businesses provide convenient services and products to customers in exchange for consideration.

If and when the value exchanged is perceived to have shifted, due to any kind of change, so too will the agreements made between customer and enterprise.

Pretty simple, right?

Now, the social contract:

The sale of advertising to monetize content consumed by individuals is a very old agreement and, when well organized, creates considerable value. 

In the years and decades before the digital age, this social contract was the basis for a large and growing industry characterized by limited channels of distribution enhancing perceived scarcity.

Finally, a different take on one basic description of the macro operating environment:

It can be shown that at any time we are in a period of either social expansion or social correction. These two very generalized states of social influence change aspects of our operating environment in ways that often affect what we decide are the best ways to operate a business on behalf of the market we intend to serve. 

Conclusion:

Permission & verifiable accountability with digital data are business themes that will increasingly resonate over several years to come and they will be answered by waves of smaller community minded enterprise pioneers who are backed by throngs of digital settlers building new communities based on evolving perceptions of utility. 

How might this impact the media business looking forward?

The big picture of any industry (both present and forward trajectory) can be seen by looking at four sets of variables: fundamentals, the larger trends, market psychology, and the market's structural makeup & status.

 The rest of this post offers light discussion of this theme and will be developed by me here over time.  This will be a new category of posts here to keep track of its development.  The category will be Permission & Accountability and will look at changing demands on the enterprises distributing content.  To some people these issues might appear to be mostly tech oriented but really, to almost everyone under 25, that distinction is irrelevant.  Observation: how utility and legality are very often decided by different demographic groups? In a time of rapid social change this distinction becomes more important. Who's values? And why?    

Signal and Noise at the end of the New Media Era

Is new media ending? Not quite yet.  Will it change, a lot? Yes.   Is there a ridiculous amount of noise shouting for attention about how to see this brave new world? OMG.

 

WRM? (What really matters?) Your audience, or your careful focus on curation and aggregation?

 

Of course it is both.  If they are not all attended to then you are wasting time, effort, money, or all three.

 

In the era of old media the idea of the client was thrown around and the two potential clients, the consumer of the content or the sponsor of the content or space.  You knew this based on who you were talking to in those days. It was an obvious assumption many would dismiss.

 

In a digital world and with so many conversations about what WRM and who and what should we all listen to these days. How much is signal and how much of it is noise? Are we distinguishing enough between the two. Don't be too sure of your answer.

 

For perspecitve: The dot com era was analogous to the 1980's Sony Walkman only it carried a lot more impact because so much social capital was put behind it. What happened to those gadgets? I have no idea what I did with mine. I still have every cell phone.  I also have a dot com era hat of one of the gone-public ancestors of Pea Pod.  It's a yellowed reminder that hubris comes in all manners of expression and disguise.

 

Most everyone in business appreciates the stages of adoption of an idea or product. 

 

The suggestion I am making now is that rather than speculate about bubbles in social media we should look at it in a way that makes social sense.

 

The dot com era (mid 90's  thru 2002) was about growing our awareness of potential. This era we are just now capping off now has been about mass adoption of basic tools to see how they should evolve in order to serve US better. (This is longer term thinking.)

 

Now, if this was just about making subtle changes and tweaks then just about every business in the social media realm would be a great long term bet. Here's the catch; as social mood changes, how we value things changes, sometimes a lot.

The power behind this last point is simple: Build an awareness of social mood and your appreciation for the long term and medium term will change. Not only will they appear more distinct. They will also seem to blend into one another from the correct perspective. In this case that means appreciating how sometimes shared values (in a market) change a lot in a brief period of time (like in 2001-2002) and that during those times we shift our attention to new issues and places, and tools.  More often it is not about fault and more likely about WRM's is changing in the herd we run with.

 

I am guessing the following:

Social media will be an antique in a few short years. Not because it will go away but because how we see it will change. It will transform to become more feature and less of a platform because the real customers are WRM. It will be portable in some way that is controlled by the true customer.

 

As part of this change, platforms will become more consumer concentric quickly. Part of this change will mean that gathering eyeballs will begin to feel like an empty exercise.  Engagement is about what it suggests, and not just having someone's IP address and them having a password with no un-subscribe button easily found.  Engagement is about knowing each other and the implied trust that has developed over time plus the new verifiable component that ensures your "customer" that their needs come first. For those steeped in social business this is obvious.

Consumer, sponsor, it doesn't really matter which one we are talking about. They are of course wholly separate and require two very distinct conversations. Ultimately, when the wrong sponsor and consumer are brought together at an event, it is the host's fault for not thinking it through smartly. In the old era, that would go off presumed as a miss. "Opps!"  In the new era, we're hearing a lot of noise indicative of that result.  In the next era, we would change appropriately because the pieces are in place to do that.  If you do not have those pieces in place, do not expect to survive the social correction in the new media realm.

 

It's got to be all about measurement, permission, and precise partnering. Otherwise, its all just noise and you won't hear the door slam shut when your true customers leave. The old era taught us to see the concept of a content platform as a reasonable business endeavor. The next reality to strike home hard is how there is just too much to do well for any one enterprise to get right all the time with limited resources. Specialization will begin to dominate thinking; not horizontal aggregation.  That is a bigger picture thought but it is WRM right now. It all fits neatly into an idea called Choice.

Cooperation: What's most needed to increase ROI for high quality digital content

I've had this post shelved for a while. And while it comes in long at 1400 words, it is packed with big ideas that fold out when isolated. Then yesterday, I saw the FT discussion about how app makers are being investigated for privacy violations that are potentially criminal. There is always a subset of competitors and wannabes who resort to cheating if only to test a line they know is there but is less obvious. When you read that article, and then read this post, you may begin to see the new direction the market wants to go. If current competitors don't, someone will. The trade offs that need to be made are, at this moment, unimaginable. Go ahead, free your thinking. 

Also, link thread now being populated at end of this post because it is all happening right now. Privacy and credibility are inextricably linked in relationships with businesses online. Getting hacked is not an excuse to be passed off as "not my fault".

-----

Let's take a different tact on the subject of why Better Metrics (ratings) are needed and coming soon but, also how the change will only come with a tectonic shift in how consumers see their role in the business part of monetizing content.

It'll all pass right through the poorly understood area that privacy rights occupy, when we do finally get there. Q: Really? How? I am one of those people who surfs, uses a reader account and multiple modalities everyday. I leave digital footprints everywhere. I put myself out there and like it when a targeted ad or a suggestion makes sense for me. What's wrong with the way things are?!

The argument attached to behavioral targeting is seductive. 'Hey, we make the internet work better for you!'.  Well, that's right now and maybe just a little too naive.

In the meantime if readers (here) will allow their perspective to take a giant step back and survey the business landscape and take inventory of current business developments:

Current content distribution platforms come in different shapes and sizes and levels of sophistication.  Everyone is fighting to gain control of access to and rights for consumer digital information created in their part of the digital frontier. The power contained in those clicks, browses, purchases, and searches, and likes can be more efficiently monetized by creating a new kind of platform.  Right now, out on the digital frontier, the fight over collection and control of consumer data just might be seen as the equivalent of a lone lion eating a fresh kill while the hyenas look on and strategize an imminent theft.  Out on the digital frontier, digital behavior info seems to go to the smartest beast (enterprise) capable of justifying the taking. (Hence today's FT article) If the antelope ever get smart and gang up with their pointed antlers and move together, the lions and hyenas are both in big trouble.

Meanwhile, Jane and John Doe enjoy the conveniences of multiple wireless modalities and everywhere access even if they occasionally cringe from the multiple monthly bills just for access, and then there are the frequent equipment upgrades that often come with more strings attached.  Oh sure, there is a big audience of people who participate gladly (joyously even) and do not complain at all because they consider it a combination of essential connectivity and necessary infotainment to fill the minutes we used to stop, process, and think internally. Then, there is also a much larger audience consisting of many tiers in the US and (especially) all around the world who are anywhere from inconvenienced to stretching to be connected.

We have passed through the era of the admired (tech) pioneers and now need to move towards an era of purposeful digital town building and better working arrangements that support a mass audience without taxing them at every turn (because that's the path of least resistance) or saying one thing and doing another, like violate privacy.  (If you have been a reader here for a long time then this suggestion will also begin to solve the need for digital fences too <the IP issue>.)

Sometime soon there is a distinct possibility that these large and diverse layers of content consumers that are some kind of price sensitive to the multimodal environment will wake up to just how valuable their complete and ongoing digital profile is to potential content marketers.  When that day comes another major shift is going to happen in mass thinking. This time, however, it will be in how the businesses that serve us are oriented. As we have learned in so many aspects of our complicated lives in the past few years, trust needs to be verifiable in the open marketplace.  In the same way we must check disclaimers and indemnify others constantly, consumers deserve and will have the opposite in the fulfillment of Choice. Both current and detailed historical digital profiles can be made much more valuable if we consent to being monitored 100% by a verifiably trusted advocate across the spectrum of our digital consumption.  That only makes sense, however, if that data were to be somehow reliably anonymized with no BS legal disclaimers or double talk that is winked about in the service entry. It is not impossible to produce an honest effort to separate people's identity from their various profiles.  There are a few big trade offs needed to make this happen and they cannot be compromised even though zealous marketers with little to trade already try.  Choice can be seen to extend all the way through the ideas in this (digital) conversation and back into the lawful world.

Why Broadcasters should not fear spectrum reallocation

The best days of the digital frontier are still well in front of us and broadcasting will still have a respected place if we insist that connectivity be considered an essential commodity. 

The challenges associated with developing this critical national infrastructure cannot be subjected to the limitations inherent with consolidations of power that create new pipeline oligopolies.

The very promise of this era of Choice is that high quality programming will be sought based upon the value delivered in the programming and not the availability. Broadcasters, of all kinds,  have already been challenged by massive new layers of content competing with their programming but over time we are seeing how quality of content is rewarded consistently even as we move through a period where experimentation also shows how lesser forms of content can produce temporary traffic that has little stickiness. Good content clearly moves consumers to schedule engagement. It is the new fringe times for content consumption that is distracting so many much like carnival barkers on a boardwalk as we all move toward our daily destinations.

The core competencies built over many decades by all forms of broadcasters, local and national, are just as valuable as ever. Quality is regarded and rewarded but only today do we see turf wars resulting from the disorganizing effects of uneven digital connectivity. 

The addictive allure of retransmission fees has clouded the longer outlook that clearly demonstrates how available high quality programming will attract large audiences and that these payoffs are somehow the only way to make a go of it in today's complex programming environment. 

In the last post here I offered how I believe that content distribution platforms will continue to evolve with both technology (and especially) how people value their own convenience in getting exactly what they want and need.

Search engines give us all a form of Choice but it is clearly limited. Different forms of high speed connection are setting themselves up as modern day clearing houses that will collect the tolls that seem absolutely vital to making high quality programming possible.

I have also expressed previously that I do not think unlimited channels of direct distribution are likely to produce the kind of concentration that will be easily monetized. So what, then, should come next?

If it seems like every post I write here comes back to Choice over and over that is because it is the overriding concern in markets for content. Period. No matter how you deflect it, or choose to work with the social forces of Choice, it will be expressed until a Choice friendly market is in place where a more reasonable balance is achieved between consumer and content producer.  And since technology will continue to evolve, this is liable to be a moving target.

People want high quality content choices available to them wherever they are and when they choose. Content producers need a reasonable rate of return that is sustainable and consistent with quality (as measured by the consumer).

The biggest problem, by far, is how we value the engagements with all manner of content. It is fragmented in so many ways as to be made to seem inconsistent across media and modalities.  Moreover, sampling expenses associated with national audiences are burdensome and part of an inefficient (pre)digital approach. 

Ultimately, Choice and census quality data will go hand in hand. The two are both necessary and attainable and when they begin to emerge, will allow untold amounts of productive capacity to be directed towards new efforts that make our digital infrastructure return impressive productivity gains. This is not idealistic. How can you see that to be the case?  Just know that Choice has a very specific intention and there is a specific series of business solutions to make the needed trade offs happen. Reasonable profits follow fulfilled needs in healthy markets.

As the population spread west in the 1860's very quickly you could see how towns followed transportation routes. These towns were distribution points that allowed more growth and settlements to happen incrementally and that has continues up to today as cities saw suburbs as a result of mass ownership of cars.

The potential of this current revolution is how these limiting factors and mistakes previously made can now be avoided. In this case, that means avoiding bottlenecks and false scarcity associated with oligopolies controlling connectivity.

If we free up spectrum to create a competitive marketplace for high speed connections, then the real focus will be switched back to high quality content and how to measure it effectively so that value can be harvested efficiently. This is exactly where our efforts need to flow now because the benefit of doing it this way will exceed the benefits in a decade of allowing fiefdoms to control appetites for variable levels of quality created by false scarcity. I will even take this another step further: if we do the right thing now, brand new forms of valuable content will continue to develop that might not otherwise come about because margins will be reasonable enough to prompt the right kinds of speculative efforts.

The promise of Choice is that it can deliver meaningful returns for those creators of variable kinds of content that motivate people on all levels of their life...not just entertainment. So much noise is made today about how expertise is being devalued somehow by the digital environment. I would argue that the (all too frequent) appearance of expertise is very different from actual expertise. This point is magnified greatly in the era of a "like" button.  I will end on this point: Expect this period of time directly ahead to make a sharp distinction between the appearance of expertise and the real goods. For instance: clicks were very informative 16 years ago. They seemed to take us from eyeballs and impressions to action of some kind. Initially, they were a revolution. Today, they tell us a lot less about what we really need to know today in order to make good business decisions.

If we collectively focus on Choice (in the fully American sense of the idea) we can move to an entirely new level of meaningful interactivity. In that digital world, both national broadcast and local focus that are of high quality will realize interactive values not previously achieved. Why settle for what we have now when so much more is possible?

Content Distribution Platforms: Only one part of an increasingly specialized marketplaace

The buzz now is about "content distributors". I wrote about this aspect of specialization here almost two years ago.  Each of the basic functions of old media's business model is being naturally specialized so that content can be (eventually) more effectively distributed in a macro marketplace that is slowly responding to Choice.

Is this an end in an of itself? Is it a new normal for the business of selling content?

The answer, to me, is an obvious "no".  High quality producers of content are losing the battle for profitability and middle and low end producers are gaming the click system to try and make it up in volume.

This method is unlikely to produce concentrations of talent in a media universe that still demand high quality production. This does not mean better efficiencies must not be sought and surpassed.  It does mean, however, that a better way exists.  It must if only because the demand exists. Paywalls will work for a few, for now but, they are not a long term strategy beyond a limited core of operators.

The raw frustration at how things cannot be forced back into the old paradigm is just too much for most who've watched it devolve into something strangely resembling a Mad Max market economy for content.

Content distribution platforms are here to stay but they will continue evolving...and crucial new elements in the overall competitive mix must be established and frequently improved upon. These tasks belong to the entire industry as new roles are established.

What are these elements? I see a three part content universe (roughly) and right now it is the other two parts that must be established formally and set toward efficiency. The very nature of the content distribution platform will change based on how these develop and evolve.

The role of anonymized data in better content delivery may change

The question and answer posed near the end of the last post was one about delivering Choice.

Q: In an era of Choice (related to content consumption) and changing social mood, how do you increase the value proposition for your customers?

A: The critical path to this end will involve both single servings and better use-metrics that must conform to Choice. These two together will achieve competitive advantage.

Better use metrics that conform to Choice.  It is possible.  In fact, if it is done well, I believe census quality use data of content may be part of our future.

Media, as a business, is having a hard time with the Choice trend because markets for content consumption were allowed to develop with significantly different supply potential and that distorted the nature of supply and demand for a long time.  This happened over many decades and the obvious fact of this distortion was lost to most competitors. No wrong was committed.  But as soon as digital technology began developing, this old distortion was naturally highlighted and is being corrected.

If you tend to hold the view that deflationary forces are shaping media you are right.  The main problem with that view is how it tends to hold your perspective hostage to the market structure of old. I say, break out.

Almost as soon as I began getting outside of this perspective was when I first saw how market forces are shoving media businesses in one general direction.  The best way to see right now, is to see market forces in relation to the answer to the question above.

To most consumers using the internet, privacy concerns are only minor or maybe moderate (controllable) concerns now even if the noise around this issue has increased notably in the past year. These concerns seem to have grown because others told them to be concerned.  The main reason why this is being noticed is connected to behavioral tracking technology that happens without anyone noticing.  Suddenly, your computer knows you and anticipates your every interest and need.  The number of companies competing in this area is almost shocking but it really should not be to anyone. It is a valuable service that could potentially be used in negative ways.  The industry exists for the same reason the digital universe came about...because we can. 

 Since most consumer data is automatically anonymized, these practices are a benefit to everyone using them, especially the media businesses selling advertising in the digital environment. 

It comes down to this piece of hierarchical truth. Choice is the dominant trend in media businesses. It must be faced because it is not going away.  On top of Choice is another, higher order, trend: Social Mood.  I blog about this subject on my other site, and it is what got me to begin this blog two years and 100 posts ago.   Social mood is the primary social trend. It shapes and influences social trending issues over time.  Social mood will impact the Choice trend by encouraging consumers of content to take even more control over their experiences. When this begins in earnest, the winners will not fight the Choice trend.

When you Google "anonymized data" you can get into some pretty sophisticated discussions. The issues around this subject need to be made conversational . The idea of anonymization needs to work for consumers and not be allowed to pose a threat. Now, before the industry comes charging this way defending themselves, my point here is how perceptions change over time as part of a pattern and how self regulation one day is often replaced by overt regulation in another period. This does not have to happen even though it feels inevitable, now, as a trend watcher.  The industry can choose to step up now and conform to Choice. What does that mean?

It means this, and only this: If behavioral tracking is such a benefit to consumers in the digital environment, then build a company that serves consumers, and consumers directly and spare me the arguments about how it does right now.  If this is done earnestly, the ultimate product that results may just be the best source of behavioral data ever and sanctioned by consumers at the same time. It may also rescue part of the media business that are struggling now.

Social trends often take us where we need to go directly if we let true market forces dominate. The Choice trend will throw off many good ideas and services to consumers along the way if we only stop fighting it and make it part of today. The real partnership needs to be made with the very people you are measuring. It needs to be transparent as well as having information flow in both directions.

 

 

 

The single serving mindset

good link posted at bottom of post 12 16 11

Channelling Choice in 2011

The current medium term trend is seeing many content owners produce new channels designed to deliver Choice to consumers of content based on old tested models.  The implications of this trend toward many channels of distribution suggests marketing efforts will be critical and probably expensive too.  The process is a to-be-expected phase of what is best called specialization in the business of selling content.  The fact that these efforts remain focused on these goals is, for now,  understandable given the undesirable splintering of an already smaller set of valuations. The implications are much the same as during the entire age of broadcast; the primary need is to aggregate customers by bringing them to your platform (only the potential selections are many times deeper now) and getting content consumers to pay in ways that are easiest (for the seller).

From a greater distance I see an industry that still perceives competitive advantage as the ownership of IP in the form of specific content in a static format.  I also see a cable tv industry overly reliant on its seeming exclusivity.  This could and should be a longer discussion that uses history as a guide but for now let's consider only two different ways of seeing markets of people consuming ideas through content:

#1  The social media model has been adopted by content marketers as one great way to sell market their wares. The benefits of social sharing are obvious.  The problem with this is how digital views are not yet able to be quantified in a such a way as to make them equal or even reasonably comparable to their old fashioned counterpart.  As total social media use (time spent) is both growing and evolving, this challenge must be met by being understood better.  There's no doubt about it; social networking is responsible for increasing incremental views for all kinds (and sources) of content. This practice seems to make sense now because success will benefit the social network enterprise and the content producers to a lesser extent. The problem is in how it's really little different than network TV stations trying to gather tune-in. The only difference is how time-shifting is possible now for digital products.  So, it is, an advance of sorts.

#2  The individual model.  This model is about going to the consumer individually.  Some onlookers might stand up and say this is what Apple is doing with their platform. In the end, however, Choice is about freedom and freed content consumers increasingly want to design their own experience and not be guided by one limited source no matter how cool the company may seem right now. 

Hope is a wonderful emotion but not for content sellers seeking profitability through a single source channel.  Hoping to sell more content to consumers directly is a limiting challenge. Of course, selling the content directly to the end user sidesteps the challenge associated with counting viewers and the overall quality of measurement. I submit, again, at the beginning of this new year how the primary challenge is to devise ways to better quantify engagement with content. That this was not done yet is testament to how difficult it is proving through the broadcast paradigm in a digital world. It is not impossible.  It is not being done because it is perceived to be too expensive.

I submit the problem has to be re-framed. Building potentially infinite channels to deliver Choice is not the answer in the long run.  Content producers need to focus on being better at producing content in ways that meets developing needs.  The earnest distributor of this new era must try channeling Choice, no matter how silly this seems.  That this challenge can be reduced to a bad pun is testament to how confused the market for content was made by limiting factors in the late 20th century.  Markets for digital ideas (including entertainment) are only beginning to develop now. They can and will grow by many factors if Choice is allowed to be claimed by markets of consumers. The solutions we are seeing, for now, are limited by the old ways of imagining the business of selling content. That will eventually change but probably not in 2011.  New, better engagement metrics are the necessary goal of the entire industry.  Choice is the overriding social trend in this context. In some parallel universe, Choice and better engagement metrics already exist side by side.  The way there does not involve oversight with many new rules and committee meetings.  The way there is through permission.

 

You say you want a revolution! 2011: the first year true convergence is possible

A little looking back at 2010 to look forward this AM:

The future of the Advertising based business model is very bright (indeed!)

At the end of the year, I think this was the most important post this year as it will relate to the challenges of the next two to three years especially.  As the excitement surrounding new pay platforms seemed to distract us from the reality that people are looking for easy ways to get free content. A few can and will pay but the real point is how Choice is changing the balance of power in all content relationships. There is less and less room for greedy intrusions.

Check out this link that discusses a Pew survey this fall: Pew Survey Here. 

Some numbers associated with the survey:  1003 adults surveyed. Of them, 75% used the internet occasionally or sent email. Of this 75% group, 64% of those people said they paid for content on-line.

BUT.

I encourage you to click that link to read the details. The screaming metric to me was how this is not a deep dynamic. Of the 75% of the 1003 adults who do use the internet occasionally or more, only 25% of that smaller group actually paid for content on-line and even fewer paid for more than one kind of content (maybe 1 in 5 people from amongst the 75% of 1003 adults).  

I am not quoting these stats to make a point other than a very general one made in the September 10th post here linked again above. The ad based business model is still a legitimate, accepted, and necessary social contract. Moreover, the businesses that genuinely respect their customers in that relationship will prosper. Respect? Yes, Respect:

The Future of Old Media and New Media: What Really Matters Right Now?

I also wrote a lot about the TV networks and Cable TV retransmission pricing issues this year. Here's the post that sums up those thoughts best. Change is coming soon. The era of the small screen will force it to begin sooner than later. A great inside perspective weighs in with this bit of common sense

TV Networks, Cable TV distribution and the Coming iroM Events in video modalities

Will the iPad unintentionally pierce the cable TV bubble? (it'll now be the smart phone but still a good set of ideas)

Tablet PC's, fences, and information ownership as seen through the generational divide (Tending to your own herd of ideas (IP) out on the frontier and not demanding that someone else to do it for you) Does this sound familiar Viacom?

The Perishability of Content: Re-Evaluating the social contract, slowly  This idea is still ahead of its time but how much I wonder?

The difference between Pioneers and Settlers   This last linked post was the most read of 2010. Pioneers are not only people who cut down too many trees in the American West or stopped up other people's water supply.  They take liberties that were absolutely necessary for them to survive initially in a raw and undeveloped space.  As markets eventually develop around them social values develop and change.  The Pioneers are forced to adapt to these market based "impositions". I guess the real point is that successful pioneers must eventually become Settlers. Google is adapting to changing social expectations. Apple is clearly lagging and trying to hold onto fleeting glory.(remember the last line from the movie Patton?)  2011 will be a busy year in terms of the settlers stating their needs and Choice urging them to take more control. This is why social trends are better referred to as impulsive behavior.

Convergence is coming as told by the loud whispers of an explosion in smart phone use. Market problems with limited wireless access must be solved. OVERT Greed by access providers must be controlled if not stomped out. If it is, then the obvious strains in the critical media-verse will be short lived as adaptability will prevail as specialization is made able. This will still disrupt many existing content companies but the products will still be produced as tasks are increasingly distributed.  If however, we allow spectrum limits on the market for digital access to suppress needed quick growth and the entire media-verse will suffer with the consumers of content. When you really think about it, this issue goes well beyond profit margins and right to the bottom line of the health and well being of our American economy and republic. None of this is an overstatement...and this is how I characterize coming events in what is best called iroM (the blog's name). I am confident the right things will happen. It is too important for that not to happen. Convergence is both necessary and good.

Happy New Year!   Dave