"Blogging innovation and marketing insights for the greater good"
Business Strategy Innovation Consultants

Blogging Innovation

Blogging Innovation Sponsor - Brightidea
Home Services Case Studies News Book List About Us Videos Contact Us Blog

A leading innovation and marketing blog from Braden Kelley of Business Strategy Innovation

Monday, March 15, 2010

Escaping the Internet Commodity Trap

by Rowan Gibson

Escaping the Internet Commodity TrapThe Internet is like a black hole that relentlessly sucks in, digitizes and democratizes content of every kind. While that may be generally good news for consumers (hey, look at all the great stuff we can now get for free), it has turned out to be unbelievably bad news for the content providers. Ask anyone in the print media business, or the music business, or the movie business. For at least the last decade, industries that primarily produce content have been struggling hard to find a viable new financial model in a world where internet users (particularly the young generation) don't expect to pay for anything they read, listen to, or watch. As one popular mantra puts it: "Content is no longer king". The fact is, content distribution is now king. Power has shifted to the content aggregators - think Google, YouTube, Digg.com or iTunes - and to new media platforms like Amazon's Kindle reader or the Apple iPad. So how exactly are content providers supposed to make money in an era of rampant digital commoditization? The only option they have left is to innovate like never before; to reinvent their industry business models before they become obsolete.

I remember talking to Kevin Kelly, co-founder of Wired magazine, back in 1995 about the future of the Web. He told me he viewed the Internet as a "planetary-sized copying machine" and added that "trying to stop copying on the Net is impossible." Indeed, within a week of my latest book "Innovation to the Core" being published in Chinese, there were at least two websites in China offering a digital version of the book for illegal download. Consumers clearly win - why buy the physical book when you can get the digital file for free? But in terms of book sales and royalties, the author (i.e. me!) and the publishers lose out entirely.

That's why the book publishing industry is feverishly exploring a variety of new business models. One option is to sell eBooks direct to customers, cutting out middlemen like distributors and retailers, and building a community around the books and authors. Since eBooks have a relatively low price tag, the hope is that consumers will be willing to pay for the genuine article (a la iTunes) rather than download an illegal copy, especially if it comes with social-media-enabled tools that help them discuss and share the book with others. Another option is to make the eBook itself a richer multimedia experience (with audio, video, hyperlinks and so forth) rather than just a text-based medium. Instead of embedding all of these media in a single digital file (which would still be relatively easy to copy and distribute illegally), publishers could give consumers a code when they purchase the book that offers exclusive access to a dynamic, integrated online application environment.

A similar challenge faces today's music business. Over the last decade, music labels, retailers, and the artists themselves have seen their revenues fall off a cliff in an era when teenagers can - and do - get all the music they want for free. Last year, 95% of music downloads were still from illegal file-sharing sites. And although Apple is now the world's biggest music retailer, its iTunes store has never been a massive revenue producer. Instead, it simply serves as a provider of low-cost content for the iPod, helping to drive sales of Apple's premium-priced music player. So far, the latest trend - cloud-based, streaming music sites like Spotify, Rhapsody and Pandora - has not been very helpful to the music industry either. Until now, these sites have employed a free-to-users, ad-supported model which doesn't generate much money for the labels or the artists. As an example, it's estimated that a million plays of Lady Gaga's popular song "Poker Face" on Spotify only earned her a paltry $167.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about the artists because most of them make their money these days on concert revenue and merchandising, not on the sale of recordings. And since people go to live concerts to hear artists performing songs they already know, it's actually in the artists' interests to have their music distributed as widely as possible, even if it's for free, in order to generate a lot of fans. Yet what about the music labels? How can they possibly compete against free downloads? Only by finding innovative new ways to add value. That's what MusicDNA is all about. It's a new digital file format that contains not just music but additional content such as lyrics, images and interesting info like interviews, tour schedules, or updates to the artists' social network pages. Anyone who downloads the file illegally would miss out on all these extras. So MusicDNA offers hope that the industry can open up new revenue streams. It may also point the way forward for Hollywood studios as they look for ways to battle illegal movie downloads.

Another victim of the Internet commodity trap has been the traditional news media industry. According to a new survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, more Americans now get their news from the Internet than from newspapers, and three-fourths say they primarily learn of news via updates on social media sites like Twitter. So as readers (closely followed by advertisers) make a mass exodus from print to digital media, 'The Press' as we know it seems to be going the way of the dinosaur. In the face of mounting bankruptcies, mass layoffs and plunging advertising sales, some publishers have already thrown in the towel. As an example, McGraw-Hill recently signaled their despair by selling off BusinessWeek at the bargain basement price of less than $5 million.

So is there any hope for this ailing industry? Some think it might still be possible to go back to the old 'paid content' model. Rupert Murdoch, illustrious media mogul of News Corporation, has been making headlines over the last year with his plans to erect a pay wall around his media. And, if it works, others will almost certainly follow. An analogy could be the advent of cable TV in the 1960s and 1970s. At first, very few believed that anyone would be willing to actually pay for TV shows and movies after spending decades watching them for free. But today the average household in North America pays about $50 a month for Pay-TV, so why shouldn't the same principle work for the Internet? There is also new hope on the horizon in the form of emerging digital media platforms like Kindle and Apple iPad, that promise to bring fresh revenues to the news industry by charging readers to access publications in an exciting new way.

Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, has co-founded a company called Journalism Online to help newspapers find new payment models. These range from micropayments - where readers pay for individual stories - to "freemium" models like the one used by the Financial Times, where readers can view 10 free pages every 30 days.

One of Rupert Murdoch's properties, The Wall Street Journal already charges readers US$119 a year for an online subscription. The WSJ is also experimenting with a new kind of media mix that takes it beyond the written word. Last September, its Digital Group rolled out News Hub, a twice-daily video news series. In January The Wall Street Journal Network delivered a record 5.5 million streams, with about a million or so views being generated by News Hub. This February the group launched Digits, a video series focused on technology which streams live each weekday, and plans are now in the works for several other original live series.

As whole industries see their traditional business models sucked into the Internet commodity trap, their only hope of escape has become radical innovation. For content providers of every stripe, success and survival in the future will be based on the ability to fundamentally rethink, re-imagine and reinvent themselves by innovating around who they serve, what they provide, how they provide it, how they make money, and how they differentiate from the rest. Stewart Brand's maxim may have famously stated that "information wants to be free", which is at the heart of utopian Internet democracy, but the cold reality is that every business has to make money. That means that whether you produce books, newspapers, magazines, music, movies or TV shows, somebody somewhere has to pay somehow. Figuring out who that could be - and how the financial model would work - is one the greatest business battles of our age.


Related Articles - "Content is No Longer King" - Part 1 - Part 2 - by Stephen Shapiro


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Rowan GibsonRowan Gibson is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on enterprise innovation. He is co-author of the bestseller "Innovation to the Core" and a much in-demand public speaker around the globe. On Twitter he is @RowanGibson.

Labels: , , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Saturday, March 13, 2010

A world without newspapers?

by Adam Hartung

A world without newspapers?We're rapidly becoming a quick-communication world. 140 characters is all we get on Twitter, and it's becoming the new "elevator pitch." Communication has moved from letters and phone calls to texting and Facebook. What we write, and say, is getting shorter. Book sales have declined for 4 years, and magazines are rapidly becoming an historical artifact. We rely on bloggers to read, digest, reformat and inform us quickly about what we want to know.

But, behind this, there has to be real fact gathering. Somebody has to report information as it happens, and dispense it. In many countries this was done by the government. But in the modern world we've relied on newspapers, and the wire feed services (AP, UPI, Reuters) that supply newspapers, to give us a lot of the raw news. Newspapers used ad revenue to pay for news acquisition, and they delivered the stream every morning.

But now, due to internet competition, newspapers are running out of cash. As people turn to the web for instant information advertisers have dropped newspapers. Subscriptions have fallen. And several newspaper companies, such as Tribune Corporation, have filed for bankruptcy. Many towns are at risk of losing the daily newspaper altogether. And employment has dropped to 1950's levels


Collapse of Newspaper Employment
So, what will be the prime source for information? Where will bloggers, and tweeters and web sites get the news if the newspapers disappear? Who is going to pay for field reporters, investigative reporters and correspondents in places far away - or dangerous like wars. The public has already bemoaned the lack of "news" in television news - which is more about pictures than news. And nowadays television news is dominated by opinion programs like "Countdown" or "The O'Reilly Factor."

It's clear that people want their information digitally - and mostly from the web. It's also clear that advertisers are drawn to the web with its far lower ad rates and specific, trackable ad placement. But what's unclear is where original news content will be created when the newspaper companies disappear. Even the most successful news web sites (Marketwatch.com and HuffingtonPost.com, as examples) depend largely upon information supplied them from wire feeds and newspaper sources for content.

A free society depends upon access to information. And nowhere is access more available than the USA. But unless there is some serious innovation in publishing, the system is at risk of collapse. Opinions will be as available as air, but if the original news sources dry up - what will everyone talk about? How will people - investors, voters, parents, politicians and others - obtain original information to become informed? Understanding what will replace the newspaper industry as a source of original news content is a difficult question to answer.

What will be the innovation that will keep the river of original, real time news flowing? In 2020, how will we be able to obtain information we can trust for accuracy?

The "media" industry is in big trouble. Large players, like News Corp., have seen profits decline - despite acquisitions like MySpace.com. GE recently agreed to sell NBC/Universal for less than it cost to create. But so far, few have figured out how make a profit from digital media as the market transitions away from print and television. While web sites proliferate, they produce less than 1/10th the revenue of old media.

Without some serious innovation, our news could soon be long on quantity - and very short on quality.


Editors Note: Apologies all around. This article from Adam Hartung was orignally supposed to be part of January's Innovation Perspectives, but I misplaced it. I hope you still enjoy it.


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Adam HartungAdam Hartung, author of "Create Marketplace Disruption", is a Faculty and Board member of the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management, Managing Partner of Spark Partners, and writes for "Forbes" and the "Journal for Innovation Science."

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Museum of Why

by Matt Heinz

The Museum of WhyToo many brands, companies and even vertical sectors assume what they do is, well, what they do. They define their value based on their current tactical, delivered product or service to the market and to their customers. But that's not at all what they do, of course. Let's look at a couple examples.

People don't buy a newspaper because it's printed news. They can get that news from a myriad places today. So what makes newspapers unique? What value do they really serve? I actually read the newspaper more often now than ever, but I don't subscribe to the print edition. I read online every day, check various reporters' blogs for intra-day updates, and count on newspaper reporters to take complicated issues and boil them down to something I can read briefly, get the gist of the story or message, and move on with my day. That's value, and has nothing to do with the means by which that value is delivered to me.

So many sectors, so many businesses need to ask "why" several times over to understand their value to their customers. Why is this important? Why do my customers care? Why is this different and valuable to the marketplace?

Let's say you're the curator of a museum. Historically, your product has been a building with artifacts, exhibits and other physical manifestations of the history and ideas you are preserving. But if you were starting the museum from scratch, what would you do differently? How would you boil down your purpose to its essence, combine that with the target audience you're serving, and deliver a product that more directly reflects and achieves that focus?

If you still think part of the answer is a building to preserve artifacts, that may be fine. But keep asking why. At the end of those "why" questions is your core value.

If you could start your business or category/sector from scratch today, how would you address the answer to that final "why" in a different way? How could you deliver value faster, more effectively, and more completely than you do today?


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Matt HeinzMatt Heinz is principal at Heinz Marketing, a sales & marketing consulting firm helping businesses increase customers and revenue. Contact Matt at matt@heinzmarketing.com or visit www.heinzmarketing.com.

Labels: , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Fantastically, Brilliantly, Insanely Amazing


by Kevin Roberts

One thing about the January 27th launch of the Apple iPad clashing with President Obama's first State of the Union address was that they both focused on Jobs.

And check out the awesome enthusiasm Steve Jobs and his team have for their new baby in this video!





A lot of hype and hyped-up criticism have accompanied the launch of the iPad. Nothing new there. Apple attracted lots of criticism with the launch of the iPod in 2001 (total sales: 220 million) and the iPhone in 2007 (total sales: 34 million). They centered on a perceived lack of functionality. So it's not surprising to hear gripes that iPad doesn't support HDMI or Flash graphics, or have a built-in camera.

The critics have missed the point. The iPad is not a netbook or scaled-down laptop. In fact, it is only a distant relative to the traditional PC or Mac. Instead, its lineage is the DVD player, the VCR, the television set, the radio, the newspaper, the telephone, the telegraph. It is not a workhorse loaded up with functions and hardware. It is a platform for story-telling, interactive, personal and immediate.

The story of human technology is the relentless advance in the direction of greater utility, connectivity, immediacy, affordability and flexibility. The iPad represents a quantum leap in that direction.

We want to communicate with each other, cheaply and easily. We want information where and when we need it. We want to be entertained and to entertain ourselves. We want to get closer to the people and the things we love. The iPad promises to do that. Technology that fails to serve that purpose is just a gadget, suitable for little more than collecting dust.

There's an interesting blog post in the NY Times predicting that the iPad will become an irresistible toy for children because kids will love the tactile nature of the device (they love to jab at things!), 'painting' software allows for mess-free splatter, it's an ideal distraction for car trips, and the screen offers endless story opportunities. I couldn't agree more, but the author could go even further: They are pretty compelling reasons for adults to get their hands on an iPad, too.

Related Articles:

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Kevin RobertsKevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Labels: , , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Apple Tablet Won't Save Newspapers

by Braden Kelley

Apple Tablet Won't Save NewspapersI came across an article talking about some of the reasons why any Apple tablet (iSlate, iPad, iTablet, Macbook, etc.) won't save the newspaper publishing industry.

Keep in mind that when it comes to innovation, it must move through a lifecycle that begins with an insight and ends with adoption. The bigger the innovation, the harder it is to progress through the whole lifecycle, especially the adoption phase. The more innovation introduced in an Apple tablet, the longer it will take to reach mass adoption.

The most important points of the article center around potential barriers to adoption of an Apple tablet and their cascade effect on becoming barriers to adoption of a newspaper subscription on an Apple tablet (especially regional or local papers). Here are a few to consider:
  1. The high cost of any Apple device (likely to cost $500-700 when purchased with a data plan)

  2. The high cost of an acompanying data plan (probably another $600-800 annually)

  3. This will likely be an incremental not a replacement device (people will have to decide whether they can afford to buy another computer to supplement a desktop or laptop and a mobile phone or smartphone

  4. Will people want to pay to subscribe to the Seattle Times when they could pay to subscribe to the New York Times, USA Today, Financial Times, or Wall Street Journal?

  5. People have a lot of free online news and entertainment options

  6. People must allocate their discretionary entertainment spending amongst newspapers, magazines, books, television, internet, video, music, games, and more

  7. Many of the most popular App Store downloads are free or low cost items

These barriers to adoption may slow the adoption of an Apple tablet (as imagined by the most reliable of the rumor mongers). But, if or when an Apple tablet does catch on, it is quite possible that if anything, an Apple tablet might actually accelerate the demise of local newspapers.

What do you think?


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!



Braden KelleyBraden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Friday, January 15, 2010

Innovating Your Why

by Matt Heinz

Innovation Perspectives - Innovating Your WhyToo many brands, companies and even vertical sectors assume what they do is, well, what they do. They define their value based on their current tactical, delivered product or service to the market and to their customers. But that's not at all what they do, of course.

People don't buy a newspaper because it's printed news. They can get that news from a myriad places today. So what makes newspapers unique? What value do they really serve? I actually read the newspaper more often now than ever, but I don't subscribe to the print edition. I read online every day, check various reporters' blogs for intra-day updates, etc.

So many sectors, so many businesses need to ask "why" several times over to understand their value to their customers. Why is this important? Why do my customers care? Why is this different and valuable to the marketplace?

At the end of those "why" questions is your core value. If you could start the business or category/sector from scratch today, how would you address the answer to that final "why" in a different way? How could you deliver value faster, more effectively, and more completely than you do today?



Matt HeinzMatt Heinz is principal at Heinz Marketing, a sales & marketing consulting firm helping businesses increase customers and revenue. Contact Matt at matt@heinzmarketing.com or visit www.heinzmarketing.com.

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks

Newspaper Coverage of Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
by Kevin Roberts

Newspapers are up against it in the Participation Economy, the Internet-powered revolution of joining in, taking part, sharing and joy. For the modern consumer, the idea of reading newspapers full of day-old news hand-picked by faceless editors seems, well, very early 90's.

These days we get to be our own editor-in-chief, selecting the bits of news, opinion and analysis that best suit our tastes, politics or predilections. The news business still hasn't worked out a way to make this work financially, but I suspect that will change soon. Free is not sustainable. Walter Isaacson, former editor of Time, proposed one possible approach to the issue of payment here.

There may be some spark in the old format yet. On the first day of the climate talks in Copenhagen, 56 newspapers in 20 languages pulled off a dramatic and high-impact stunt. They simultaneously published a front-page editorial calling for action on climate change. Papers included The Guardian (which got the ball rolling), the Toronto Star, the Jakarta Globe, Le Monde, The Brunei Times, la Repubblica and The Cambodia Daily.

This degree of collaboration across geographical and political boundaries carries a high degree of difficulty. Whatever you think about the editorial itself, the scale and audacity of the maneuver is impressive. The old-school newspaper editorial is long past its heyday, but - on this occasion at least - some creative thinking and collaboration breathed some life back into the art-form.


Image Source: http://babycreativeblog.com/copenhagen/



Kevin RobertsKevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Friday, October 23, 2009

Reinventing the Newspaper

by Drew Boyd

Newspapers are dying. Their business model is burning to the ground. They cannot fend off the Internet and other threats despite their virtual monopoly and economies of scale in printing and distribution. Advertisers are moving on. Yet while traditional newsrooms are shrinking, journalism is thriving and the consumption of news is skyrocketing. Why are newspapers shutting down? As Clay Shirky describes it:


"If you want to know why newspapers are in such trouble, the most salient fact is this: Printing presses are terrifically expensive to set up and to run. This bit of economics, normal since Gutenberg, limits competition while creating positive returns to scale for the press owner, a happy pair of economic effects that feed on each other.

With the old economics destroyed, organizational forms perfected for industrial production have to be replaced with structures optimized for digital data. It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves - the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public - has stopped being a problem.

Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know "If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?" To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke."



Perhaps it is not the newspaper model, per se, that needs replaced. Perhaps it is the components of that model that need innovation: printing, distribution, and journalism. Let's examine how.


PRINTING

Printing PressGutenberg's innovation of printing multiple copies of one newspaper was a huge step forward in 1500. Today's large scale printing machines are still built on that idea. Companies like Siemens that produce these machines need to engineer new versions of large volume printers that can take custom digital content and print one unique copy of a paper, then print a different one, the next one, etc, at very high speeds. This would allow news companies to create a custom newspaper for every single subscriber. The capability is already in existence to some degree with the printing of custom mail order catalogs. That technology needs to be extended to allow mass scale customization - a unique paper for every household.


DISTRIBUTION

RSS FeedsNewspaper companies have well-established skills and resources to take the printed paper right from the presses to your doorstep. But they need to "backward integrate" distribution into how they collect content. Today, news organizations rely on their own staff as well as syndicated content from AP and other organizations. The proliferation of blogs and other content providers gives news organization a tremendous opportunity to reinvent their business model by excelling at: news aggregation and brokering. Today's consumer wants more relevant content than what is sent to them in a traditional newspaper. They use RSS feeds to aggregate their own content. Newspapers could do this for the consumer based on the use of meta-tagging and preferences much like what Pandora has done with music. Instead of a Music Genome, the news industry needs to create the "News Genome", a structured architecture of news preferencing that allows customers to pre-identify what they prefer so that news organizations can source and broker it back to them - in printed form, delivered to their doorstep.


JOURNALISM

Newspaper EcosystemJournalism has been dominated by a relatively small group of reporters who go out and collect news and content. Today, there are millions of "journalists" under The Long Tail creating content. The key is how their content is fed into the meta-tagging "News Genome" idea discussed above. To give them an incentive to feed quality, relevant content into that system, news organizations could make micropayments to a journalist for each time and only when their content is pulled in and brokered back out to a subscriber. Clay Shirky is correct when he says consumers won't pay for news because they have never paid for news. So the idea of micropayments from consumers won't work. But micropayments to the journalist when they get a "hit" on their content would create the right incentives to the system. News organizations need to establish a preferencing system of tagging for each of their subscribers, then source and broker relevant, tagged, content to them in RSS-like fashion.

What would it look like? Imagine the ultimate newspaper. It would have articles, editorials, advertising and other content that is custom tailored to your beliefs, lifestyle, affiliations and preferences. If you like to keep abreast of world news, so be it. But if you are also liberal-minded, these same articles would have a liberal bent to them. If you live in Cincinnati, but root for the Chicago Bears, your sports section would have Bears news, not Bengals. Even the obituaries would be connected to you and your world. If a great-uncle of your college roommate passes away, you would get to read about it. Your entire newspaper would be not only filled with the news and information that is relevant to you, but it is also written in a tone and orientation that matches your view of the world. For newspapers, this means instead of printing millions of copies of one version of the daily paper, they now have to print a million versions, one for each of a million different readers. Wow!

A custom newspaper has advantages for the advertisers as well. It is the advertisers, not the subscribers, after all, who subsidize journalism. With custom newspapers, advertisers could target their ads in line with the keyword tags so that the ad appeals to that subscriber's interests and values. My bet is advertisers would pay more for this with the promise of more effective ad placement. More money on the table leaves more room for micropayments to journalists. The loop is closed.

As Shirky notes:

"No one experiment is going to replace what we are now losing with the demise of news on paper, but over time, the collection of new experiments that do work might give us the journalism we need."



Drew BoydDrew Boyd is Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Endo-Surgery division). He is also Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Cincinnati and Executive Director of the MS-Marketing program. Follow him at www.innovationinpractice.com and at http://twitter.com/drewboyd

Labels: , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Creative Destruction and Newspapers

by Steve McKee

Closed - Out of BusinessI love reading the newspaper. I like the feel of the broadsheet in my hand, the anticipation of turning each page to see what's next, and the sense I get of being plugged into the world through the rhythm of daily reading. I am a newspaper loyalist, and I'm an endangered species.

That, of course, is not news. Newspapers are shrinking and their circulation shriveling, like a mirror reflecting the Internet's growth and expansion. Politicians and pundits (including many newspaper editors and publishers) who aren't schooled in business don't recognize the absolute and inescapable law of creative destruction. They wring their hands as if what's happening is a tragic thing. I see it simply as the way of the world.

To a news consumer, the Internet offers many advantages over ink and paper, from timeliness to portability, affordability to dialogue. And for a generation of readers spawned in the wake of the Web, getting their news online is not only better than in print, it's more natural. Even old guys like me who love the sound of the thump on the driveway in the morning increasingly turn to our Macs and Blackberrys to keep up with breaking events.

But while the Internet is rapidly replacing ink, paper and newsstands, the Web is to news as an aluminum can is to Coke - a terrific way to deliver the product but not the source of its value. Newspapers are struggling because newspapers are confused - they forgot they were in the business of building an audience and focused instead on selling the audience (to the advertisers who increasingly bore their cost of operating). That was fine as long as they had a monopoly on distribution, but it led them to spend their limited resources on adding more ink colors rather than more color to their ink. Now that advertisers have (ultimately) infinitely more choices, newspapers are stuck.

But the answer isn't so difficult. The key to the future of the newspaper industry lies in its past. There will always be a market for news, and newspapers still have core competencies in gathering, reporting and interpreting what's important to their readers. If they do their job well, they'll continue to be able to provide the exclusive content for which readers will pay, regardless of whether or not it results in ink-stained fingers.

The more the newspaper industry focuses on 'news' rather than 'paper', the better off it (and we) will be. That will enable it to embrace evolving distribution opportunities and find new sources of revenue and competitive advantage. Just like every other industry must do.



Steve McKeeSteve McKee is a BusinessWeek.com columnist, marketing consultant, and author of "When Growth Stalls: How it Happens, Why You're Stuck, and What To Do About It." Learn more about him at www.WhenGrowthStalls.com and at http://twitter.com/whengrowthstall.

Labels: ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Saturday, July 25, 2009

FREE - A Followup


FREE is an idea I've played with before. Now Chris Anderson, the brilliant editor of Wired and Long Tail advocate, has turned his attention to the four letter word that is shocking business people everywhere. I remember back in the day when sixties radical Abbie Hoffman titled his most famous publication "Steal This Book." What a title! It was a book about free - what was free and how to get it. What Hoffman considered worth getting for free says a lot about the times. We're talking free sandals, free communes, free smoke bombs, and gardening for free 'herb'. Hoffman's book even came with its own stolen Library of Congress catalog number! But while the idea of free is old, what is new is the way the digital world has made free a global phenomenon.

Chris Anderson's book "Free: the Future of a Radical Price" is less ambitious than "The Long Tail." It's more a journey through the digital world of FREE than an attempt to discover what it means or how it will change anything. As the recent demonstrations in Iran have shown, texting, tweeting, and 'free' journalism outdid the newspapers in terms of instant access to what was going on. This free media doesn't mean that newspapers have to pack up their tents, but it does mean they have to evolve.

My bet is that FREE will turn out to be like many other revolutionary phenomena and it will live in an And/And relationship with other technologies. The music industry is turning itself inside-out to cope with the free downloaders by getting faster, more flexible, and more responsive. Music is a tough, competitive business. Talent sparks everywhere, the barriers to entry are low, and choice is, for all practical purposes, limitless. No wonder FREE rocked here first and only now has newspapers, magazines, and books, in its sight.

Of course, FREE is a big part of human nature. Ask mothers who bring up children. Ask the millions of people who help out those who are less well-off. We live in a capitalist age but we need it to be the Capitalism of Inclusion. A world where people look after those who are close to them and watch out for those who fall along the wayside. With FREE opening up communications and creativity, sharing, and social networks, I believe it is helping to make the world a better place. The debate around FREE uncovers its potential to bring out the best in people. I believe we are already seeing this online and offline. FREE to a good home? Sounds perfect to me.

Image credit: Wired



Kevin RobertsKevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Labels: , ,

AddThis Feed Button Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Site Map Contact us to find out how we can help you.