I came across this video via psfk.com and thought, what a perfect way to wrap up 2009 and enter 2010.
(Yes, I know. The decade is not over yet since technically, a full decade is from year 1 to 10. But there is something special about wrapping up the 00’s and entering the 10’s.)
This 6-minute video gives you a moment to pause, reflect and appreciate the innocence of youth and how they see the world (it may also make you feel a little old). My favorite part is at 2:56, if you need to jump ahead.
There is much to be thankful for in 2009, but also much to look forward to in 2010. Happy New Year.
Life used to be simpler, didn’t it? We could fix our own cars and milkshakes really had milk in them and content providers could generate revenues from content that people were interested in.
A good writer could publish a book that people would pay for. A band could write a hit song and make money without going on tour. Newspapers could break news (even if it was a day or a week or a month later than the event) and the public would snap it up on a daily basis to remain informed about their community, country and world.
Yes, there were issues of content control and distribution and there was a lack of choice for consumers… but good content seemed to “work” because people paid for information and services and entertainment, and that helped ensure that the pipeline for those things would remain full.
The Internet has brought many changes in our lives and how things work, and it has, essentially, broken this “pay for value” system. Users now log onto the Web with their computer and their browser and they expect to get everything. For free. Google can find it, right? And if it’s behind one of the few bastions of “premium content” (think: ESPN Insider or the Wall Street Journal Professional Edition) a user only needs to know where to look to find the content she wants copied-and-pasted into a free form.
Content providers—from newspapers to music studios to television networks—know that once something is online, it’s everywhere. If Google doesn’t distribute it, something (or someone) else will. Rupert Murdoch has said, “free is too expensive” and reportedly plans to bring News Corporation content behind paywalls, and although I enjoy free stuff as much as the next guy, I can’t say I blame him. Banner ads don’t generate enough revenue to support the infrastructure of major organizations, and without that infrastructure, News Corp can’t make content.
A paywall won’t fix everything, even if it does cut Google off at the knees in terms of piggybacking on the content others provide. The content will still be out there, and content providers will be in a running battle with aggregators to capture the eyes (and wallets) of users. Users who expect to get on their browser and get stuff for free.
News Corp and other content providers technically have another option: create applications that act like browsers but are more locked-down. Take the Wall Street Journal off of the “Web” and only stream information to those who subscribe to it using a special News Corp app. I say it’s “technically” possible because it is unlikely to work since goes against the grain of current personal computer use and trends.
The whole personal computer has gravitated towards browsers as the hub. The traditional World Wide Web is the clearest example, but Microsoft and Google and Facebook and a host of other companies are all about creating applications that supplant conventional desktop applications.
So… are content providers toast? Are users doomed to a universe of state-subsidized and/or user generate content?
Not necessarily.
Look at the iPhone and other app-based smartphones. Users’ expectations there are markedly different than on laptops or desktop computers. Sure, they want to be able to hit up the Web, but they also are willing to purchase and use applications that are alternate data clients… ways to get content outside of a conventional browser.
The iPhone is limited, of course. Not many people are going to want to read the Wall Street Journal from front to back on a 3.5 inch screen.
But what about an Apple Tablet? Or Microsoft Courier? More pixels. Easier for those of us with fat fingers or particularly bad manual dexterity.
It also, even if it has a browser, will not have the “baggage” (from the perspective of content providers) associated with personal computers: that everything is free in a browser if you look hard enough.
Imagine Time, Inc. making a Sports Illustrated app, where a user pays for a year’s worth of content up front, or authorizes a weekly or monthly payment. Without knowing its exact strategy, it seems clear based on this demo that SI is already thinking this way.
For users it might seem a step back. It might seem like the Web except not for free (like the bad ol’ days of AOL). But it might turn out to be a great thing. Content providers that can provide content in a more controlled environment should be more willing to generate and distribute superior content because they will generate revenue from its consumption.
Yes, it might be a great thing. It might be the salvation of media as we know it without disrupting the social media/conversational Web that we have come to know and expect.
It was exactly one year and 4 days ago I wrote a blog entry about a very interesting trio of Swedes starting up a business in a first-ever attempt to sell jeans made from North Korea.
I’m excited to share that this past Saturday, Noko Jeans officially launched—but not without controversy. The PUB department store, located in Stockholm, made the decision to remove these North Korean-made designer jeans only a few hours before its opening once management learned of its label. “For us this is not a question of Noko Jeans – this is a question about a political issue that PUB doesn’t want to be associated with,” said Rene Stephansen, the store’s director. More on this shut-down on the Washington Post and BBC News.
From the beginning of this venture, Noko Jeans was very intentional about being transparent and open about their purpose of doing business with North Korea by posting behind-the-scene videos, photos, blogs and tweets throughout the whole process that started over 2 1/2 years ago.
And now, from following the flurry of tweets, news coverage and blogs, it’s clear that getting shut down was probably the best thing to have happened for Noko Jeans’ PR. Of course, this has caused some scrambling to find another location for the Noko Jeans Museum (the name of their retail presence), but I doubt they will have any trouble with this.
This is a real-world example of how being transparent and using social media are so effectively spreading the message and story for Noko Jeans. And that story is creating an emotional following that is helping to indirectly, but powerfully raise more awareness for the company.
This line from their Web site is at the heart of Noko Jeans and why I want to personally see them succeed:
“To learn and realize that there are people living in North Korea, and even befriend some of them, has been overwhelming, and is the true core of the story we tell. Beyond every mass-game are people, living and breathing and not that different from us, or you.”
Once another location for the Noko Jeans Museum is announced and the online shop is up and running on their Web site, it will be interesting to see how much of their following will translate to actual sales of these $220 designer jeans (only 1100 pair of jeans were produced).
It is more and more obvious to businesses and individuals that technology allows for opinions to travel more quickly than ever. Every blog is a potential blessing or curse for a business, and any tweet may take the place of old school Consumer Reports magazine. We all know we can save money and improve our chances of getting a good value by looking to online sources that we trust.
In addition to the widespread and speedy dissemination of information, though, a recent survey points out another factor at work: cyberdisinhibition.
What is “cyberdisinhibition”? It is the reduction of the “public face” that each of us wears in real life. It is the willingness of people to be more extreme—in their opinions, in their (lack of) manners, in their abrasiveness—online. Anonymity and the low barriers to entry to contributing online logically make being especially loud and grouchy more likely; the consequences are fewer and the costs lower to complain (even in an over-the-top fashion) over a digital medium than in person.
What does cyberdisinhibition mean to businesses? It reinforces the need to be aware of how their brand and image is being communicated online. The days of controlling the message entirely are long gone, but an untended complaint (whether thanks to cyberdisinhibitionist forces or not) can snowball out of control quickly. Businesses should be aware of communities (blogs, forums, Twitter users) that use and discuss their products and be willing to communicate about issues.
Nip the problem in the bud before the Customer with the Keyboard starts typing in all caps.
