This is a short, 90 second clipping from my talk at the Guardian Changing Media Summit 2010, in London, on "Immediate Media Futures"
The key messages:
In this 'new' era of digital, ubiquitous and mobile / social content, enforcing control when
trust is needed is a very bad idea, indeed - and it is likely to sooner or later eliminate your audience
In the connected economy, I think that forcing to pay is like forcing to love. A much better way to look at this is to "ATTRACT and ENGAGE" followers (those people fka consumers) to buy.
More from this event is available at the Guardian's site; and I hope to have the entire 15 minutes of my talk up on my Gerd-Tube channels soon, as well. You can watch the same video (and other short ones) on my Flickr page.
Martyn Warwick from TelecomTV news has some very nice and succinct comments, as well as some recent stats, on the bizarreness of the French HADOPI law. The juiciest stuff is excerpted and commented below. Enjoy.
A new study carried out by the University of Rennes and focused on the illegal downloading of online music and video in France reveals that it grew by three per cent between September and December 2009 - despite the noisy and bad-tempered passing of a contentious law designed to outlaw the practice.
The report shows that 30.3 per cent of all Web users in France illegally downloaded content over the quarter. Over the period 1 July to 30 September it was 29.5 per cent.
What the Rennes University work throws into stark relief is the feebleness and structural shortcomings of an ill-conceived piece of legislation that was foisted on the government by intense lobbying by vested interests within the content industry. It was conceived in a panic and rushed through without any real analysis or understanding on the part of the legislators of the way the Internet actually works. That's because Hadopi 2 only targets P2P file sharing networks and completely ignores streaming sites. (My comment on access versus copy is here)
However, the numbers of people who watch and/or download video, film and music via streaming is growing rapidly, while the numbers who do so via P2P networks is in equally rapid decline.
The Rennes Report shows that the percentage of French Internet users who favor streaming sites rose from 12.4 to 15.8 between September and December last year. At the same time the percentage of those using P2P networks declined from 17.1 to 14.6 over the same period.
Even more interestingly, the study also shows that those who routinely
and frequently buy and download content legally also use illegal
platforms. It also comes to the conclusion that the suspension or
permanent removal of an individual's Internet connection will be counterproductive as many who do pirate content also pay for stuff as
well. Thus legal video and music sales would fall. My comment: I think this is the most important point: disconnecting those that are looking for content, those that are fans and interested in music, is a ludicrous idea if you actually want to sell to them! Protection is in the business model not in technology or the law. Regulatory capitalism will fail (quoting James Boyle here).
Good coverage of this latest twist in 'change to digital' confusion, via Paid Content, below: Google has killed several blogs - hosted by the Google-owned Blogger platform - that were allegedly infringing on copyright by posting MP3 files. A long-standing tradition of music journalism online is severely endangered. To me, this is yet another example of why we urgently need new legislation in digital music, i.e. the creation of realistic, web-native standards and reliable permissions. Because this is the problem: while the marketing people at the labels love these blogs because they clearly spread the word very efficiently and reach the perfect target groups, the legal people at the labels file DMCA claims and want the sites to remove all MP3 files.
But to me, it also looks like Google is now, increasingly being forced to police blogger-powered sites for unlicensed music postings because executives across many sectors of the traditional media industry are now pointing their fingers at Google for the use of content that is not based on a clear-cut license, i.e. exists in what I call a gray zone - some use of content that is legally uncertain (yes, based on pre-Internet laws, mostly) but has become accepted social-cultural practice. Check out the debate via the Twitter Hashtag. Image: Gorilla vs Bear music blog.
"In what critics are calling “musicblogocide 2010,” Google (NSDQ: GOOG) has deleted at least six popular music blogs that it claims violated copyright law. These sites, hosted by Google’s Blogger and Blogspot services, received notices only after their sites – and years of archives – were wiped from the internet..."
Yesterday, the Net was buzzing with news from Warner Music Group's earnings call, with Edgar Bronfman announcing his intention to not license 'free' streaming services any longer. Rather than rant about this (as tempting as that may be), I thought I would just share some ideas with you, and with Edgar, on what else WMG could do to become.....well, WMG 2.0. Some of these ideas were initially presented to another major music company about 9 months ago, btw. I don't know where this ended up, though - stay tuned.
Gerd Leonhard’s unsolicited thoughts: Creating Warner Music Group 2.0
Dear Edgar, based on what I have learned of my 16 years in digital music, and distilled from the 2 music-specific books I (co)-wrote (“The Future of Music”, and “Music 2.0”) here are a few ideas on how I think WMG could reposition itself and achieve future growth:
1) Create and offer a complete, cutting-edge online platform for your artists, writers, labels etc. Let’s call this the ArtistOS. It should pretty much mirror what Google already does for Internet users, in general, i.e. provide free access to very powerful and inter-connected Web2.0 tools that used to cost 100s of 1000s of $ to build but are now provided free of charge. These tools could include things such as music widgets and embeddable flash players for audio and video, twitter-API based marketing and communication tools, connecting tools based on Facebook- & Google-Buzz/Connect, multi-site upload and updating tools (similar to TubeMogul for videos), text/video/audio RSS feeds and syndication tools, ad-insertion tools and production technologies (for widgets and web pages), mobile phone applications for quick-launching artist and label apps (see MobileRoadie!), general content syndication and CMS tools, Google Buzz, Tumblr- and Friendfeed-like services for artists, Google-analytics-like tools for tracking and analyzing web traffic, and much more. Building (or licensing!) these tools would require some dedicated resources but this would not be a huge undertaking in terms of budget since most of these solutions are based on existing APIs, feeds and various open source offerings. Having the ArtistOS available to anyone that works with WMG would be huge strategic advantage, and would greatly simplify marketing and promotion tasks, as well.
2) Define, publish and promote a Collective, Global and Open Licensing Platform. The biggest obstacle for strong growth in the Music 2.0 era is the utter lack of global licensing standards for the legal use of music on the Net, and apart from the admirable Jim Griffin - led Choruss initiative WMG seems to still be following the old-school path of ‘ignore & deny’, here. Not good. The current licensing procedures are causing severe friction in the digital content ecosystem, and represent a significant hurdle to innovation - and thus to creating and nurturing new revenue streams. WMG 2.0 could solve this problem by pioneering a standardized and collective licensing platform that is open to everyone, transparent, flexible, and revenue-share based rather than fixed-fee based, therefore allowing for liquidity in the new digital market place. Providing a public, standardized yet flexible and open license to all streaming-on-demand services would be a very good way to start this process - and the time to do this is now. Yes, I know, advertising revenue splits are not bringing in much money, now - but they are dead-certain to do so within 18-24 months, when up to 25% of all advertising budgets will be shifting to digital, interactive, mobile and social platforms. Have some imagination. Build the Future (don't keep asking for it to be delivered to you).
3) Vigorously pursue flat-rate and bundling scenarios for the licensing of your entire catalog in return for flat fee payments, RAND-based revenue shares and fair splits of advertising and other revenue streams (similar to what Google has done in China, TDC in Denmark etc). Licensing access to music, rather than (just) copies, is the only way forward in a connected, always-on world that already equals listening with owning. Switch from relying on scarcity to monetizing ubiquity and abundance, and invent new models that fit this. Generate new revenues by engaging with ISPs, telecoms, ICT companies. mobile operators and search engines. Drastically reduce friction. Embrace ‘free’ models as long as somebody will pay somewhere.
4) Develop (or license) and deploy your own mobile music applications, on all platforms (iPhone, Android, Symbian, Windows etc); make mobile applications the center piece of all marketing and selling efforts, worldwide - the future of music is mobile, period. Think of mobile applications as the new CD; and therefore of music as....software. Roll out applications for all new releases, and for all your labels and brand. Make the basic apps free, but offer very attractive ways to upgrade, in all territories. It’s all about the packaging!
5) In terms of future sales, think Freemium, and think access not (just) copy. Offer things that used to cost money (such as listening to a song, on demand), for what I like to call feels-like-free (i.e. in return for the users’ attention); just be sure to find ways to convert 20-50% of those users (aka the friends, fans and followers) to all kinds of new premium services, such as high-definition versions, concert recordings and web-casts, special products, digital compilations etc. In addition, dramatically lower the price for physical products while providing all kinds of premium products - again, focus on selling access to music not just products.
6) Investigate the concept of crowd-sourcing new talent. Use the web’s increasingly useful collaborative powers to discover new artists, and draw bloggers and pro-sumers into the A&R process, worldwide. Bloggers, in particular, are the new Radio DJs! Combine some of the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ with your own professional A&R people. Do what P&G has done with Innocentive and their own ‘Connect and Develop’, and what DELL has done with Ideastorm, and what Kodak is doing in Social Media. The benefits seriously outweigh the risks!
7) Drop most if not all of the on-going law-suits, and switch your legal strategy to a 100% solution-oriented process. Compensation not Control is where the money is; all else is just posturing. The IFPI and RIAA-led efforts of enforcing control in an exponentially consumer-empowering media ecosystem have all failed miserably, and will not produce any monetary results in the future (except for enriching the lawyers). Here is a tough one for you: do you still need these lobbyists? Rather than spending most of the time preventing what the ‘people formerly known as consumers’ really want to do, all available energy should be put into exploring, building and co-developing those ‘new generatives’ for digital content, i.e. next generation advertising and branded content, packaging, bundling, flat rates etc.
8) Pursue drastic and large-scale innovation within - and on the fringes of - WMG. Bring the smartest possible people into the company; apart from content and talent (of course), focus on technology, mobile and next generation advertising and marketing. Invest in start-ups that can invigorate WMG 2.0 and provide significant strategic advantages.
9) Start to really talk to the music users, and have actual conversations with your customers. Engage on public conversation platforms, switch your PR and corporate communications from push to pull. Launch a WMG executive blog, start using Twitter; turn push into pull across the board. Do a Kodak - and go beyond! Create more transparency which creates trust which creates new business opportunities. Win back the trust of the consumer (better: the users) and the artists.
10) Offer profit-sharing arrangements with your artists: from a fixed pool of profit shares, each artist that is affiliated with WMG could receive a bonus payment that is proportional to their significance, every year. Do something similar with your staff.
11) Decentralize your distribution efforts, syndicate the music as wide as possible. Youtube gets 60% of its traffic from people embedding video players into their own websites - do something similar for your catalog. Instead of (or at least, along with) building or supporting central destinations, allow the users & fans to do the marketing for you, and syndicate your assets around the web. Think RSS, feeds, XML, API, not MTV.
12) Data is the new Gold - mine it! Making money around the music (not just from or with the music) is where the future is going. Investigate new business models that are based on data-mining, next-generation advertising and branded content, and behavioral targeting.
Note: once you’re ready.... there are a few good companies already working in most of these areas, and you could team up with them: just ask me.
Fueled by the music industry's ongoing turmoils and, finally, books going digital at a very rapid pace, there is a lot of debate on how to deal with the fact that many people habitually share i.e. redistribute digital content without any of the upstream users making their own payment. How can you monetize content when the copy is free?
This question is a key issue across the board, whether it's in music, eBooks, news, publishing, TV or movies. The fear is, of course, that once a digital item has been purchased by one person it can be easily forwarded to anyone else if it is in an open format, thus seriously reducing the possibility that someone else will actually pay real $ for it, as well (of course, the same is true for supposedly locked or protected digital content as well - it just takes a bit longer). No more control over distribution = no more money. Right?
Despite the plain fact that DRM has proven disastrous in digital music (and now is pretty much history), technical protection measures are still being investigated as a plausible method of securing payment, especially in the exploding eBook sector. This worries me greatly because technical protection measure are expensive, hinder or prevent mass-scale adoption,
curtail or kill social sharing which defeats user-to-user marketing, often drastically limit fair
use, and are by and large useless when trying to thwart the real pirates i.e. those that have malicious, criminal intentions of stealing content in order to sell it to others.
Not just content - Context! In my view, the thinking that the distribution of content must be controlled to achieve any kind of reasonable payment is fundamentally flawed because of this not-so-futuristic realization: in an open, digitally networked economy (note: I am talking about today, not tomorrow!) content publishers need to offer their goods in a way that no longer centers on distribution being the key factor. It should not (only) be the content that is sold (i.e. the mere 0s and 1s) but the context, the added values, the many others items around the content. Sell what can't be copied.
The irrefutable trend is that the window of opportunity of 'selling copies' (i.e. iTunes, eMusic, Kindle etc) is rapidly closing, at least in most developed countries. The next, and very much already-present opportunity is in selling access and added-value services, and in providing content-related experiences.
Once we embrace that the users -the people formerly known as consumers- can't be reduced to just being 'buyers of copies' we can investigate how they would want to pay for everything else, as well. For example, when buying an eBook users shouldn't merely pay for the authorized distribution i.e. the legitimate copy of the words but they could also gain access to highly curated commentary, known peers and friends that may also read this book, ratings, explanations, slide-shows, images, links, videos, cross-references, direct connections with the author or the publisher and so on. Yes: connect with fans + reasons to buy (as Mike Masnick of Techdirt has succinctly summarized many times before).
In this model, as a legitimate user, I would also get valuable context when I pay. I would get engagement, conversation, relevance, personalization, meaning... i.e. really valuable benefits to me as a person, not just a dumb, anonymous recipient of free zeros and ones. I don't get these benefits just because I get a free copy via email, Rapidshare, BitTorrent or some drop-box on the Net, because it is stripped bare of everything that really matters to me. This is the key to the future of monetizing content, and it will take many different shapes and forms depending on the content, and the culture that surrounds it.
For example, in music, it is very likely that streaming-on-demand (and the temporary buffering i.e. offline playing of those streams) will be 'free' i.e. bundled and packaged by 3rd parties, while the context and those many added values will not. If I want a high-definition version of my favorite opera or that Blue Note Jazz Club concert from last night I can buy a premium package that provides it. If I want to share my personal play-lists, ratings and comments with my Facebook friends, and get access to their content, I can add the 'social network option' to my package. If the price is right, I'll buy (btw: this relates directly to why people buy virtual items - perception of value, and purchase after deep engagement - see my Farmville/Facebook example: they sell 800.000 virtual tractors per day;).
As to pricing and making 'buying' irresistible: imagine if a download of a song would cost only $ 0.10 - would anyone
still bother to scour the web to find badly ripped, virus-laced tracks for free? Yes, I know, that price point sounds ridiculous if you used to sell CDs for 20 Euros a pop but the argument
for much cheaper access to digital content that is offered in open
(i.e. copy-able) formats is really quite simple: if you can get 95% of the users to buy at a
much lower price, and make them so happy they will do the marketing for you
(i.e. share links;), instead of getting 5% of the market to buy an
expensive product that they can't really share with anyone (i.e. iTunes
music or Kindle eBooks), then you should be doing just fine. This has been my chief argument for proposing the music flat rate during the past 10+ years, and I think it still holds water (in fact, it seems to be proving itself with the recent developments at Spotify, MOG etc).
And yes: selling at a much lower price but much higher volume only makes sense if
the low-priced (or flat-rated), access-based offerings actually connect directly to a multitude of up-selling possibilities, such as multimedia versions of
eBooks, high-definition versions of radio shows, albums or concerts, in-depth
analysis and audio/video commentary for news etc.
In most content industries, I think the key is to
offer a wipe-out, ueber-attractive way to get started at an
irresistible price-point, and then convert most of those happy users to other
offerings at a much higher price.
Pricing and value: getting the new formulas right. It all comes down to pricing and values - and many decision makers in the incumbent content industry will need to accept who will set those prices i.e. who will be in charge of value perceptions: not them, but the users. Hard stop. Reality check.
If you agree that the sharing of content cannot really be stopped, and that therefore the value of a mere digital copy of content will invariably decline, we must urgently re-think how we address the issue monetizing sharing, and what we can do to create and nurture those new values - the New Generatives - that will replenish those that used to be derived from being able to control distribution.
Added values, all the time. The metrics of the content industries need to shift from getting a copy to rewarding engagement. As an example, let's assume I have just purchased and downloaded a movie in an open file format, and I have a hunch that 50 of my close friends would also enjoy it. I post the movie on my iDisk shared files folder (anyone on .mac can do this) and send the link to everyone. Now, if the only value of the movie is in having received a 'copy without paying', then my friends have received the movie's entire value 'for free'. But if the value of this movie is also in the user / viewer being part of something much larger than mere 0s and 1s, i.e. a conversation or another environment of added values that are available to each individual viewer because they actually purchased access to the movie, then the mere sharing of the file is not going to be very attractive, for the upstream users will not have access to all these other values.
Imagine, then, if a legitimate movie buyer (or more likely, bundled-access-user) would also receive access to a select group of fellow users - and, crucially, representatives of the creators, producers or distributors - that would provide a myriad of additional values such as viewing exclusive, movie-related pictures, slideshows and short clips with the actors, locations or props used in the film, or getting special offers for related products such as books, games, merchandise or even HD versions of the same film, or unlocking new features within the very same file that are otherwise hidden (something that could easily be done within a mobile application, for example)... that is where it starts getting interesting.
Combined with a no-brainer price point, having a constant flow of added values available to legitimate customers would turn file-sharing into a marketing vehicle, i.e. surely I could somehow watch the movie 'for free' but would be barred from all that other cool stuff that I would have access to if I only paid my $2, myself.
The crowd and the cloud: new monetization possibilities not based on Control. Content hosting is moving from my own computer and my hard-drives to the cloud - and indeed, this is very good news for content creators, publishers and rights-holders because if makes it easy to engage and up-sell to the new generatives. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that content files will get larger and larger over the next few years, since many devices are now capable to handle much better resolutions and many users are tiring of bad audio, video and image quality. The age of squashed-sounding MP3s is ending as high-end audio is becoming a reality even in the smallest devices. Assuming those 2 trends (people receiving bigger and better files as well as accessing those files in the cloud rather than storing it on any specific piece of hardware), the key question is what 'sharing' will look like in the near future and what can be done to monetize it rather than try to curtail it.
The answer is in the cloud: I think many people will soon stop sharing the actual media files (since they are getting larger and larger, and therefore more unwieldy) and will share only the links, the bookmarks, the metadata or the tags, if the result is the same, i.e. if the shared content is made fully available to the recipient, without further ado or unwieldy registration procedures, buy-now pitches etc. How could this work?
Imagine you have purchased an ebook for 10 Euros and you want to share it with your wife so that she can read it to you while you drive, or with your son because he really should know about this great book. With a good, old-fashioned printed, dead-tree book, this is certainly not an issue, so why should it be such a problem for the electronic version? Why not create and deploy many extra values around this book (such as video, audio, images, slideshows, dictionaries etc), make the file a lot larger, and then still allow a buyer to share the book via a simple link or bookmark that provides all recipients with the basic, 'words-only' version of the book but withholds the added values until they purchase it for a very low and attractive price, themselves? Once those added values become a significant part of the user experience most users will not want to miss them - protection will be in the business model, not the software!
The perfect testing scenario may unfold soon, exemplified by Apple's new iPad. Extending the concept mentioned above, rather than blocking my wife from sharing an eBook it would be much more reasonable if I could still read the book, 'for free', but all else would not be available without a micro-transaction on my end, i.e. I would not have instant access to videos, links, ratings... i.e. that valuable context. This would clearly drive me to purchase a 'copy' myself - if indeed I like the book enough - sounds like a fair deal to me.
Engagement, interactivity, conversation and a constant stream of added values that can be produced at very low cost is what will give content owners 'protection' from rampant free-loading - not DRM, region-coding or HADOPI laws.
Sharism and Money. When thinking about digital music (my original, futurist starting point), imagine an unlimited music service at a feels-like-free price, supported by advertising, brand sponsorships, ISPs / Telecoms and mobile operators. A service that allows me to stream or download the music, and enjoy it online or offline (pretty soon, a rather pointless distinction, anyway). A service that is basically cloud-based but that allows me to make temporary sub-clouds on my personal device so that I can always get to what I like the most, much like the gMail offline reader, mobile RSS readers, the Instapaper iPhone app etc. While I may be inclined to share some of the music files with my friends, I would be highly unlikely to publish the complete access details to my personal cloud via, say, Twitter - I would risk watering down my profile and messing up my entire personalization efforts. Avoiding profile and account 'pollution' can be a major driver of payment adoption, I think.
Similarly, in books: let's assume, as a publisher, you'd
allow people to log-in and get digital access to 10s of 1000s of books,
at a low price (such as O'Reilly's Safari Books already does, for all those hardcore programmers and geeks around the world) - what
would keep people from just sharing the log-in details and only pay for one
account but have 2000 people getting everything for free? The answer:
once I am really involved with a platform I like, and use every day, I am not very likely to
share the account details with everyone, because I don't want my
profile to be polluted, and my own experience to be negatively
effected.
This is similar to having your family members use your eBay
account for bidding on stuff they want to buy: not a good idea, since it will
be your rating (which is the real currency of eBay) that will be
negatively effected if your 15 year old son does not live up to the
buyer's expectation on his last transaction. The same is true for
Amazon: share your log-in details with your 12 year old daughter and
you will make a mess out of your recommendations - she may love SuBo
(Susan Boyle) but you don't want to keep seeing pitches for stuff she may want,
for the next 9 months.
The bottom line: content sharing isn't the real problem: high price points, outmoded toll-booth strategies, broken relationships and processes, low values, bad technology and service, and lack of conversation and engagement are.
Here is my message to publishers and content owners: lower the prices to the point of unanimous excitement, use open standards that work for everyone, everywhere; bundle and package as attractively as you can (then: repeat). Remove all reasons that your users may have to avoid the toll-booth, and thereby side-step the conversion to 'paid'. The lower the hurdle for legitimate usage and paid engagement, the less you will have to worry about 'competing with free free'.
And do it now so you don't have to win people back from routing around you.
I just read this very interesting piece in PaidContent.org (one of my favorite sites): "Steve Haber, president of Sony’s Digital Reading Business Division... at the MediaBistro eBook Summit... decried the emphasis on the $9.99 price point for e-books. “The $9.99 price point is not a money-maker,” he said. “Certain bestsellers are sold at that price for retail, competitive reasons. But you need to have a range. You could go from $10 to $20 even to $100 for an e-book. There’s no sweet spot and it’s certainly not $9.99. When you walk into a bookstore and there are a range of prices. It should be the same for an e-book store.” Haber went on to defend the use of DRM, which he doesn’t see going away for awhile. “You need an orderly process to sell books and DRM makes that possible, mainly because it allows content creators and distributors to make money from that content"
Ouch. Have you not learned anything from happened in digital music during the past 10 years - where have you been hiding?Let me summarize it for you:
DRM is a total - and much discussed - nuisance and significant deterrent to legal consumer behavior, and it does ZERO to prevent sharing of copyrighted content online. DRM just turns users that have legal, fair and honest intentions into guinea pigs for digital rights protection schemes thought up by people who still have their emails printed for them. Wake up: protection is in the business model - not in technology. I may even concede that DRM may work in some (but increasingly rare) cases, but for books and for music...? No chance. Imho, you have to be kidding if you think these kinds of remote-controlled-rights schemes will make you any money in the future. In my opinion, anyone that still talks about DRM being a chief part of their eBook strategy should consider taking a longer vacation, and do some serious reading and thinking (sure... you could start with my own new book "Friction is Fiction" -ask me for the free PDF if needed; )
Face it: the price point for digital books has to be lower - much lower - than the price point for a real i.e. dead-tree, printed, shipped, physical book. Just because you can't seem to figure out how to reduce your costs across the board, start to add significant value in new areas and still turn a profit, that does not mean consumers will massively adopt eBook-reading at those price points (Kindle etc) or even above (as seems to be suggested above).
This looks like a very lame rerun of the classic and most disturbing mistakes of the music industry: the incumbent market leaders really thought they could actually increase their margin as well as their ability to control the usage (!) when selling music online, i.e. have much lower distribution and marketing costs, keep the artists down to the same old, tiny percentage, and - yes ! - increase the prices on a per-track basis.
Ask yourself this simple question: what would have happened if a download had been priced at $0.20 or even 10 cents per track (or even, yes, a flat-rate), instead of $1 - would anyone still have bothered to try and download it for free, somewhere else? Could the value of those active, engaged and happy buyers be captured, and then be extended to other things you can sell them? Clearly, the answer is YES.
This is my message to the eBook industry and the publishers: do not head into the ill-fated direction of wanting to sell digital content for the same price as the physical content (or even above...ouch) - it is a pipe-dream!
Instead, make eBooks drastically cheaper, offer unique bundles and compilations, add new values all the time (cross-media anyone?), invent new packages (think mobile), and stop focusing on just selling UNITS. Flip the pricing logic before it flips you: lower prices, infinitely more engaged and legal users, and new Generatives on top!
Finally, here is something that wasn't touched on at Paid Content but that is crucial: If you think that the traditional deals with the authors will carry over into the eBook environment you are deeply mistaken. Witness what happened with Random House's eBook initiative, here.The authors (and their agents!) will need to be brought in as PARTNERS not minor players, as they have been in the past. Accept, adapt and move forward.
A passion for music and obsessive guitar-playing (me, here... yes, that was some time ago, and Jonathan, here), passion and fire for public speaking (me, him), a deep curiosity about 'the future of ..............(fill-in blank here)', and a vast network of great connections to some very interesting people, around the world (see Jonathan + himself, me + myself)
So over a few beers i.e. 'Mass' and Brezels & Ente (aka duck) at the Oktoberfest, it transpired that we both also have a serious passion for entrepreneurship and startups, and both of us are constantly talking to interesting new companies, trying out new services and ideas. Post beer-guzzling, we met in London and decided to launch a new company together - and thanks to the likes of Wordpress, Twitter and Blip.tv, today we proudly present Indicatr.
Indicatr's mission is simple: it's a service for investors that highlights the most promising
opportunities, based on a deep understanding of the technology,
internet, media & entertainment. For our clients, we identify major trends and immediate
future scenarios, and then suggest startups that will do well, based on
these insights.
All our posts about new companies will be in video format; ranging from 2 to 5 minutes. We call this 'our hunches' and you can subscribe to all videos and thus our newest hunches (hopefully, at least one per week), over at our blip.tv channel. Our new Twitter channel, broadcasting our news and many more 'hunches', is here.
Basel, Switzerland, October 12 2009 Gerd Leonhard, Media Futurist
Open Letter to Lord Mandelson, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills (UK)
The Digital Music License (DML) – why and how a new public license for the legal consumption of music on the Internet would provide a solid alternative to the proposed '3 strikes' legislation
The proposed "3 Strikes" legislation is flawed in many more ways than I could hope to outline in this letter, and many of these issues have already been addressed in many other places. Therefore I shall provide only a quick summary of some of the key issues, and then move on to describe what a fruitful, realistic and decidedly more pragmatic alternative could look like.
Unauthorized use of music on the Internet is not a technical problem but a business issue. The reasons why the global ‘free’ sharing of music via the Internet (whether streamed or downloaded) is growing exponentially cannot be nullified by technological means. Rather, the digital music (r)evolution clearly poses a myriad of business and socio-cultural problems that require us to devise a new social contract that legalizes what people actually do, and then build new business models around it.
Anyone that has attempted to innovate within the music industry (including me) will attest to the fact that the largest hurdle for the monetization of music on the Internet during the past 15 years has been the astounding absence of new licensing schemes that actually fit the 'Internet Generation' i.e. the digital natives, and the new ways of consumption that connected consumers are rapidly adopting. Bottom line: the problem is not what consumers are doing - the problem is that the music industry has not blessed it with a license yet!
Therefore, any attempt to solve these business issues with technological measures – such as the proposed 3-strikes legislation – would, with utter certainty, be very expensive, have serious social and political consequences and yet fail miserably to deliver tangible monetary results for the content industries or indeed the creators; just like Digital Rights Management (DRM) which was pushed very hard by the music industry for over a decade and has now finally been acknowledged as the snake-oil it really always was. The only outcome of the proposed 3 Strikes legislation would be to further criminalize every single consumer that is interested in music, every fan and every potential customer.
So, again, let me be pragmatic: this idea means no money for the creators, no new revenues for the industry (but even more rejection by the consumer), and still no satisfaction for the music consumers. In my view, the most pressing objective must be to solve the very real problem of how music (and then, other digital content) can indeed generate new revenues via the Internet - for the old revenue streams are the past, beyond a shadow of a doubt - just look at what is happening to newspapers and print publishing! Technology will not and cannot solve problems posed by seriously outmoded business practices.
The bottom line: controlling the flow of digital files is ‘Mission Impossible’. The challenging but nevertheless indisputable reality is that the very idea of reliably and consistently controlling the distribution of music files on the Internet is basically a technical impossibility as well as a social, political and cultural minefield. Today, the simple act of listening or streaming, watching or reading anything on a connected computer or a mobile Internet device is indeed the same as copying the content; one cannot be done without the other. The Internet is a giant copy machine, by definition, by design, and now… by culture. We may not like it, and we not appreciate it, but just like the railway was hated by the people that made horseshoes and horse carriages we have no choice but to shift what we do, adapt, and reinvent ourselves. As your own kids or any so-called digital native will tell you, access is now the same as a copy i.e. ownership - in technical terms and in terms of user behavior and mindset. Crucially, of course, not yet in terms of the existing laws and prevailing licensing practices. And therein lies the rub.
I would argue that we are in fact trying to build a new business on top of the decidedly pre-Internet principle of total and exclusive copyright – a stark dilemma that has proven to create endless friction but produce very few new revenues. The very idea of being able to control the flow of files in order to extract earlier or possibly higher payments from the users is fundamentally flawed, and we must therefore look for ways to monetize it rather than to prevent it.
The value of music is no longer (just) in the copied file. We urgently need to understand and accept that the value of music is no longer (just) in the mere copies of the digital files. Our attention needs to shift from the old - and dying - business of ‘selling the copy’ to selling everything else i.e. the many other values around that copy (some people call that 'service' ;) but starting with providing very low-cost or flat-rated and bundled access, and then creating many new revenue generators on-top of the bundled, legalized access to music. Once legal and unlimited music distribution is build-into Internet access - when Access is Content - a revitalized music industry can focus on talent, curation and marketing, i.e. the attention-getting and the conversion of that attention into actual income. And yes, there is serious commercial value in the music industry once we regulate distribution (I call this Music 2.0 - if you care to read my free book on this... here it is)
The DML: the alternative to the proposed '3 Strikes' legislation. 80 years ago, the answer to the challenge of a then-new and vastly popular technology called 'Radio' was to legalize it and provide new licensing schemes to remunerate the content creators. The same thing happened with CableTV and with the copy-machine, and the very same logic needs to be applied to music on the Internet. A public, collective, standardized and open license for music on the Internet needs to be either voluntarily created by the music industry, or mandated i.e. enforced by the government - and the sooner the better for everyone. The DML would - similar to the existing radio & broadcasting licenses that are already in effect around the world - make music available on public, standardized terms and conditions, and therefore allow any and all businesses that want to use music to do so without the utterly crippling uncertainties that exist in the current marketplace.
Revenue shares and flat rates - not fixed license fees per song. The objective of the DML is to create a new, vast, and constantly replenishing ‘pool of money’ for music, i.e. to grow the revenue potential along with the growing number of users, as well as via the many new kinds of usages that will be spawned by the DML.
In my opinion, the most crucial component of the DML is this: the license fee needs to be calculated on a revenue-sharing basis rather than on a per-unit i.e. per song fee, whether streamed or downloaded. The current practice of a fixed per-track fee (usually amounting to about 1 cent U.S. per song, for the use of the master recording) for a stream and around 70 cents (U.S.) for a download has proven to be economically detrimental and utterly unrealistic for the market participants (such as Omnifone, Spotify, Rhapsody, Napster, We7 and Yahoo). Why is this? Because of the still-very-nascent stage of the digital music ecosystem, the fact that large-scale advertising revenues for new forms of media are always 2-3-5 years behind, and given that a very large number of users - potentially all UK consumers - are likely to listen to quite a bit of music in this way.
In its formative stage, this new market does not and will not bear license fees that are fixed in this manner and that are totally unrelated to actual incoming revenue streams. Instead, the DML would need to be calculated on a flat-rate or percentage-of-revenue basis, possibly combined with a minimum 'floor' that could prevent unfair and unintended use of 'free' music as a loss-leader (if needed).
Initial DML's reserved for ISPs, telecoms and operators. Since there are many different kinds of businesses that would benefit from having legalized music available (e.g. telecoms, operators, search engines, social networks and communities, blogs, web portals, online magazines etc) but their business objectives and parameters are so vastly different, I would propose to initially make the DML only available to ISPs, mobile network operators and telecommunications providers. This would have several important advantages: 1) once ISPs and operators are able i.e. licensed to offer music bundles and flat rates, they will have every incentive and reason to monitor (i.e. count not control!) which songs are used on their network, 2) they have very large user bases which will provide for a critical scale of payments to be obtained immediately (thus significantly lessening the perceived threat of revenue loss in the physical music market), 3) they have strong potential for the integration of next-generation, user-friendly advertising integration 4) and they already have build-in billing and payment mechanisms.
A flat fee license per user, generated in a multitude of ways. When licensing ISPs, mobile operators and other telecommunications companies it will be crucial to offer flat-rate licenses rather than to pursue revenue shares which are not going to be an acceptable way of generating music revenues from this process, at least initially. Rather, I believe that a fixed, flat-rate license fee per user, per week or month, would be the most suitable way provided that suitable 3rd parties (see below) will also engage to contribute to the funding of each user’s license fee. We must not simply declare the license fee payments to be the ISP’s problem - because it isn't, and because the solution is in the creation of a new Ecosystem, a new business logic, and not in creating tax-like burdens for individual industries.
Economic experts have already done a lot of work on the flat rate model. Far from being an economist myself, I would add that a payment of 1 GBP (in the UK) or 1 Euro (in Germany, France etc) per week per user seems to be economically feasible; however the exact price point will of course need to be negotiated with all involved parties, and possibly be adapted on a yearly basis until the market is more fully developed and each party’s ultimate value position can be determined. In any case -and this is crucial - the DML must clearly be so utterly affordable that every single ISP, operator and telecommunications company would immediately apply for a license.
In terms of the actual use of the music and the subsequent accounting for remuneration purposes, I propose that it should not make a difference if a song is downloaded or streamed (i.e. played on-demand while online), and - similar to CableTV - it should not make a difference if a user would use music 24 hours a day, every single day, or just download 3 songs every now and then. All music usage would need be counted, anonymized and reported, and artists would get paid fully proportional to the actual use of music i.e. according to their popularity (see below for details).
A calculation example: a pool of 2.6 Billion GBP per year for music, in the UK. As an example, a DSL provider and mobile network operator with 20 Million UK users would need to generate funds to pay for a DML of GBP 80 Million per month, i.e. 960 Million GBP per year.
Assuming, for mere calculation purposes, an average of 50 Million eligible UK residents i.e. a large percentage of the entire UK population (~ 61 Million) generating 1 GBP per week, the revenues for the music industry would amount to a very substantial 50 Million GBP per week i.e. 2.6 Billion GBP per year, which represents almost twice the UK's recorded music revenues in 2008 (1.36 Billion GBP). Any argument of ‘cannibalization’ of existing revenue streams such as CDs or iTunes would pale against this figure. And yes, iTunes would do just fine with and on-top of the flat-rate: remember they don't sell music, they sell iPods and iPhones!
How to fund a DML of 1 GBP per week per user. The key question is, of course, how exactly the ISPs and telecoms would raise the money to pay for the quite significant cost of the DML, every week, per user. This is a crucial issue since,a gain, under no circumstances should the ISPs, operators or telecoms be made solely responsible for the financial solution of this problem; it is absolutely crucial to position the DML as a business solution that will unlock strong new revenue opportunities and will be more than cost-neutral in a fairly short time. In my view, the job of building the financial support mechanisms i.e. the ecosystem that the DML will require should be handled by a mutually respected, knowledgeable and neutral advisory board whose mission would be to 'collate' this new ecosystem and to get device makers, advertisers, premium-service providers and other interested parties aboard as quickly as possible.
Advertising is only one of the many ways to fund the DML. Of course, as in television and radio, advertising is one of the key factors that will subsidize the DML fees. The concept of advertising-supported content is not new but what will be drastically different, going forward, is the type of advertising that we will see on digital networks in the very near future. Concepts such as advertising becoming content, itself (such as in mobile phone applications) and social advertising will blossom once permission for the legal use of music is given, creating much higher advertising revenues than we are currently seeing online.
The global advertising spend currently amounts to roughly $ 670 Billion USD, per year. The UK advertising & marketing spend is forecast at approx 25 Billion GBP in 2010 (eMarketer), with - by 2012 - an estimated 25% i.e. 6.25 Billion GBP going to digital and mobile advertising. Yet, digital and mobile advertising would only be one piece of this new puzzle: handset makers could pay subsidies to get preferred i.e. 'presented by' access to users (basically a network-centric variation of the existing ‘Nokia comes with Music’ concept), social networks could contribute subsidies to legally integrate ISP-hosted music into their own networks via the DMLs that operators and ISPs would already have; search engines and portals could do the same. Imagine if Google could sit on-top of this new system of fully legalized, feels-like-free music - this is similar to how Google has already made legal music (streaming and downloading) 'feels like free' in China.
After an initial set-up period, it would be crucial that an ISP or operator that makes use of the DML would be able to fully recover the DML costs through a multitude of new revenue streams, such as next-generation advertising, the sale of mobile applications based on the unlimited availability of music (such as social music and play list applications), subsidies by CE companies i.e. handset and device makers, data-mining and cross-selling (with careful consideration to consumers’ data protection and privacy, of course) and various forms of up-selling of other product and services (including music-related premiums) such as the games industry has been offering for the past decade, already, or even by re-packaging some of the license costs to their users.
The DML is NOT a tax. Any indication that the DML essentially amounts to a tax or is yet another compulsory payment scheme levied onto the consumer (such as the existing TV & Radio licenses) or a particular industry needs to be avoided, at least in the UK market where such a proposal would probably be politically unwise. The DML is simply a new license that is made available to businesses that want to use digital music, with the funding being generated from the market participants, themselves.
Monitoring of usage and fair payment to content owners. Every song that is performed i.e. streamed or downloaded on the Internet would need to be tracked and accounted for, using already available software solutions such as Gracenote or Shazam. This data would need to be made anonymous using a mathematical formula that would protect each user’s private data while still providing actuarial tracking of which song has been used how many times, on any given day, week or month.
Each artist and rights-holder would then receive a monthly payment that is proportional to the actuarial use of their music during each tracking period, e.g. if a given artist’s music was used 1.3% of the time (e.g. in any given month), he or she or their representatives (record labels and publishers) would receive 1.3% of the total pool of money collected. All participating creators (e.g. writers, lyricists, composers, producers etc) would get their proportional payment from the same pool. I am advocating a 50-50 split between the composer and the performer (i.e. recording and publishing), at this time. Overlaps with existing rights schemes (such as public performance on the Internet, and so-called web-casting and Internet-radio) would need to be investigated and addressed, as well.
Existing examples: similar models to the proposed DML are already in place, or are being investigated in:
Please note: this short letter cannot possibly answer every question that may arise if this proposal is further investigated or realized. Rather, I intend to make the case for why the DML would solve the pressing problem of legalizing and at the same time monetizing the many new ways that consumers use music on the Internet. Please keep in mind that most of the suggestions outlined above are still quite basic; prior to making any precise recommendations in regards to possible implementations a lot more research and input from all involved parties is required. Also, while my suggestions should be applied to digital music only, at this time, I do foresee similar developments within other digital content sectors such as motion pictures, TV and books - albeit within a wider timeframe (i.e. 3-5 years).
Does the French President Sarkozy have a secret wish to self-destruct, or to lead France out of the European Community? Maybe this is the reason that the ludicrous 3 strikes idea keeps surfacing in France, see the coverage by TelecomTV below (and the other links).
But here is the real morsel (from The Register UK): "France's Ministry of Culture estimates that 1,000 people a day could be cut off from the internet under the bill. After first being sent a warning email and then a formal letter by
Hadopi, those accused of illegal file- sharing for a third time could be
disconnected for up to a year and face a €300,000 fine and jail time. Even those found guilty of "negligence" for allowing others (such as
their children) to pirate online material risk a month-long internet
suspension and a €1,500 fine..."
Maybe I am wrong but I can't imagine that these kinds of ideas are very popular with the voters, no matter what the business problems and the lack of innovation within the content industry are. Sure, politicians can have nice dinners with the music industry VIPs and smart lobbyists, and get VIP concert tickets, but this will not help them to get re-elected when the time comes.
But before that, action is required, because unfortunately the same debate is also raging in the UK. So if you live in London, or are visiting, I will be contributing a speech at an anti-3-strikes event called "Stop Lord Mandelson" on October 2, in London, at 7 pm, together with David Rowntree (Blur) and Ben Goldacre (Guardian / Bad Science), organized and moderated by Jim Killock (Open Rights Group UK). Please join me, and / or spread the word.The petition is here. My slide-show response to Hadopi / French-trois-strikes is here. My summary of Cory Doctorow's 2008 (!) comments on 3 strikes are here. On a more humorous note, check out these funny 'PiratesPrisons' videos.
"As expected, the French National Assembly has approved an amended version of the three-strikes legislation, designed to curb illegal file sharing, slung out earlier this year. When will they realise that none of this is going to work anyway" writes By Ian Scales. "The three-strikes issue now appears to have settled into a familiar left v. right split in France with the right-leaning majority UMP voting 'for' and the Socialist party against. Internet rights campaigners across Europe have been trying to keep the issue de -polarised since there is a substantial body of right-leaning libertarian politicians who are against the three-strikes approach but who may be lost if it all becomes too clearly identified with the left. In France at least, that doesn't appear to have worked..."
Don Tapscott (whose voice eerily reminds me of Marshall McLuhan) is one of my favorite writers and thinkers. As part of the really cool 'Penny for your Thoughts'(PFYT) series, the FreedomLab people have just published a great video with Don's comments on what's really happening in this economic crisis - the headline is "Re-Industrialize the Planet". A quick summary:
The web is creating a global infrastructure for collaboration (which leads to disruption and confusion)
As a result, all of our institutions have come to the end of their life-cycle
The current recession is a crucial punctuation point in human history - the point where we said that we need to reset, the point where the industrial economy has finally run out of gas
This paradigm shift is creating a crisis of leadership
The Digital Natives are inheriting this situation - and they think very differently
Bizarrely, the UK government, led by Lord Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary, seems to have done a 180-shift in the past 2 weeks by once again proposing to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet. In other words: if the content industry can't get people to buy music or films, or other so-called content, by offering relevant, fair and affordable new ways to do so, maybe the government can help to force people back into buying the old-fashioned way, i.e. by the unit / copy? Rather than actually change the industry's business model, let's just change the consumers' habits - problem solved!
If you want to be puzzled, just read the UK government's announcement (PDF via Arstechnica). The Net is buzzing with news on this topic; see below. The FT has a good recent update called 'Claws & Effect' here; wherein I read (with little surprise): "Senior music industry figures, such as Lucian Grainge, head of
Universal Music International, have been influential in mobilising
Westminster to act". Lobbyists succeed again?
The bottom line can be summarized like this: "Let's just see if we can still force people to consume music in the way that suits us better". Never mind that the very similar French Sarkozy-'Bruni' proposal was just recently deemed illegal by the French Constitutional Law as well as by the European commission - maybe some good lobbyists can revert that, as well?
Here are a few quotes I have collected on this topic:
Those who like this idea
"John Kennedy, chief executive of IFPI, the organisation representing
the recording industry worldwide, says: “It is not enshrined in any law
anywhere that one has the right to steal music, films and books. There
is a crisis in the economy, and as well as respecting rights we have to
think about the economy and jobs” (FT) Related read: John Kennedy at RSA
“We welcome the government’s recognition that this problem needs to be
addressed urgently, so today is a step forward that should help the
legal digital market to grow for consumers,” the BPI, the music
industry trade body, said. “The solution to the piracy problem must be
effective, proportionate and dissuasive” (FT)
Those who don't like this idea
"Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone Warehouse, one of the
UK’s biggest providers, says: “We are going to fight [being forced to
disconnect customers] as hard as we can. Our fundamental duty is to
protect the rights of our subscribers” (FT)
"A Virgin Media spokesperson said: “We share the government’s
commitment to addressing the piracy problem and recognise that new laws
have an important role to play in this. But persuasion not coercion is
the key to changing consumer behaviour as a heavy-handed, punitive
regime will simply alienate mainstream consumers. The
government should be ensuring a balance of action against repeat
infringers and the rapid development of new legitimate services that
provide a compelling alternative to illegal file-sharing" (FT)
"Internet provider TalkTalk said it would "strongly resist" government
attempts to oblige Internet service providers to act as Internet
police. TalkTalk said disconnecting alleged offenders "will be futile
given that it is relatively easy for determined filesharers to mask
their identity or their activity to avoid detection" (HuffPo)
One of my favorite quotes, via Labour MP Tom Watson: “Challenged by the revolutionary distribution mechanism that is the
internet, big publishers with their expensive marketing and PR
operations and big physical distribution networks, are seeing their
power and profits diminish. Faced with the choice of accepting this and
innovating, or attempting, King Canute-style, to stay the tide of
change, they’re choosing the latter option, and looking to Parliament
for help with some legislative sand bags” (FT)
Some important facts and other related snippets (quotes from various sources):
Proposed EU telecommunications legislation includes a clause stating that internet access is a fundamental human right (FT)
In Ireland, internet companies UPC and BT Ireland have refused to
comply with music companies’ requests to cut off suspected pirates (FT)
The Sunday Times claims that Lord Mandelson,
the business secretary, has been persuaded that pirates should be
deprived of internet access altogether after dining with “Hollywood
mogul” David Geffen *via FT (no surprise here, either;)
I have been saying this since 1999: the solution to illegal filesharing is to legalize the way that people share content online, to create new, public, compulsory licenses for content, starting with music (yes, just like the Radio / Broadcasting license), to create fair and flexible licensing standards, and to reduce control in favor of compensation.
The UK's trend towards increased criminalization is just plain old wrong, technologically absurd and utter fantasy, culturally 500% retro, and socially unjustifiable. Techdirt's Mike Masnick sums it up nicely: "You may kick people off the internet, but does anyone honestly think that will actually get people to buy again?"
Welcome to Content 0.0? I am in beautiful Sydney Australia for a keynote speech at AMBC, the Austral-Asian Music Business Conference; for a keynote on Music 2.0 and the Digital Music License tomorrow (August 21, 2009). AMBC is a great event and I am very happy to be here, but for the past 30 minutes we were subjected to one of the most bizarre, desperate and - sorry to be so frank - ...mad schemes of how to turn digital content into money on the Internet - and of all people, by one of the original Kazaa guys, Skype investor, and CEO of Altnet and Brilliant Entertainment, Kevin Bermeister. I have recorded some of his speech on my iPhone voice-memo recorder, and may make it available later, but here is, in a nutshell, what Kevin and his company, Altnet, seem to propose (and be sure to read their recent press release on the relaunch of Kazaa):
Put a Cisco 'Copyrouter' into the network of each ISP, everywhere
Have the Copyrouter (ouch... that word alone gives me the chills) look at all traffic that is based on or runs on certain P2P protocols, and define what's being shared via the unique hashtags that each file represents. Deep packet inspection... go!!!
Block all traffic with hashtags that have been flagged as 'unauthorized' (i.e.... all?), and replace them with files that are DRM'ed (yes... really) and that can be downloaded only if you allow a charge to be levied by your ISP.
I won't even attempt to delineate what I think is wrong with concept because there are so many issues that they would fill this blog for the next 30 days. But the mere fact that this kind of scheme is being presented in a keynote at a leading music industry conference is, frankly, making me feel quite hopeless on the future of digital music. But maybe I am wrong... you tell me (comment box below)
Anyway, first, Kevin seems to want all our traffic to be deep-packet inspected (i.e. monitored) so that a automatic determination of it being lawful or not-lawful can be made. That, in itself, is a bizarre and utterly unfeasible concept has already been rejected by the European Commission and almost all governments around the world (except for France), because it only points in one direction, and that is towards CHINA's version of the Internet. Police-states, Censorship and severe lack of freedom of expression and speech. Are you serious, Kevin? Is this what you want so that the major labels and studios can keep or shall I see regain total control over distribution of content rather than to license it to everyone, and share in revenues (as is, strangely enough, happening with Google and the record labels in China!)? I hope not.
Second, Kevin seems to want to have the illegal files (again.... that means all files, really) be automatically replaced with copy-protected files (did you think those were retired, too...?) that must be purchased by the user, via the ISP.
In other words, let's just re-insert Total Control back into the system, and force every Internet single user to a) pay whatever the price is (without having any say on that) b) use ONLY approved devices that can play back the DRM'ed content. If that's future of digital content... count me out (along with 98% of the online population I would say). Put that Content under the rock again!
This scheme is too painful even to just contemplate; I mean it's so far out that it hurts... so, over to you guys, for comments, please.
My final thought: this reminds me a lot of the recent Onion video ('Google Opt-out Village') that makes fun of how you can regain 100% of your privacy on Google. Watch it and make the connection;). More on this, soon. Update: Read GigaOm's take.
So if and when we actually have 2 Billion+ people connected to mobile broadband, in 2012 (see the forecast in the video, below), what will happen to all the Content these users will consume or shall we say... share... remix...forward...adapt? How will content creators generate revenues from this enormous, interconnected and hungry, always-on audience?
In my view, the only plausible answer is to equate network access with content access, i.e. to bundle them together - once you connect, much of the content usage is included. Revenues are derived in many different ways, including next-generation (!) advertising, bundles, sponsored access, flat-rates, freemium etc. This video briefly explains why this is needed.
If would like to know more, please check out these resources:
I just ran across this video from the NYT (below). This is another very interesting reflection of the strong trend towards content delivered as software. Just like bands and record labels deliver their music on iPhone apps (and even charge for it much like a CD), the NYT now delivers their content to any computer that can run Adobe Air - and I just love the way they put this - good going, NYT!
Keynote Speaker, Think-Tank Leader, Futurist, Author & Strategist, Idea Curator, some say Iconoclast | Heretic, CEO TheFuturesAgency, Visiting Prof FDC Brazil, Green Futurist
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0f064816-4772-4fc2-909d-8d65ae36bde9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=457961a2-a885-46cc-93da-83759a887540)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ccde0b69-7d34-4a4f-92eb-442a2a850578)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a2e490f3-1f47-4e23-90a3-1a7a7b00eb4f)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=094404b9-2f2a-41fb-8e35-ecf56a4d68bd)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a0161cfd-c5e2-4880-9fde-579ac37ade81)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b486d71c-bae2-4796-bb13-8d3578bd6b6c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b67e44b2-61ce-4634-bf3d-c031db380ddc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=47ea11eb-dee8-46eb-aff7-9c0e7fc15059)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d6574b68-8863-4851-9051-fe1032ad0853)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=70717494-8fa9-4d44-a0fc-ed70e9b8133c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a434525d-9b3a-4438-b392-5c89f557e6d5)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ee9b0388-fc16-4c55-bc78-8ad8d7a9165d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=dd5876df-8d57-49e0-9d3d-95f0dc77c3fc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3ba34cb3-2f3e-44dc-ae1d-a1784eacb26a)
Recent Comments