Content Is Going To Zero (?)
I enjoy provoking a debate that I refer to as "Content Is Going To Zero." That's a stock trader's way of saying that the costs and infrastructure associated with creating content have been so dramatically compressed in the web age that the value that users will ascribe to (i.e., what they will pay for) content is on a permanent downward trajectory.
I am by no means convinced of the proposition, but it tends to stimulate a tendentious and, among the right crowd, stimulating discussion.
Now, understand that a key foundation of the proposition is the distinction between content and distribution. The web is, obviously, a distribution technology. So are Google, iTunes, FaceBook, and, yes, Blogger. The idea does not contend that users won't pay for the entertainment, education, and referential value they derive from using a content source. It proposes, however, that the value derived by providers has shifted away from the "raw" content object and towards the distribution system.
[In the interest of full didacticism I'll acknowledge that, short of an entirely unexpressed idea inside one's head, there is no real example of content entirely divorced from distribution technology. The quill pen is a distribution technology. But the proposition is aiming for a more robust infrastructure that facilitates organization, delivery, and commercialization of content.]
So, a song is content; iTunes and iPods are distribution technology, and if you're unsure about the value shift here simply check the 5-year stock tables of Apple vs. the record labels. Closer to home, the jury is out on the results of the "open access" movement, but it supports the proposition on its face: content users pay nothing, and all "revenues" (I know, I know... but that's for another post) are associated with the costs and value of distribution. More generally, we can observe that inclusion in or exclusion from powerful aggregation systems (Medline, Google) has a dramatic (and, I would argue, increasing) impact on revenue derived from, and therefore the economic value of, content.
I spoke at SSP's Top Management Roundtable in Philadelphia this fall and -- among many strands that relate to this general idea -- Copyright Clearance Center's Bill Burger (bburger@copyright.com) presented a great slide capturing the idea, which I reprint below.
There are, of course, plenty of demand arguments for the adverse of the proposition. The networked digital information economy created by the web is a much larger and more accessible marketplace for content; globalization is creating vastly more customers; new tools, tools with exponentially more precision, make content more valuable to each individual (on an absolute basis). These are important macro factors that affect the marketplace. But I challenge you not to simply dismiss the proposition because it's repugnant to one's self-worth and an affront to scholarship and creativity. It may be--but that doesn't make it wrong.
DO try this at home. Next time you're in a group with some content- and business-savvy colleagues, tell them "content is going to zero." And keep a fire extinguisher handy.
--Thane Kerner
I am by no means convinced of the proposition, but it tends to stimulate a tendentious and, among the right crowd, stimulating discussion.
Now, understand that a key foundation of the proposition is the distinction between content and distribution. The web is, obviously, a distribution technology. So are Google, iTunes, FaceBook, and, yes, Blogger. The idea does not contend that users won't pay for the entertainment, education, and referential value they derive from using a content source. It proposes, however, that the value derived by providers has shifted away from the "raw" content object and towards the distribution system.
[In the interest of full didacticism I'll acknowledge that, short of an entirely unexpressed idea inside one's head, there is no real example of content entirely divorced from distribution technology. The quill pen is a distribution technology. But the proposition is aiming for a more robust infrastructure that facilitates organization, delivery, and commercialization of content.]
So, a song is content; iTunes and iPods are distribution technology, and if you're unsure about the value shift here simply check the 5-year stock tables of Apple vs. the record labels. Closer to home, the jury is out on the results of the "open access" movement, but it supports the proposition on its face: content users pay nothing, and all "revenues" (I know, I know... but that's for another post) are associated with the costs and value of distribution. More generally, we can observe that inclusion in or exclusion from powerful aggregation systems (Medline, Google) has a dramatic (and, I would argue, increasing) impact on revenue derived from, and therefore the economic value of, content.
I spoke at SSP's Top Management Roundtable in Philadelphia this fall and -- among many strands that relate to this general idea -- Copyright Clearance Center's Bill Burger (bburger@copyright.com) presented a great slide capturing the idea, which I reprint below.
There are, of course, plenty of demand arguments for the adverse of the proposition. The networked digital information economy created by the web is a much larger and more accessible marketplace for content; globalization is creating vastly more customers; new tools, tools with exponentially more precision, make content more valuable to each individual (on an absolute basis). These are important macro factors that affect the marketplace. But I challenge you not to simply dismiss the proposition because it's repugnant to one's self-worth and an affront to scholarship and creativity. It may be--but that doesn't make it wrong.
DO try this at home. Next time you're in a group with some content- and business-savvy colleagues, tell them "content is going to zero." And keep a fire extinguisher handy.
--Thane Kerner
Labels: publishing strategy, value of content
posted by Silverchair at
10:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home