The (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media

Measuring Choice Means Defining What Value is Today

New link added 7 31 10  The WSJ published a blurb-like article discussing how top web sites in the US feed your history to tracking businesses that are known to steal your browsing behavior using invasive software without your permission. My opinion of this issue may seem apparent but the social mood surrounding this practice will reject it strongly in time...and maybe less time than many imagine.

Few readers have taken to my description of an era of Choice. Could a description so simple be helpful in any way? I think so. I also think that just by recognizing how important the dynamic (market) force that Choice represents, we can then see one step further toward what really matters in the business of selling content these days. (It is really worth just thinking about when the fish are not biting.)

In the age of broadcast (one way media) the notions of reach and frequency worked just fine. They were assembled using different statistical formulas depending upon the particular media. Everyone was using the same measurements but then it all began to change.

In an age of interactivity and endless digital channels of distribution the two dimensional metrics that we know as reach and frequency have become much less meaningful. Even more less meaningful: rating points.

In my last post I commented how the quotes and sound bites coming from Sun Valley Idaho felt disappointing in how few leaders seemed to express any insight to the core problem in the business of media these days.

In a three dimensional world of interactivity, the old media companies think sprucing up their product with cool interactive graphs will grab the content consumers attention. They also expressed the need to be paid well enough for those products. That is a key concern of course but it does not suggest any insight about the big challenges of media companies today. I thought that was what the conference was all about. Oh, that's right, sharing those ideas on the internet means they'll just be taken. 

Media is a primary social tool that benefits every American and every company...even those in the business. Adjusting to a new era of Choice does not have to be the end of an industry but it will require courage and conviction on the part of leaders. The reward for this will be considerable but not easily achieved.

The advertising business model has been turned inside out in the age of interactivity. Fractionalization of demand will forever change the market forces that impact the business model for any advertising based enterprise. The metrics must compensate for these changes and allow value to be captured even as demand is fractionalized. Perceptions of "what is Value?" to both consumers and sponsors has changed a lot. It is time to update measurement and that is the job of media enterprises. Do you really want to wait around for a splintered advertising industry (or search companies) to do it for you and dictate terms?! 

I am reiterating the point I made in the last post because I may not have been clear enough. The flow of this blog is cumulative and if you drop in and read only one post it is like picking up War and Peace half way through the book. 

I do not think the quality of the average media product is a problem today. I find excellent content everyday. I believe the packaging is not representing the products well enough. By "packaging" I mean the measurement that gives us ratings or reflects the consumer's perceived value. Cookies that increasingly steal more detailed information are not a suitable answer.Innovation is desperately needed in the realm of ratings and interactivity without sacrificing the relationship with the consumer.

In the past two years I have watched the radio industry fight internally about a new electronic ratings platform as Nielsen brought another old recall method back to the market.  The single most important aspect of monetizing content use is knowing how and how much it is being used. Recall is just not effective in the era of Choice and will not stand up to competition from electronic measurement for helping sponsors predict where their investments in advertising are best placed. This will be reflected soon in a renewed spirit of risk aversion. Count on it.

I believe census quality data is both essential and possible but many concessions along that path will be needed to get to the destination.

There is no way to truly know how valuable any one chunk of content is without knowing how and how much it was used after production and digital shipping. The content manufacturer and sponsors must know more detail. Old fashioned reach and frequency is just not meaningful anymore.

The realization of Choice as an ideal is possible with census quality metrics. Just because that is the big goal does not mean that there are not stopovers on the way. This is the job of the media business. Thinking it is not is just putting critical decision making into the hands of those who would be competitors.  More should be expected from industry leadership. 

The Difference Between Pioneers and Settlers

Americans need their media businesses to begin to make needed adjustments to their business model in order to better serve the changed markets for content. In order to expedite these changes it helps to recognize the difference, historically, between pioneers and settlers.

I am a big fan of old westerns. One reason why is because many capture the real mood and circumstances of the time the film portrays. There were economic and social highs and lows over the many decades as we moved west as a society. One of the most captivating periods of social transformation is the transition from scattered pioneers to competitive communities (markets) of settlers.  Once a frontier has been established this often involves a complicated social adjustment. (For instance: Thinking we should rely on government to manage the process is a reflex reaction but a very bad idea. Why? People should define their specific needs for government and it should not be the other way around. History shows that may invite greed and corruption when so many unknowns still exist.)

Pioneering anything requires a unique perspective and insight.  It requires skill sets most people (or companies) do not cultivate. In reviewing recent and distant history it is easy to see how the process naturally allows for inefficiencies. The inefficiencies are easily recognized later by the settlers because competition did not exist earlier. Different challenges that no longer exist are ignored as the old ways are often criticized. Yes, pioneers in our old west often wasted resources and often made no attempt to manage or conserve them but that perspective is now passed on by those who came after the pioneers.

Adding social structure to a newly settled frontier is a messy process. The vision of the few gives way to the Choices of the many. Traditions surrounding compromise and right-of-way must be established. Social contracts not previously considered often require revision in light of the needs of the new local markets. To do this, updated social norms must be accounted for and allowed room to change more with the place and the times...and then change again if needed. This is not the job of government and oligopolies will not do this well.  Successful social structures endure because they are sensitive and flexible to changing shared values of the many...not the few visionaries.  As populations grow the values of pioneers are inevitably in conflict with the newer settlers because expectations are expanded.  (Many great movie settings were born this way.)

What changed  since the late 1990's is very obvious: Technology. This change has enabled consumers of content (all kinds) to change their expectations and to have Choice for the first time. Choice is as important to the business of media as the railroad or modern guns were to settling the west and changed our nation forever. Choice has already transformed  us as a nation and how we communicate. (witness: social media) Much more change through Choice is coming.

Pioneers are both essential and reliable elements of a successful free society as they confront new frontiers. So too are settlers.  The analogy I am painting needs to be discussed (LOUDLY) in the new media these days. Government and regulatory bodies need to be removed from the business of content for The People when it comes to developing new business models for production and delivery systems. The notion that journalism might somehow go away is preposterous. Many of the same interests that have been firing journalists are the same ones hiring lobbyist to voice fearful concerns asking for unreasonable protection. I ask you to think hard about these issues because media is primary social tool. It is built into our founding agreement as a people. Media tools are among the most important components of a free society.  Government does not belong in the middle of these big decisions regulating one of our core freedoms. New business models will not be smartly figured out by government agencies...government tends to protect yesterday's shared values because it reflects consensus associated with lagging interests. Protecting old interests would be terribly unproductive for our society right now. Mature businesses commonly lose relevance when significant new technology comes along. New business models are put to use in order to more efficiently use new technology to serve changing markets. This is natural selection at work in the economy. The businesses that were most powerful in content production and distribution in the 20th century will probably not be the companies leading us in the 21st century unless government is allowed to hold us back using fear because of powerful lobbyists. So, how do we look forward and not backward?

We need crowds of competitively-minded settlers right now; lots of them. Settlers think big and are willing to risk it all to suffer humble beginnings and are capable of moving mountains slowly. The best days of some digital pioneers are already coming to an end...a time when their specific interests are in conflict with the needs of the new settlers. Many 20th century media pioneers feel like they should somehow be grandfathered into this new era. The old business model needs to be updated. Significantly Changed. Pulled Apart. Specialized. The parts will not go away but the fact that some parts will be re-allocated does not ordain ownership of these parts to the old enterprises as if it is royal title being passed down. There are no meaningful pedigrees in business that a market does not support by way of profits.  The businesses of building cars and banking has taught us this lesson many times recently. Failure must have stigma attached or winning means nothing. We are all going to have to earn it in the years ahead. Failing companies cannot be bailed out or we risk creating disincentives through bailouts.

If Congress and federal agencies get out of the way, the free markets will combine myriad new possibilities to produce more efficient content companies. This result will make us all better off than we are today.  We will have journalism, many new jobs, and better forms of communication benefiting our free society.  Right now, it does not matter if you produce journalism or entertainment. The tools we use to get our content products to market have changed and need to be changed much more in order to serve quickly changing communities of content consumers. Most pioneers move away as settlers arrive. A few of them are able to change (evolve) their perspectives and help to build the new communities that rise up around them even though they are no longer part of a powerful regional or local oligopoly.  They adjust and change with the new shared values around them. When you think about this, one thing is very clear: It's time to change. Are you ready? 

The end of this post is where I might begin a meaningful comparison of Google and Apple as both pioneer and settler. I'll save that for another post. Which do you think is more likely to adjust to settler lifestyle? The answer might surprise you.

Wired Magazine highlights how the settler mindset acts

Which one of the 4 P's matters most to digital media enterprises right now?

Maybe the best place to begin is to survey is the world of "old media" enterprises. Q:Why old media enterprises and not the newer, sleeker, more updated social platforms that connect us to everyone, their choices and, everyplace?

A: Because old media has a sustainable, transparent business model that evolved from consistent market feedback over time. And while it is understood to be in decline, it is still working, and this combination is much more robust than anyone seems willing to acknowledge right now. 

Current trends in the broad content universe are truly dizzying when you include user generated content platforms. There is just so much any one mortal can digest and interpret and the key seems to be a willingness to adjust volume levels up and down (on our own) of any new input. If we do not do this pro-actively, the software driven world of social networking (media) might have us believe that the Facebook empire is our collective future.  It's not.

There is no doubt that we collectively value the features and benefits of our social networking and it has forever changed us (in a very positive way) using these new digital networking tools. However, extrapolating from here to three years down the road is more likely to yield a better result by looking at strengths still in place in the world of old media enterprises and how to combine the improvements offered by "social everything".

Over many decades, the business model for old media companies in the US leaned on one critical factor. There was a substantial barrier to entry that was reliable. In that period the main form of competition was product and promotion based. <but there were ongoing competitive forces shaping and reshaping> Since most franchises are geographically focused, competition was limited but so was the target area. On average, this reduced the challenges to a manageable set of problems facing companies that evolved towards a simplified structure emphasizing what matters most to consumers. 

During the broadcast era, Choice was limited by the nature of the technology. A competitive dynamic evolved in our markets into a dualistic structure where two customers ultimately emerged: The consumer of content and the sponsor. The link between these two constituencies was measurement, otherwise known as ratings. These days, the new reality of digital engagement metrics has turned this realm of business into a gold rush mentality (using secretive and complicated algorithms) not unlike the speculative financing witnessed just a few years ago in the housing boom. It is not understood nor is it explained much more than superficially to end users. And while we know how the era of modern finance has hit a dramatic speed bump owing to complexity, this period of expanding engagement metrics feels distorted and likely misunderstood.

Better metrics of engagement are a driving force in the content universe and seem to offer great promise.  This observation is too simple, however, and needs to be seen from a few perspectives. The era of Choice effectively begun around the year 1995-6 as we first bought shares in the future of Search businesses. Yahoo and Google were the first generation. It might seem now as if social networking sites are taking us to the next era in our transformation by using greater amounts of our personal data to design better engagement experiences. Is lack of disclosure a hidden liability waiting to become a big problem?

One has to wonder the following; old media companies have struggled mightily to improve measurement techniques and consumers of content, when approached and asked have always demonstrated a degree of reluctance to comply.  One might assume that a big chunk of this reluctance has to do with convenience, their schedule, and the ease of compliance.  Just as likely though is a consumer's unwillingness to share sensitive information about themselves.  What is fascinating is how the digital universe has become exceedingly effective at compiling our personal data to hold, extrapolate, and forever use at their discretion. This new reality comes complete with endless disclosures in legalese much like the warnings offered to buyers of financial securities warning of potential loss.(hey, but Everyone is doing it, right?)

In a litigious society like ours, we now know that such warnings will not stop blocking actions later if the outcome warned about exceeds our concerns.  That is the American way and also why I am not in danger of not having a new book of lawyer jokes to send my brother every Christmas. 

In a world where feedback from engagement with content is now possible we all clearly see how it can help marketers of content be better. Human proclivities being what hey are, however, suggests that the present euphoria surrounding social networking will be tempered at some point with legal action that demands better disclosure, just like the mortgages that were signed and later contested in a chorus of outrage and discontent.  To not see this coming is to miss the obvious. The question then becomes what really matters to enterprises that monetize content (of any kind)? ...and this takes us back to the 4P's.

In the universe of old media companies, the value of the product is inextricably entwined with engagement metrics. Eventually, forces of specialization will force the interests of consumers of content and sponsors into differentiated businesses. Until then, the glue that makes enterprises profitable is firmly based on aggregated metrics that are better approximations of who is engaged with what(?). Until this time, the P that represents Product will be enmeshed with the metrics accumulated by all enterprises.

The reason this observation is valuable, and not just obvious, is because social trends that affect  how consumers of content see their place in this process is very much like the transient trends that allowed us all to become blind to the risks associated with adjustable rate/option to pay mortgages several years ago. History has shown us over and over how warning labels are rarely sufficient disclosure for events that have not already been personally experienced by the person(s) being warned, especially if death is not warned.

In the meantime, the plodding and old fashioned TV stations and radio stations have an advantage recognized by few these days. In them are all the spare parts needed for two or three enterprises of the future that will rise up to fulfill all that the era of Choice promises. Social media platforms seem to be focusing on the product "P" (in their own way) but in the process they are ignoring changing socially shared values as if nothing but scale matters.  It may not matter next week or next month but, when it does matter, it will be a game changer just like many new landlords now wish otherwise.  When this happens, a profitable footing that is clearly understood by both parties to the transaction, will be a critical advantage and the next phase of media revolution will take another vector.

Once more: Is lack of disclosure between host and customer a hidden liability waiting to become a big problem?

Is transparency a critical dynamic in the formulation of customer experience? If shared values were always to stay the same as they are right now then maybe not. It is precisely because how we value things changes with social mood (things and ideas of all kinds), that this observation is worth much more than a few hundred words of our time.

Dave

Further reading: Two older posts that are relevant:

Revolution of Evolution of our Media Tools? (looks at the much longer time horizon)

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

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 almost 4 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 then 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. Many believe they deserve to be watched closely. They certainly 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 social trends this big are not caused by technology or a single business.....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 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

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?

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?

Building The Era of Choice (a smaller increment of media's most important trend- Net Neutrality)

Net Neutrality. It sounds technical if you've not taken the time to understand the issue. If you have, it is relatively simple.  So, what really matters?  Choice.

Apart and above all the doings of this smaller increment is the larger trend. The Era of Choice. This is an era when humans, guided by technology have reversed the dynamics associated with commercial channels of communication to such an extent that entire industries are seeing forced change across America (and worldwide societies)to adapt to people's new behaviors and expectations.

For analytical purposes I use the idea that societies function according to social mood and that this slow moving "root of all social trends" shapes our creative endeavors, especially business and industry.It is only one dynamic in the big picture but it is exceedingly important.

Just before launching this discussion as its own blog (more than a year ago) I looked closely at social media tools and offered my perspective on what they were telling us about where we are taking media in general. My conclusions were simple and straight forward.(look at the links in top right column of this blog) They are worth revisiting now. First, social media tools scream out for Choice and while this social trend can be seen from many angles, social media tools demonstrate most clearly that two way communication in channels for content is being directed by the social impulse toward Choice. Second, how each generation grew into adulthood with some or all of this technology in their lives shaped their experiences and attitudes and therefore, the generational divide offers a critical perspective on the psycho-graphics of media consumption, marketing endeavors, and the developing social protocol of the digital universe. In a nutshell how you engage Boomers and Millennials requires two differing standards but the long view on a number of core issues must be shaped by those immersed in technology and not those who saw it develop in their lifetime. Third, social media is a blazing indication of the specialization to come, and it has barely begun. As this dramatic process fans out throughout our creative endeavors in America, the tide of social mood will shape this process very broadly.

Each of these three social dynamics must be seen separately and together and only then can you appreciate where the social tool, guaranteed in the first amendment to the US Constitution, will be taken by a free and creative people. Media is a higher order social tool that we use to create other things everywhere. And despite how the editorials in respected papers are calling for ivory towers of journalism to be rebuilt, I submit that this tool will be managed properly by the People and for the People. In the years ahead the government bureaucracy will endeavor to build large awe inspiring structures that seek to better control outcomes. In the meantime, people will take the critical functions produced by media organizations and break them up into smaller pieces, specialize them, and produce an altogether new social infrastructure. (It is going to happen whether I say so or not.)  And if you are one of those already suspicious of the free market (aka the American people) I suggest you spend your angst elsewhere while the people get together to do the heavy lifting of building of a better media infrastructure, one that is primarily social, with the profits/payoff always out on the horizon of group endeavor, and not next quarter (as was promised by big media companies if only they were allowed to get bigger). (If you are sensing a theme in the previous era you're not alone or wrong.)   

So, net neutrality is about the market's access to information and it is critical that it reflect consumer Choice and not the channel provider's choice. This conflict of interest is telling us that further specialization in the market for  digital access providers is needed, and in time, it will happen. What really matters most is that we let the American people design the solutions and keep special interests relegated to the tools in the tool shed. If we do that, America has very bright prospects as we navigate this unusual period of social correction. If we do not do that then the market for content will struggle for freedom until we do, because it is what really matters right now. There is no better stimulus than a free people doing what needs to be done. Better media (on many levels) makes people better at what they do. That is exactly what we need most right now. Any new rules must protect the consumer's ability to get their Choice.

Net neutrality is essential. Click on keep reading and you'll see a letter a friend sent to his Congressional representative voting against it in Congress. No matter what your opinion is or how it was shaped, Speak up! Social corrections end when we create our way out of them; you do not spend your way out unless the money goes to things that are creatively productive. Limiting creativity for the sake of profitability is socially and politically foolish if you are looking beyond the next election cycle. 

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

I've referred to Trust, Cooperation, and Partnership being essential dynamics for business in this period of social correction. How can business use these changing social benchmarks and apply them purposefully...especially those developing tools for business using social media applications?  Well, first try seeing it from two perspectives:

Media's Brand New Business Model & The Era of Choice Part 1

The consumer's Era of Choice (as it relates to media consumption)is the result of dramatic shifts in the supply/demand dynamics in markets for content.

That this is obvious to some executives in the industry is not enough. Basic insights demand closer looks at how markets respond to unprecedented events.  The technology of the worldwide web and the tools that come along with it have been a watershed in sharing information. The Internet is part of a trend as old as us being socialized beings. We gather, we share, we learn, we use that to endeavor to prosper. And while telegraphs and telephones were big leaps in this trending process reducing the need for proximity, the Internet has now achieved the needed social momentum where we are now organizing ourselves and allowing groups (markets) to effectively get what they want with little or no lag time.

Old media properties first encountered this effect in music sharing and then movie sharing. And while these proprietary forms of content are troubling many different business models, the new social dynamic is much better observed in the developments in the areas referred to as social media.

In the meantime, old media businesses are struggling mightily with profitability issues and remain focused upon new ways in which to monetize the Internet as a distribution platform.  This is a natural reaction by the groups of businesses based on what seems obvious but, the real insight is available by looking a little deeper at the social impulses driving the behavior.

Four key trending implications for media as the battle for branding rights on the web encounters the realities of frontier living

update: an article I missed on Sept 7th in the NYT clearly demonstrates key point #4 at the end of this post. Thanks Mark!

Brave New World of Digital Intimacy

To me there's no doubt that the primary tools of social media are forcing issues like we read in this NYT article from Sept 1st(link below). The question in this discussion is both, why? and how is this impacting the world of media?  Leaps in convenient communications technology explain only part of it. And while the rest might be explained by big ideas like that over at Chris Anderson's Long Tail site, I submit that considering the broad social force of social mood is an essential part of that understanding, especially if your business touches any part of the media vertical.

A New Battle is Beginning in Branding for the Web  NYT (9 01 08)

two key quips:

The first round of trademark conflict on the Internet, focused on cybersquatting, has subsided. Cybersquatters were early profiteers who bought up the Web addresses, or domain names, of well-known trademarked brands, and then tried to charge the companies huge amounts of money to buy them.

The new areas of conflict, according to legal experts, include trademark owners trying to assert their rights to stifle online criticism of their products, and to stop trademarked brands from being purchased as keywords in Internet search advertising.

It's a wild west mentality in many respects but larger branding considerations were clearly established, separately this summer, when a court told the Tiffany Co. that policing its brand was their responsibility, not Ebay's.  And while there is lots of legalese to go along with that thought, let's gather all of this into a even bigger thought that may be used to guide current strategic direction.

social media shows old media: what really matters

At the top of the right column are three (longer) posts looking at social media and its message to all marketers and especially those managing old media enterprises. The term social media became a catch phrase very quickly and is being used by marketers of all stripes. A very insightful analyst's blog offers up a great list of the who and what of this developing social/business trend. My three posts mentioned above look at the same trend from a very broad behavioral perspective, and what this implies about where we are taking our social experience (generally) next. Since this is not obvious on its face, I submit there is great value in the ability to generalize correctly (right now anyway).

When I became interested in using trending insight as a practical method to see demand more clearly in markets, what I did not appreciate, was how long it would take for me to develop a qualitative appreciation of social trends. For example, in order to understand what was really happening in old media, I first needed to be able to see social trending in its most basic form and only slowly apply that to the markets of people who consume media in chunks.  How businesses determine what really matters when big newness unfolds (like social media is now) is a function of trial and error in the short term but often it is much more practical to begin by seeing the much larger picture. That is how responsible forecasting begins. My contribution here will (hopefully) demonstrate that by following the lessons derived from business-related applications of new technology like social media marketing, we may end up chasing lagging indications (or even incorrect ones) of what matters. So then, what really matters (in the big picture) ?

What is Google's likely role in the evolving media landscape?

2nd update 9 09 08: Bloomberg reports US hires attorney to challenge Yahoo-Google partnership on search ad placement:  

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awx_t6haGxVI&refer=home

Update: This post from Forrester marketing blog (about Google Chrome) helps to further the points in this post.   Google Chrome Will Boost Pre-emptive Contextual Advertising

The title of this blog refers to a few main themes associated with this important time in our history. An article in the NYT on Aug 11th Is Google a Media Company?  touches one of them.

One of the key themes accentuated and capitalized upon during the industrial revolution were the benefits of specialization in the manufacture process.  Specialization had been known about for a century (and more) and yet it only achieved social momentum in the American industrial revolution.  Jump forward to today...