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.

 

 

 

 

About-Face - part II (A Basic Structural Change)

This post follows About Face.   It adds detail to the long term shift I suggest is beginning now.  The first post is succinct and includes very condensed ideas.  Whether you know the tech side of enterprises or the media side of the business model you can appreciate that if the gathering social momentum is as pervasive as I suggest, then enterprise turnover will be significant. This is a huge, slow moving trend.  I offer it now so you may watch it develop long enough to convince you to participate.  Large important social trends that involve necessary tools offer profit potential as a way of conveying social importance. This one really matters.   

How could a tested business model based on a long established social contract unravel in a matter of several years? And if I can see it, why aren't others suggesting the same thing? A: Dramatic social change is often very difficult to see even as it approaches.  The socionomic model gives us social mood (to see trending issues) & suggests that entrenched social values are ideas we have (collectively) placed into long term beliefs and do not often scrutinize them.  Social contracts are tested tools and involve the kind of shared values we are more likely to test during larger social corrections (now).   The nature of the transaction for digital content has changed. The application of the advertising business model in the digital environment has changed dramatically and will slowly see consumers question parts of it.  This is a process and not a headline.   Isn't it appropriate that here, at this early high in the information age, we begin to recognize that the detailed information exchange in these transactions needs to be re-examined and maybe re-thought?

In an era when content (supply) has flooded the web, detailed user metrics, never before possible in the realm of old media are being taken for granted. This assumption is misleading and in time will be seen as wrong.  Increasingly,  consumers will see themselves able to address developing concerns.

If it seems like I am blaming the digital industry for doing something bad to consumers seeking digital content, I am not. Here's my main point: I repeat this over and over at The Root Trend.  How we (collectively) value things and ideas of all kinds changes as social mood changes. Socionomics give us a specific lens through which to see trends in societies.  The Choice trend I discuss here is a result of the rise of digital interaction mixing in with the convenient delivery of digital content.  The Choice trend is an extension of a natural human behavior as we aim to settle the digital frontier.  Mixing digital content experiences with Choice has created powerful shifts in demand.  The Choice trend will continue to express itself notably as we (collectively) swing away from recent extremes of the share everything trend that seems to have peaked and is beginning to correct. (think: moving averages of behavior in markets)  So I am clear: Sharing is not about to stop. No way. Never.  The process is about to evolve and become more thought out while reflecting updated social values.

So, if everything I suggest above is happening then how will the next phases begin unfolding in the world of digital content? This is exactly where social mood can help a little.  As social mood turns negative and the social correction proceeds, sharing (as has become typical) will be questioned and scrutinized on many levels. This is another group process where the moving average will shift to the side of sharing somewhat less with fewer people over time.  As part of the same process, the collective "we" will (generally) want to narrow our discourse into smaller groups that are somehow more qualified.  In a lagging manner, parallel to this, businesses will tell us they need the higher quality user data in order to monetize the content experiences.  I am sure politicians will try to regulate this somehow. This is generally when and where I see the fault line that will introduce a change previously held back by a combination of technology and existing market structure:

iroM: Splintering Existing Content Platforms based on Choice

Back on June 23rd I posted a link asking how much does your data cost?  This link from MSNBC is a worthwhile read: Is Your ISP Cheating You Out Of Bandwidth? New Gov't Test Offers Hint

This link/read may seem only tangential to this blog discussion but the very reason this trend toward a new business model is moving slowly is because we have ceded control to platforms that want to control too many dynamics of our engagement with content. The fact is simple: Content platforms can choose to administer the technical side or they can choose to specialize in content curation and community development and management. Cable companies cannot do both. Maybe in another universe they can? In this one they are not smart enough or motivated enough to do it well. They will be pushed aside by more efficient competition eventually and that day is rapidly approaching.

Eventually social mood will get consumers asking about slow download speeds that remain unexplained. They will ask about content bundling they do not want or use. They will demand community management that is offered by new competitors and that will fractionalize the platform potential.   Eventually all our needs will not be packaged for us according to the needs of existing content companies. That has been the entire reason motivating this blog. This is not about frustration of any kind. It is about a market collectively realizing that services are best decentralized and competed in order to point specialization where it will be most needed.  These slow moving social trends are works in progress. Sometimes, however, trends speed up and other times they seem to develop consistently over time.  None of this is because I say so.  If you pay attention, you already see it coming.  Specialization will affect all market competitors in the realm of getting and consuming digital content. Horizontal aggregation is no longer the best way to capture market share even if it seemed that way until recently. Choice is a never ending force in the market. It never rests. The best thing platform owners can do is respect that and not try to justify their limitations.

Speed may seem trivial to many consumers. To others it will be important from time to time or more often. If I get a quart of milk everytime I buy a quart shouldn't I get the average high speed connection when I pay for high speed broadband? The market has not developed in this reagrd because there has not been enough competition to create checks and balances. If this is missing then how many other competitive dynamics are missing? First and foremost, iroM is about Choice. Social Mood is what I call the root trend and it moves both iroM and Choice along a continuum. Change is coming because Choice is taking us there. 

That link above offers another link to a test for your bandwidth. It might surprise you! 

Breaking big platform myopia in the business of selling content

A link passed along to me this week (twice) offers a great read that looks at the unlikely success of Netflix and the larger challenges in the business of selling content today.  I think it was better than well written and still misses organizing the true nature of the macro challenges facing the business of media today.

 Why Content Isn't King The Atlantic Magazine

The Atlantic is responsible for a lot of good journalism. This article addresses big picture issues in the business in a very smart way but alas, like others, misses what really matters most to report immediate concerns and observations. A very distinct brand of big company myopia pervades the content industry.  This is a result of years of distorted competition that was an unintended consequence of FCC era thinking and now must be corrected.  Netflix, on the surface is an unlikely survivor (the brand of the moment) because virtually every other video rental place either became irrelevant or dead compared to not very many years ago.  They reacted quickly using technology to rejigger distribution channels and have a lock on healthy market for now. Let's look at a quote from the article: (bold emphasis below is mine)

In industries like media, where a few large players share the same advantages of scale, the key to long-term success is avoiding destructive competition in pricing, costs, and capacity. In the mostly forgotten era of the MCA/Universal chief Lew Wasserman, being a media mogul meant enforcing a culture of informal cooperation, where the bottom line mattered more than one-upping your peers. Wasserman was not literally “the Last Mogul,” as multiple biographers have dubbed him, but he may have been the last one who didn’t think the defining genius of moguldom was out-bidding all the other moguls for the hottest talent, technology, or property of the moment. While technology has certainly accelerated the challenges of the book industry, the mindless race to build more and better warehouse and distribution facilities ensured chronic industry overcapacity, even before the advent of Amazon or e-book readers. Similarly, a culture that rewards “stealing” established authors from competitors the old-fashioned way—by overpaying—will never earn its shareholders a decent return, regardless of the technological environment.

You should read the whole article.

To be fair, every business wants to avoid the difficulties in the bold-ed quote (above).  The basis of almost all advanced thinking about the media business is somehow predicated upon the old way of doing things (aggregation and stickiness within a channel) and that is based upon a time when competition was limited.   Industry icons keep talking as if there is some formula to be invented that will bring back a similar level of magnetism that existed when having limited channels of distribution defined markets for content.

Reality in the business of monetizing content must first be refocused to the real customer and to an unfettered market creating many new options.  This is not a wise ass comment. Maybe the most profound change in the age of digital content is how the consumer of content is now in control of their consumption destiny and in a short time new consumptions patterns have emerged. As a result of this, the trend toward Choice is being firmly established and ready to dominate all competition. However, one seeming pattern today does not mean extrapolating it to the moon is correct (think social media platforms). This big picture suggests strongly that we are headed toward 300 million platforms (in the US alone) and not a few dominating sources that figured something out better than the rest.

The reason I chose this article to discuss is because Netflix is a barometer of the state of Choice today. Netflix offers the illusion of Choice so long as the focus of enterprises is "to build it and wait for them to come to us".  Another brief quote from the article cited above:

..."The most-prevalent sources of industrial strength are the mutually reinforcing competitive advantages of scale and customer captivity. Content creation simply does not lend itself to either, while aggregation is amenable to both."...

Eventually this mindset will appear very old fashioned. Eventually, the consumer of content and the sponsors of advertising will be the customers of two distinct enterprises. Moreover, the direction of competition in a marketplace that rewards movement toward Choice will create incentive for the incremental steps in that direction and that is definitely headed towards smaller firms that offer great utility at competitive margins (utilizing technology).

For cord cutters today, a high speed connection to Netflix and an over the air news connection as well as internet news replaces most content needs. Yes, this works for a very small percentage of people right now but this obvious weakness in the macro market structure has been exposed and if a dramatic change in market dynamics were to happen, this critical weakness may be accentuated.  In an age of 'anything can happen' this kind of awareness must be accounted for in a larger set of contingencies.  It is not negative thinking as much as it is practical planning with regard to today's constantly evolving markets for content (especially with an economy that is uncertain as ever). 

Boomers are easily made resilient to sharp change and until recently were monitored for the true tone of any market in which they dominated...especially content. That will change.

Choice is not an ideal. It is where we are all headed because it is what will benefit consumer and smart competitors most. Choice will benefit our entire society.

Last: I have written about Choice very often and it is because all other steps in the revolution of media go through Choice.  For instance, the better metrics thread discussed often in the past year is completely dependent upon Choice.  There is no way around Choice in the long run and that will be evident if it is not already.  That is a big clue about how to get meaningfully better measurement to where it needs to be...

Paying A 'Sports Tax', Even If You Do Not Watch NYT 12 16 11

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.

Net Neutrality: The big issue few understand is going to get bigger

good link: Google no enemy to phone Operators  BB 5 11

Why does it matter? It's about the need for speed.

I suspect that the level of sophistication needed for this technical issue will allow savvy monied players to keep it in the realm of regulators and out of the realm of popular issues. Power, therefore, (taxing power) is likely to be given to the big money interests. It does not have to be complicated.

Net neutrality is a pipeline issue. Who gets to design the rules for the basic utility that delivers us wherever connectivity?

The FT is a very good paper and has a good short read on the issue recently that is now coming out of European regulators. The pattern is all too familiar. Once a fee for content producers is established in terms of data flow use, then taxes will be added. This tactic of going after deep pockets is only taxing the utility of the internet.  This will increase the cost of speed to end users again and again.  This is not a responsible use of the most important tools ever devised.  Not yet anyway. The tools need more time to develop.  Channels need investment and we should realize just how important this transition is that we are making right now to digital content consumption. The path of least resistance for regulators is to tax that new behavior as if it answers our revenue problems. That approach is lazy and irresponsible. Taxing these channels now may well prevent much needed investment & progress in these areas from happening. 

Ultimately, fiscal responsibility may be about new taxes but some will hurt more than they help.

Consumers have multiple new monthly bills to pay in the last few decades just for receiving communications. Mobile phone bills, TV, now data flow are shaping up to be easy hits for tax hungry spenders in DC.  If we keep charging more for speed, then ultimately we will turn people away from the very innovations we should collectively encourage. The sooner everything becomes digital and high speed the sooner we will see dramatic benefits distributed widely in the US. This may sound idealistic but it isn't really and it is certainly not about entertainment.   Speed is what change is about with these new tools and slowing us down with taxes and taxes and more disguised taxes is like applying the brakes as you coast down a big hill. Think about it. This is exactly why I have written about spectrum being so important. Over the air broadcast is a generationally tied trend that will fade as digital becomes more ubiquitous everyday. But if greed tied to politics stops speed from happening then, like everything else in America these days, we will put off the growth till sometime in the future because of politics today. I am sure Donald Trump could make it sound smart on TV with a wry look of some kind attached to a sound bite. This is exactly why this issue will divide along the generational lines.  Speed is everything until we have it everywhere. 

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.

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 most important trend in communications is less about tablets & smart phones and is not as positive as all the hype right now

There is a lot of white noise about tablets in the media this week because the marketing machine is revved up.  Thirteen+ months ago we saw the iPad released into our lives and the spin has surpassed the reality. I know the numbers of these cool gadgets are swelling but the trend that matters more is being drowned out by the white noise. This post is IMO about what really matters most.

Connectivity.  The gadgets get the headlines as if they are what connects us but the pipelines are what really matter most and movement there is badly in need of being freed from greed.  The digital pipeline is critical infrastructure and how we know that is because those who govern the pipelines have too much pricing power still. These oligopolies are shaping new markets into distorted markets that are too familiar to Boomers.

The content consumption market reality of the digital generation can be defined by Choice.  Choice is defined by consumers and not pipeline providers  (ala Can you hear me now?) 

Choice will be delivered upon by enterprises specializing their focused offerings to us as part of the whole and doing it both better and more efficiently than before.  The urge to horizontally aggregate services in order to build pricing power (long before this critical infrastructure is built out) is disingenuous and unfair to both consumers and our country as a whole.  Yes, it's tough to take the reality of deflation in an existing business but we are up to it and will all benefit from it in the longrun.  In this next era of growth we may just find outselves asking tough questions like this: Has our economy invested too much of itself in entertainment? These kinds of big, central questions will characterize the next phase of time and we are arriving there now.

Further, Choice (in all areas related to content consumption) is defined by better measurement but it has to conform to Choice. What does that mean? Eventually it will mean strict adherence to privacy standards for all zealous marketers in the digital realm who think participation means opting out of ownership of personal information and other rights.  It doesn't and Choice should remind all of us that Choice will win all arguments in this phase we've entered.  It is the dominant trend in content consumption along with social mood which will guide us all more and more in these trending directions.

So, cheap smart phones are not what really matters though so many want you to think the mobile market will explode just because they are available and the fact that they carry yet another monthly revenue streamis a positive not a negative in predicting extended exponential growth.  How attractive an idea! Pipeline greed is all too common in the US.  Pipeline greed must be controlled by introducing competition broadly.   Simply merging the #3 & #4 wireless providers in order to create a third (maybe eventually) good national wireless network is short sighted and limited thinking. Oh sure, it can be spun to sound amazing like anything.  It may serve us well for upwards of a decade but our digital infrastructure can already be described as behind some other smaller digitally sophisticated nations.  Additionally, the trends in digital communications will grow and morph like lightning compared to earlier similar industrial expansions governed by oligopolies.  Concentrating power in a couple or a few digital pipelines is foolish, manipulative, disingenuous, and outrageously selfish.  How many times do we need history to teach us that politics drives these decisions and free cash flow is cloaking limited competition that saps the American economy of its productive potential in this new economy. These highly profitable dominating networks act as taxing mechanisms instead of assisting creative construction to its potential in the larger economy. Every week we see political bitching about job creation as if Washingotn must somehow do it for us. How about really freeing up the digital pipeline and see how many small business jobs get created when $90 a month smartcell bills and $100+ month combined cable/high speed bills are brought into reality with our larger digital economy potential.  It'll be like a substantial tax credit that is returned by thousands of small businesses operating in a new efficient pipeline. Really think about this because the barage of commercials makes it sound like were are all on the cutting edge when the real cutting edge has been abandoned for donations and political influence.

Some (many?) sophisticates will look on and say the market will handle these kinds of things in time but the political process is really handling them for us so let's call it what it is and let the free market really have at it right now. We need broad based digital pipeline access that is competitive and not some slickly marketed version of competition with a very pretty girl in a dress. We need to release our national resource of spectrum and allow the market economy to freely build out those resources for the future of the American economy. Just dong this will limit horizontal price fixing and much of the hubub about net neutrality over time. Capacitybuildout is essential right now.  To think that the existing pipelines will somehow suffice is long term foolish and politically selfish owing to short election cycles and deep pockets. The digital access market is controlled by oligopolies and politicians right now. The spectrum belongs to the people. It is a national resource and we all need it now to create a multi-lane digital economy that is fast, efficient, cheap, and reliable. It is the best stimulus we can give our nation.

Can you hear me now? !

? Is dynamic pricing a possibility?

Latest post on my trend blog is Social Mood versus Social Media; how to anticipate granular change

Last June I wrote the post The Difference Between Pioneers and Settlers.

It was an intentionally light take on the chaos we see everyday out on the parts of the digital frontier that are now populated and growing rapidly.  As digital towns and markets get built around new tools the same kinds of struggles happen over and over. It really doesn't matter whether you are talking about water rights, grazing issues, fences, or who owns what rights(?). The latest VHS vs. Betamax battle is underway pitting the open source model against the original pioneers that reliably fight the trend until they are exhausted.  This Wall Street Journal link to Web Video Rivalry Sparks US Probe

The key point in this fight is about Google, the settler, buying and releasing code that is being used as open source in order to encourage a web video standard  free of royalties to oppose the MPEG (for profit) model.  Currently it is the standard and it produces profit for the company MPEG LA. The problem is that two of the Pioneers on the other side of this fight are Apple and Microsoft.

Competition is essential to Choice and pioneers hate competition.