A New Model for Content Providers?
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.
No recent comments.