Content Really Is King
After watching traditional publishers fumble and stumble their way into a new business model, The New York Times reported last week that a new venture is in the works. The online community portal — for lack of a more appropriate term — will involve a consortium of top media companies like Hearst, Condé Nast, Meredith, and Time Inc., as they engage outsourced consulting firms and agency partners to create a new online newsstand.
Only this online newsstand is very unlike the affinity marketing initiatives that were exploited by agencies like Publishers Clearing House, or the now defunct American Family Publishers. No one is looking exclusively for subscriptions at $19 annually. This online site will be modeled after ad-hoc, or tiered “content purveyance.” In brief, think of it like an iTunes for media content.
Suppose, or imagine a community website where you can surf your favorite subjects of interest, peruse the most recent content, make a selection and download the article — say, for example, on how to develop your lower abs, improve your cooking of French cuisine, or find and appraise antique artifacts — and pay a nominal fee of only $1 or $2 per article selection.
Or, alternatively, you may become a fan of that “content-supplier/owner” and actually order a subscription to the print product, or just be directed to the proprietary, unique website and have full access for only $12 per year.
I’m not exactly sure that this is the way the new model will work, but it should. Brian Steltzer reports that the named companies will take equity shares in the new proposition, although deals have yet to be signed. A few newspaper owners have also expressed interest.
The model is not new. Ventures like Hulu, owned by a consortium of television networks, have offered new channels to broadcast content for consumers. Vevo, which will make its debut in January 2010, is attempting to tackle the challenge of monetizing music content that is presently being downloaded for free.
Of course, one of the big challenges is figuring out how to aim for a moving target. Integrated devices and smart phones are rapidly transitioning their applications and models, and no one is quit sure where to aim, or how to build a web model and channels to mobile that also is relevant in 2012, much less 2010.
Still, in my opinion, this is the most dramatic, forward-thinking move that traditional media has taken in decades. It represents a sea-shift or paradigm change that is relevant to modern content-consumerism, and it’s absolutely necessary. No amount of venture capital or commitment of publishers’ collective time could be applied in a more valuable way.
Winning the battle of “paid online content” has been the conundrum and nemesis of publishers for ten difficult years. But publishers are content owners. Content is their core value proposition. It’s what consumers crave and need, and sadly, what they have discovered for free online, whether the result is accurate and satisfying or not.
And it’s clearly about more than advertising, as the finite universe for advertising revenue continues to be compromised by recession and is diminished through ever-increasing, seemingly infinite, digital channels. According to Charles Townsend of Condé Nast, “We know that the world of digital is far grander than display advertising.”
But content proprietors — owners of the best content in the world — like Time Inc. Condé Nast and Hearst are experts in their respective categories. It’s time that those C-level leaders made smart business decisions, understood the worth of their core assets, chose the channel and value model of the future, and kept their companies competitive.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/magazine-publishers-to-build-an-online-newsstand/?scp=1&sq=online%20newsstand&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/media/16adco.html?_r=1&ref=business
Only this online newsstand is very unlike the affinity marketing initiatives that were exploited by agencies like Publishers Clearing House, or the now defunct American Family Publishers. No one is looking exclusively for subscriptions at $19 annually. This online site will be modeled after ad-hoc, or tiered “content purveyance.” In brief, think of it like an iTunes for media content.
Suppose, or imagine a community website where you can surf your favorite subjects of interest, peruse the most recent content, make a selection and download the article — say, for example, on how to develop your lower abs, improve your cooking of French cuisine, or find and appraise antique artifacts — and pay a nominal fee of only $1 or $2 per article selection.
Or, alternatively, you may become a fan of that “content-supplier/owner” and actually order a subscription to the print product, or just be directed to the proprietary, unique website and have full access for only $12 per year.
I’m not exactly sure that this is the way the new model will work, but it should. Brian Steltzer reports that the named companies will take equity shares in the new proposition, although deals have yet to be signed. A few newspaper owners have also expressed interest.
The model is not new. Ventures like Hulu, owned by a consortium of television networks, have offered new channels to broadcast content for consumers. Vevo, which will make its debut in January 2010, is attempting to tackle the challenge of monetizing music content that is presently being downloaded for free.
Of course, one of the big challenges is figuring out how to aim for a moving target. Integrated devices and smart phones are rapidly transitioning their applications and models, and no one is quit sure where to aim, or how to build a web model and channels to mobile that also is relevant in 2012, much less 2010.
Still, in my opinion, this is the most dramatic, forward-thinking move that traditional media has taken in decades. It represents a sea-shift or paradigm change that is relevant to modern content-consumerism, and it’s absolutely necessary. No amount of venture capital or commitment of publishers’ collective time could be applied in a more valuable way.
Winning the battle of “paid online content” has been the conundrum and nemesis of publishers for ten difficult years. But publishers are content owners. Content is their core value proposition. It’s what consumers crave and need, and sadly, what they have discovered for free online, whether the result is accurate and satisfying or not.
And it’s clearly about more than advertising, as the finite universe for advertising revenue continues to be compromised by recession and is diminished through ever-increasing, seemingly infinite, digital channels. According to Charles Townsend of Condé Nast, “We know that the world of digital is far grander than display advertising.”
But content proprietors — owners of the best content in the world — like Time Inc. Condé Nast and Hearst are experts in their respective categories. It’s time that those C-level leaders made smart business decisions, understood the worth of their core assets, chose the channel and value model of the future, and kept their companies competitive.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/magazine-publishers-to-build-an-online-newsstand/?scp=1&sq=online%20newsstand&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/media/16adco.html?_r=1&ref=business
posted by Dwayne Flinchum at
2:42 PM
1 Comments:
It should work if the content providers get together snd do what I underdtand the Swiss railways did. They knew what their traffic was and what it cost and offered a pass at a reasonable price and it worked, so they invited the lake steamers to join and it worked, and the trolley cars to join and it worked. The take was split and each year the split was adjusted to match the traffc and it worked and the tourists (me) loved it, so they keep it up. Fare collecting costs are reduced. Isn't this how orchestras pay for music?
It would be very iffy the first year (quarter?) because, at a too low price, the traffic might not cover the costs, but that would be adjusted. There would have to be limits on how much could be bought to match how much a person can read, not easy to figure, but adjustable, and some sort of insurance might be in order.
I would like to buy 25% more periodical reading for a fee equal to 25% more than I now pay for my
subscriptions. I don't think my reading habits would change even that much, but the convenience would make it attractive.
Of course there will be unforseen problems, but by limiting the periods between adjustments, they won't be overwhelming.
I'm for it. ===gm===
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home