Content? Or production & distribution?

“Are We Ready to Play With Pay? The Content Value Reproposition” by Steve Smith (EContent Magazine, April 2010). As the internet allowed islands of content to drift together, the cost of being an info consuming traveler  fell, drastically. Aside from the benefit of no more dead trees, it doesn’t get any cheaper than free, does it? But now what? How are content providers supposed to survive on a business model based on free?

In the end, Steve’s article inspired the letter below. The stellar news is, the editors of EContent printed it in the July/August 2010 issue. It’s always nice to see the AU State of Mind get more love. Enjoy!

Hello Steve

I just wanted to take a moment and mention that I thought your article was very well done. However, there are two things that I would like to mention:

1) I was surprised you did not make mention of iTunes. About the only thing more ubiquitous than music is air. That said, the general belief is the content (i.e., music) is the loss leader and ol’ Steve J. & Co make their money on the hardware. Maybe “value add” is the model to follow? That is, content providers don’t just publish, but consult, host seminars, etc.

2) Early on you wrote, ” Traditional media made their ad models work because they controlled both the supply and distribution of content around a limited set of brands.” I’m not so sure this is as accurate as it could be. The advantage traditional media once held was for the most part based on production and distribution. Supply had little to do with their advantage. It was the barriers to entry (read: cost) that sustained that biz model. The People have always been willing to self-express and self-publish. It wasn’t until the early 90’s with desktop publishing software and relatively
lost cost copies from Kinko’s did that really become feasible and “mainstream” (in an underground, not quite mass market ‘zine sorta way). Today, even outside of the internet, digital printing is getting
more and more reasonable. And then there’s something like MagCloud that uses the advantages of the internet to let people self publish on demand. In short, the content has always been there.

One step further, I would argue that this is somewhat the problem with traditional media. They are under the belief they were in the content biz. They were not. The reality is, they were in the production
and distribution biz with much of their “content” coming from wire services or just regurgitating the details of events. Today, I would bet for most ball games I can get play by play via Twitter. So why watch the 11 o’clock news? Let alone read the morning paper? Those mediums are slow and costly.

Again, for the most part they have not been “creating” content, just moving it around.

Thanks again for the article.

Mark Simchock
Chief Alchemist
Alchemy United

World Cup: Bud vs Bavaria

“Fifa acts after ‘ambush marketing’ by Dutch brewery” by BBC News (news.BBC.co.uk, 15 June 2010). Being a lover of The Beautiful Game, this off the pitch sideshow is worth mentioning.

Internationally televised or not, if the Budweiser brand is fearful of three dozen women in orange dresses then there is something significantly wrong with Bud’s marketing efforts. In raising the issue to the legal level, FIFA and Anheuser Busch have probably played to Bavaria’s hand and have given the tiny Bavaria the even higher profile they were seeking. Haven’t we’ve seen this tactic before? Are FIFA and A.B. that naive?

Finally, as the anti mega-corporation climate continue to grow amount consumers, Buds excessive counter attack against the underdog Bavaria in all likelihood risks additional push back against the Bud brand, as well as the Anheuser Busch family of brands. Worth it? Probably not. What’s next, supporters being banned for wearing their squads’ colours because a sponsor doesn’t like that colour?

For violation of the spirit of the game, “The King of Beers”  should be sent off.

What do you think? Is FIFA and A.B. acting in their own best interests, or looking to be a social media victim of their own 20th century mindset?

Listen and ye shall learn

While not quite a change in venue, but how about a change in medium? Please take a moment to enjoy these two relatively short audio interviews from Harvard Business Review.

“HBR IdeaCast: Positive Deviance and Unlikely Innovators” — Interview of Richard Pascale (associate fellow of Said Business School at Oxford University) coauthor of “The Power of Positive Deviance”.

“What Copycats Know About Innovation” — Interview of Oded Shenkar, professor at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business and author of “Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imitation to Gain a Strategic Edge”.

Content is Queen. “Quality” is King.

“Interview: Ricky Van Veen – College Humor CEO Shares His 10 Web Content Urban Legends” by Brenna Ehrlich (Mashable.com, 8 June 2010). A quickie worth sharing. Three universal themes worth noting are:

1) Content isn’t king — quality is.

2) But it is the receiver who defines quality. Quality is relative and based on perceived value of the experience.

3) Based on the perceived value it is the receiver who makes it viral, or not. It doesn’t matter how much you try to spin it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

How to save the fans from the NBA

“6 Ways to Fix the NBA” by Stephen Fried (Parade.com, 20 June 2010). As luck (?) would have it, this article managed to come my way via Google Alerts. And yes, sports as an analogy for business is overdone. None the less there are some interesting observation here that apply to incentives, as well as cause and effect gone astray.

Here is a version of the comment that was submitted:

Dear Parade,

I read the six recommendations on improving the appeal of the NBA and would like to comment. My thoughts are as follows:

1) Change foul out rules — While it’s true people wish to see the star players, no one comes to see fouls either. In any sport fouls are the “ugly” side of the game. I find it hand to believe that what ultimately comes down to more fouls is going to be appealing for the fan. Is there any prescient for ugliness increasing a fan base of any sport?

2) Increase scoring — I would like to suggest there are two flaws here. One, accelerating scoring will only accelerate the gap in two mismatched teams. Does the NBA really need more blow outs? Two, it’s supposed to be a game and sport, the tit-for-tat approach of focusing on scoring is going to wear thin very fast. One could argue it’s the perceived (?) lack of strategy is actually what’s hurting the NBA today. Pass… Pass… Dunk. Followed by pass… Shoot… gets dull after a while. We know they can score, the question is, do they have game?

That said, an interesting idea might be just giving the team that’s leading less time to shoot? Or the team that’s down more time so they control the pace, can readjust, etc.

3) Raise the age limit — Again, two flaws. One, what if the stars-to-be opts out of the college route and decide to play in Europe instead. Two, does this not confirm the criticism that many already make about college basketball? That is, it’s not about education, sport and developing students into citizen, but instead it’s just the minor leagues for the NBA.

4) Encourage quirk — Ha! In this day and age?? Even at 140 characters Twitter is enough for some of these guys to hurt themselves and ruin their careers. In a society that expects perfection this recommendation is just an accident ready to happen. Furthermore, just because they are great athletes does mean they have “personality”. What’s does shooting a basketball have to do with anything other than that? Yes, let them be who they are. Just consider the classic, “Be careful what you wish for”.

5) Change the trade rules — Truth be told, there is already collusion between the agents and the front offices. The free market will be great as long as there is a way to ensure it is remains a free market.

6) Shortern the season — Finally something that makes sense. And please suggest the same for baseball and hockey too. The NFL has it right, as does European football (aka soccer). The irony here is this is a call for quality, yet more (read: quantity) scoring was recommended earlier.

The bottom line… More fans will pay attention when the NBA, or any brand for that matter, becomes a better entertainment value than other choices fans might already have. I’m not so sure most of the six recommendation listed really workt towards that goal. That is to consistently entertain to a level that exceeds expectations.

Thanks for listening.

Mark

p.s. I thought it was interesting that the woman’s league was not mentioned. It very well could be that the WNBA is cannibalizing fans from the NBA. Maybe this is because in the WNBA it ismore about “game” than about size, or should I say size of egos?Btw, when was the last time a fan got beat up at a WNBA game?