The further ahead you look - the faster you go | davidpcushman AT gmail.com | These are my views and my views only.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Can't make money with content? Make money because of it.
I read the following on 'Confused of Calcutta' (see recommended blogs, left)
"When something that was originally scarce starts becoming abundant, something strange happens. You find that you start making money because of that thing rather than with that thing. That’s the Because Effect." Click here to read it in its original context.
Based on Doc Searl's original thinking, is there a clue here as to what to do with all the expert-created content traditional media companies are heavily geared towards producing?
When it was scarce we made money with it. But now that great content is abundant, we have to move to making money because of it.*
In the case of Prince and his Mail On Sunday new album giveaway, he understands that great content (music files) are abundant. The scarce resource he has is his concert tickets. Because he has an abundant thing to give away, he is working on the theory that this will engage a level of fan commitment that leads to the purchase of concert tickets (and, presumably other merchandise).
What is the equivalent in the world of traditional publishing models?
There are authors (eg Cory Doctorow) who offer their complete novels for download and sharing. And they see the sales of actual books rise as a result.
I'd guess people who read the downloads become fans, who then evangelise others to buy. And some of the original downloaders decide that even though they've read the download, they want to own the product - to put on their shelf - to have and to hold. The content is abundant - the product itself is scarce.
So where does that leave your thoughts on what to do with all that content your media company is producing? Could a free DVD or download activate people to go the movies? Buy merchandise (games, toys, go to see the next film in the series..?) Maybe?
And where does this leave periodical publishing? Could it be as simple as putting all your content online as the initial draw for the formation of communities of shared niche interests (aggregation of vast audiences... if you must), leading to the opportunities of "We Media" (Communities Dominate Brands)?
The challenge here is working out, or even recognising, what the scare resource we have to sell is? Perhaps its experiences, events, engagement marketing opportunities, co-created services and products that will emerge as values from the network of the community we'll be part of.
New rules apply. Persuading your stake holders of the value of these may be the toughest part of all.
* Corrected with the kind assistance of JP Rangaswami - 'Confused of Calcutta'
"When something that was originally scarce starts becoming abundant, something strange happens. You find that you start making money because of that thing rather than with that thing. That’s the Because Effect." Click here to read it in its original context.
Based on Doc Searl's original thinking, is there a clue here as to what to do with all the expert-created content traditional media companies are heavily geared towards producing?
When it was scarce we made money with it. But now that great content is abundant, we have to move to making money because of it.*
In the case of Prince and his Mail On Sunday new album giveaway, he understands that great content (music files) are abundant. The scarce resource he has is his concert tickets. Because he has an abundant thing to give away, he is working on the theory that this will engage a level of fan commitment that leads to the purchase of concert tickets (and, presumably other merchandise).
What is the equivalent in the world of traditional publishing models?
There are authors (eg Cory Doctorow) who offer their complete novels for download and sharing. And they see the sales of actual books rise as a result.
I'd guess people who read the downloads become fans, who then evangelise others to buy. And some of the original downloaders decide that even though they've read the download, they want to own the product - to put on their shelf - to have and to hold. The content is abundant - the product itself is scarce.
So where does that leave your thoughts on what to do with all that content your media company is producing? Could a free DVD or download activate people to go the movies? Buy merchandise (games, toys, go to see the next film in the series..?) Maybe?
And where does this leave periodical publishing? Could it be as simple as putting all your content online as the initial draw for the formation of communities of shared niche interests (aggregation of vast audiences... if you must), leading to the opportunities of "We Media" (Communities Dominate Brands)?
The challenge here is working out, or even recognising, what the scare resource we have to sell is? Perhaps its experiences, events, engagement marketing opportunities, co-created services and products that will emerge as values from the network of the community we'll be part of.
New rules apply. Persuading your stake holders of the value of these may be the toughest part of all.
* Corrected with the kind assistance of JP Rangaswami - 'Confused of Calcutta'
The most pointless example of web 3.0?
For years, high concept action films have been sold to movie studios with one or two line pitches which encapsulate everything worth knowing. For example, for the film Days of Thunder, "Top Gun meets Nascar".
Whenever anyone talks about the next step for the internet, and new technology, it's good practice to use the same rationale. For instance, web 2.0's Wikipedia "An online encyclopedia everyone can contribute to'.
Web 3.0 seems to revolve around an online world in 3D, but noone seems to have come up with any reason why 3D would be preferable to 2D for anything other than gaming.
And the best example of this I've found is 3DMailbox, which you can see in more detail on TheWayoftheWeb, here.
If it isn't easier, quicker, better, or more fun, then why do it?
Whenever anyone talks about the next step for the internet, and new technology, it's good practice to use the same rationale. For instance, web 2.0's Wikipedia "An online encyclopedia everyone can contribute to'.
Web 3.0 seems to revolve around an online world in 3D, but noone seems to have come up with any reason why 3D would be preferable to 2D for anything other than gaming.
And the best example of this I've found is 3DMailbox, which you can see in more detail on TheWayoftheWeb, here.
If it isn't easier, quicker, better, or more fun, then why do it?
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wanted: Head of marketing at emap Television
Thought some of you may be interested in the following job. Don't apply to me! You'll find the relevant email address at the end. Good luck if it interests you!
Company: Emap Television (The Box, Smash Hits, Kiss, Q, Kerrang!, Magic TV, & The Hits. Music Television)
Job Title: Head of Marketing
Description: Head of Marketing – Emap Television
The Box, Smash Hits, Kiss, Q, Kerrang!, Magic TV, & The Hits.
Emap Television has a superb opportunity for a dynamic Head of Marketing reporting to the Managing Director for TV and working across it’s market-leading music TV channels with responsibilities for all external communication, brand development and research.
The brief includes:
• Developing & implementing marketing strategy for Emap’s TV channels
• Liaising across Emap media platforms to develop the on-air brands; briefing & managing on-air TV identity.
• Marketing & PR communication to drive viewing & build brands
• Third party relationships and TV websites
• Management of TV research team
• Liaison with trade marketing and sales teams on information and ideas
You will be a highly motivated, dynamic, natural leader with:
• A solid track record in marketing, preferably TV-based but certainly with experience of developing campaigns across platforms and ideally in handling a multiple brand portfolio.
• At least 2 years experience in team management and subsequent ability to demonstrate strong leadership and management skills including coaching and development of individuals.
• A keen understanding of insight and research, with proven experience making clear recommendations based on that information.
• Excellent communication skills.
• Fresh ideas and an enthusiasm for making a difference to our business.
If you have what it takes to join this high-achieving team and relish a challenging and exciting new future, please apply by emailing your CV, current renumeration package, a short assessment of all our on air brands, and a covering letter outlining three reasons why you’re the only person we need to see.
Email to: stacey DOT knowles AT emap.com
Company: Emap Television (The Box, Smash Hits, Kiss, Q, Kerrang!, Magic TV, & The Hits. Music Television)
Job Title: Head of Marketing
Description: Head of Marketing – Emap Television
The Box, Smash Hits, Kiss, Q, Kerrang!, Magic TV, & The Hits.
Emap Television has a superb opportunity for a dynamic Head of Marketing reporting to the Managing Director for TV and working across it’s market-leading music TV channels with responsibilities for all external communication, brand development and research.
The brief includes:
• Developing & implementing marketing strategy for Emap’s TV channels
• Liaising across Emap media platforms to develop the on-air brands; briefing & managing on-air TV identity.
• Marketing & PR communication to drive viewing & build brands
• Third party relationships and TV websites
• Management of TV research team
• Liaison with trade marketing and sales teams on information and ideas
You will be a highly motivated, dynamic, natural leader with:
• A solid track record in marketing, preferably TV-based but certainly with experience of developing campaigns across platforms and ideally in handling a multiple brand portfolio.
• At least 2 years experience in team management and subsequent ability to demonstrate strong leadership and management skills including coaching and development of individuals.
• A keen understanding of insight and research, with proven experience making clear recommendations based on that information.
• Excellent communication skills.
• Fresh ideas and an enthusiasm for making a difference to our business.
If you have what it takes to join this high-achieving team and relish a challenging and exciting new future, please apply by emailing your CV, current renumeration package, a short assessment of all our on air brands, and a covering letter outlining three reasons why you’re the only person we need to see.
Email to: stacey DOT knowles AT emap.com
Sprint Nextel reject customer feedback - and customers
When is feedback of negative value?
You know the right answer. US mobile operator Sprint Nextel does not.
This from Communities Dominate Brands:
"CNN has just a few moment ago reported that Sprint Nextel, in its infinite wisdom, has sent 1,000 of its customers a letter informing them that because they have placed too many calls to the calling center asking for help or complaining about the Sprint/Nextel services, they are terminating the customer relationship."
So if you have had an issue that's unresolved - and you keep on calling because they still haven't resolved it - ta ta!
Sprint Nextel could have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble by cutting to the chase - and sending every customer a letter saying: "We don't care what you think. If that bothers you f**k off now."
Other end of the telescope? If Sprint Nextel regarded itself of part of the community of Sprint Nextel users, what would it have done?
There is an argument that if these particular 1000 customers were having a disruptive and damaging influence on the community as a whole there should be some form of sanction - and ultimately exclusion.
But I'm told these are good customers, fully paid up etc. So what if you have an issue with Sprint Nextel? Are you meant to consider carefully whether or not you should share that with them?
"I'm sorry to trouble you, master, but is there any chance you could take your foot off my head?"
It's the best way I can think of to prevent two-way flow. No dialogue. No debate.
No customer relationship = no customers.
See also:
You know the right answer. US mobile operator Sprint Nextel does not.
This from Communities Dominate Brands:
"CNN has just a few moment ago reported that Sprint Nextel, in its infinite wisdom, has sent 1,000 of its customers a letter informing them that because they have placed too many calls to the calling center asking for help or complaining about the Sprint/Nextel services, they are terminating the customer relationship."
So if you have had an issue that's unresolved - and you keep on calling because they still haven't resolved it - ta ta!
Sprint Nextel could have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble by cutting to the chase - and sending every customer a letter saying: "We don't care what you think. If that bothers you f**k off now."
Other end of the telescope? If Sprint Nextel regarded itself of part of the community of Sprint Nextel users, what would it have done?
There is an argument that if these particular 1000 customers were having a disruptive and damaging influence on the community as a whole there should be some form of sanction - and ultimately exclusion.
But I'm told these are good customers, fully paid up etc. So what if you have an issue with Sprint Nextel? Are you meant to consider carefully whether or not you should share that with them?
"I'm sorry to trouble you, master, but is there any chance you could take your foot off my head?"
It's the best way I can think of to prevent two-way flow. No dialogue. No debate.
No customer relationship = no customers.
See also:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FasterFuture.blogspot.com
The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?
