The Michelle Tripp Blog has moved! Redirecting to The BrandForward Blog...

You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit http://michelletripp.com/ and update your bookmarks.

The Michelle Tripp Blog℠: Old Media Falling Into The "Digeration Gap"

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Old Media Falling Into The "Digeration Gap"



If you've shown up here, why don't you mosey on over to my new blog? Yeah, I just soft launched The BrandForward Blog. It's at http://michelletripp.com. You can find all the same posts you can find here. But it's a bit more pretty.

Yeah, go on! Scoot! Nothing to see here!




-----

I'm a little confused here. Haven't magazines learned anything from the music industry?

Some questionable protests were recently made by Time Inc.'s CEO Ann Moore that are the epitome of what I'll call the "digeration gap." Apparently she preached at some college students that "good information costs money." By her own admission they started to throw shoes at her.

What should have been a newsflash for Moore turned out to be more of a bake sale challenge. Instead of walking away from that interaction with a renewed quest for finding a viable business model that works with emerging technologies and the evolving consumer climate, she gave lip service to the idea of a new model in one breath, while reinforcing her own perceptions in the next:

"I think it is time for Time Inc. to sit down and seriously think, what is the model? We are going to have to figure out a way to have paid content in the future."

Our little peek into Moore's business strategy speaks volumes. Time Inc. intends to look for answers by going back to the old business model: subscriptions. They're taking a move from the RIAA play book and repackaging it. They're not looking for a new way of doing things. They're looking for a new way to do it the old way.

What's happening at this critical juncture is that some really smart people are just not getting it. Yesterday's business model will not work now. And it really won't work tomorrow. But instead of being at the forefront of developing this new model, a lot of key executives are trying to bulldoze past it, hoping somehow it'll turn into fertilizer for their own crop.

So this is the digeration gap. The difference between people and companies who embrace the internet and the future of information, and the ones who are still in love with the way things were, and desperately hang onto the "tired and true" way of doing things.

There's one little piece of information that those on the wrong side of the digeration gap are failing to realize: Tomorrow's business model is about the individual, not the corporation. Executives like Moore are trying to come up with a model that supports the corporation, that reinforces widespread control, that focuses on selling a lot of things to a lot of people from a central point of vantage. And they honestly believe they're being strategic and logical about it. Sure. But it's as if they're trying to play major-league baseball on a croquet course. Things aren't fitting but they'd rather fumble around instead of just looking down.

Another comment made by Moore that's hurting my head like a blunt object:

"Who started this rumour that all information should be free and why didn't we challenge this when it first came out?"

Wasn't it some Chinese fellow that said "the answer is in the question?"

Moore wants to know why "we didn't challenge it." I think the real question should have been "why didn't we challenge ourselves?" Companies that fall into the digeration gap are the ones that aren't just asking the wrong questions, they're also looking for the wrong answers.

Let's take one more look at this doozy:

"Good information costs money."

Now that's the ultimate rub. Good information no longer costs money. As more people on the planet gain the ability to communicate to a mass audience, it's clear that quality reporting can be done by someone without an editor breathing down their neck, without the necessity of a "Baghdad Bureau," and without the corporate structure propping them up (and no doubt influencing them). Time Inc. is operating on the concept that information is expensive, and that to survive they need to keep it expensive.

Yeah, I realize they have this big huge multi-national corporation to run, but the consumer doesn't care. Ann Moore can do the lecture circuit at every high school and university on the planet trying to convince the next generation they should pay for information. Hell, she can turn it into LollaPAYlooza and bring the RIAA and MPAA with her. I hope she has a lot of room in her closet. The shoes will be forthcoming.

Job number one for corporations like Time Inc. should be one thing: "How do we maintain ownership of the space we've built in our consumer's mind over the last 50 years." Because right now the one thing they stand to walk away from the ashes with is their brands. Brand as in mindshare. When the magazines shut down and the newspapers fold and the television networks are lost in a sea of original non-network INDIVIDUAL content, the brands will be all that's left.

As aging corporations use their might and brawn to resist their forced approach to the ledge of the digeration gap, they have only two choices:

Corpse or phoenix.

Labels: , , , , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This last election season I think corporate media embarrassed itelf by completely chucking even a pretense at objectivity. Ironically, that commitment to objectivity (an unattainable absolute, maybe, but driving better journalism historically)is the one thing that could make information worth paying for. These days objectivity is a convenience. It saves me the time of corroborating elsewhere. But many outlets, including the NYT in my opinion, threw it away and cheapened the profession.

Admittedly, that's probably not enough to save subscription media, but it's better than nothing.

But so far only two things I know of pay for a news operation. Subscriptions and advertising -- or in the case of PBS maybe, taxpayer money. If subscriptions won't work and we rely on advertising, the privacy issues associated with things like behavioral targeting will be even more front and center.

Beyond advertising and subscription, I just don't know what the model would be. I'd love to hear suggestions though.

March 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great piece. Quite thought provoking. I still have two concerns. Not all information and news is created equal. Great news from NY Times et al is of signicant value. Don't want to rely only on bloggers and Fox. So, question is how can they monetize enough in order to maintain quality?

http://edwardboches.com/

March 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like it or not, content costs money. The fact that some people want to create content and give it away for free doesn't mean that the content didn't cost the creator.

I agree that the journalism-creating corporations need to find a new way to fund what they do. If they all to go away and we wake up to find our only sources of info are citizen journalists and government/corporation propagandists, we'll all long for the good old days.

Sometimes it takes an organization to train, coach, police and equip its members to do more than they could as individuals.

The problem that the media faces is that it's been taken for granted. Because it is, for the most part, objective in its reporting, it's attacked as biased by both sides of an increasingly ideologically polarized audience. That makes for a lot of dissatisfied consumers looking for something better to spend their money on.

I think of it like the anti-vaccination movement. We've had the luxury of the benefits of vaccines for so long that people now believe we can do without them.

March 12, 2009 at 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post and very perceptive. I think you hit the head on the nail on so many points. It's too bad you didn't suggest new models for media in the blog, too. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
The reason you hear the type of logic found in the Time executive's speech and coming from other traditional media executives is because the executives/leaders don't know what to do; they've defaulted to what they do know.
And the Web is changing so rapidly these big organizations can't keep up because of their cultures and structures.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the subscription model online. Print customers have been complaining about "subsidizing" online readers for years. But the "subscription" model cannot/must not be the only or primary revenue generator.
You said: "There's one little piece of information that those on the wrong side of the digeration gap are failing to realize: Tomorrow's business model is about the individual, not the corporation."
Old media gets this. I don't think the leaders know how to turn this on its head and apply it to running a company.
One last point: You may not like it, but news is expensive. And not all information is equal or even worth the time it takes to mentally absorb it.
Google, Yahoo and all the other search engines are not creating news/information. They're aggregating it from old media companies that pay salaries of professionals to produce news/information.
In today's Web world, anyone can write or post comments. Not all that information is worth reading.
Individually submitted content is fine for what it is -- complementary information. It adds extra layers. And in some case, the content is the main source.
Last on paying for content:
Well, people already are indirectly paying for content via their Internet providers via laptops or smart phones. People aren't "conscious" of that reality.
So key to old media's success is understanding the importance of producing or providing content people will pay for without even thinking about the fact they are paying.
I'm certain there is a model for that.
I'm not so certain, however, the current old media companies can or will make the transition to the new media world. That could bring about the birth of new companies. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

June 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home