This is my dumping ground for quotes and other stuff relating to the wonderful world of digital & communications.
Before the 1960’s the steel industry was dominated by big, inefficient, expensive steel plants. But then something changed. The industry was revolutionised by the introduction of “mini-mills” - smaller, cheaper, faster plants. Yet the big steel companies didn’t want to adopt minimills, says Williamson. They were suspicious of the quality of their new competitors.
Today, Williamson argues, news sites like The Huffington Post, Gawker and Business Insider are the “mini mills of the journalism industry”. Through a combination of news aggregation, blog hosting and user engagement, they’re producing a journalism product that’s faster and cheaper.
Big, traditional news organisations like The New York Times have criticised the quality of their new competitors. Yet Williamson argues that, as they gain a foothold in the market, sites like the HuffPo are moving up the food chain, and starting to hire their own journalists - some from the New York Times itself. According to her argument, creating the new business model is perhaps the first step, improving quality the second: “be the disruptors and then move your way up the chain.”
That main issue, we’re told over and over again, is “piracy” and specifically “rogue” websites. And, let’s be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? … Historically, infringement has never been about “free,” but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology. Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. …
And, as we’ve seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful.
software programming tools and Internet-based services make it easy to launch new global software-powered start-ups in many industries—without the need to invest in new infrastructure and train new employees. In 2000… the cost of a customer running a basic Internet application (in Loudcloud) was approximately $150,000 a month. Running that same application today in Amazon’s cloud costs about $1,500 a month.
The Newspaper Association of America has long claimed there are 2.3 readers for every print edition circulated…
So, if it’s always been possible on any given day to pick up the local paper somewhere for free, why did people ever pay? Not because they had to, but because it was easier to get it placed on their doorstep every morning (convenience), because they felt if they were going to read it every day they ought to pay (duty), or because they wanted to support the institution and people that produced it (appreciation).
Those are the same three reasons someone might subscribe to the The New York Times’ digital content.
Two tools in particular are helping businesses find talent: Skills and Similar Profiles. Launched in late June, the latter feature enables employers to discover new talent based on profiles of top workers or ideal candidate profiles. “You just tell LinkedIn, ‘Look, I have five great engineers, and I want more like them,’” Nash says. “And we just find people like that for you.”
Clearly something dramatic has happened to the news business. That something is, of course, the internet, which has disrupted this industry just as it has disrupted so many others. By undermining advertising revenue, making news reports a commodity and blurring the boundaries between previously distinct news organisations, the internet has upended newspapers’ traditional business model. But as well as demolishing old ways of doing things, it has also made new ones possible. As patterns of news consumption shift, much experimentation is under way. The internet may have hurt some newspapers financially, but it has stimulated innovation in journalism.
If you build it and they come, does that guarantee that there’s money to be made? (Hint: No.)
The same people who never question why someone would sit on a couch and watch TV for eight hours straight can’t understand why someone would find it rewarding to weigh in on the issues — great and small — that interest them. For free. They don’t understand the people who contribute to Wikipedia for free, who maintain their own blogs for free, who tweet for free, who constantly refresh and update their Facebook pages for free, and who want to help tell the stories of what is happening in their lives and in their communities… for free.
people have historically paid for the medium not the content.
They pay for ‘Cable’ not for ‘CNN News’. They pay for ‘The Paper’ not for the content in the newspaper. They pay for ‘CDs’ not for the music on the album.
Also they paid a lot because the medium was perceived to be scarce (scarce materials, scarce shelf space, scarce advertising dollars), scarce talented people.
Consumers are not stupid, they understand (if only somewhere at the back of their mind) that the COST of creating and distributing things has been deflated by a growing list of converging trends.
In this new world, the price of content must be reduced significantly as shakeouts and rebalancing occurs – because the cost of producing it is approaching zero.
Rather than crowdsourcing, we call what we do widesourcing,” says Mark Chatow, the company’s vice president for marketing. “We take tasks like translation that used to be done by a single specialist and break them into pieces so a wide range of people can handle different parts of the work.
Tapscott reckons we are in for an epochal shift: “The idea that we’re moving from an industrial economy to a new age of networked intelligence has been around for a long time but there were ideas in waiting – and they were waiting for a bunch of things to happen.” The triggers, he says, are a well developed web, digitally literate populations, changes in the global economy and a “convulsive shock” to established systems that make us look twice at the presumed certainties around us.
97% of the artists signed to a major label before Napster earned $600 or less a year from it. And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal. Almost every artist who sets out to earn a living from art won’t get there (for me, it took 19 years before I could afford to quit my day job), whether or not they give away their work, sign to a label, or stick it through every letterbox in Zone 1.
The large profit margins newspapers enjoyed in the past were built on an artificial scarcity: Limited choice for advertisers as well as readers. With the Internet, that scarcity has been taken away and replaced by abundance. No policy proposal will be able to restore newspaper revenues to what they were before the emergence of online news. It is not a question of analog dollars versus digital dimes, but rather a realistic assessment of how to make money in a world of abundant competitors and consumer choice.