Media value chains

Media value chains

: Tim Oren has an incredible post looking at the dissipating value of media bundles in this atomic age of media when the essential element of content is (to paraphrase former blog empress, now kitchen empress Meg Hourian) no longer the network or the publication or even the show or the page but the post. Tim looks at how consumers are unbundling media and how attacks on credibility (see: Rather) accelerate the unbundling and the loss of value.

Being a VC, Tim then wants to start the discussion about new ways to create new value. I can name a few. But first, there’s more to say about that dissipation of value.

If the network or the newspaper or the magazine or the cable system was the old bundle, the internet itself is the new bundle: In this medium of extreme control, we each put together whatever bundle we want.

I have taken to calling Google the content brand killer. People go to content galore via Google. But because it’s so easy to get there, they often don’t even notice — let alone recall, let alone value — the brand of the actual provider of that content. Why should they? Google got them what they wanted.

This accelerates the commoditization of content. It also provides opportunities for those who can add value (and convenience and perspective and even fun); more on that another day…

There is also the matter of distributed content and advertising. Used to be, we waited for the news to come to us, on our doorstep or when the clock ticked 6 on TV. Now, the news waits for us to come to it; we get the nugget of news or content we want from any of many sources. The same will soon be true of advertising — of the process of putting a buyer and seller together. eBay and Craig’s List and Monster have had a major impact on old, bundled Big Media — but even these new upstarts will fall, for all they really did was replace old marketplaces with new and cheaper marketplaces. In a distributed, networked world, it’s the marketplace that will disappear. I’ve written about this before: Put your resume online with standard tags (speaks: C++, German; in: New York; status: unemployed….) and soon some specialized successor to Google — a resume engine — will find that resume wherever it exists. It no longer needs to go to a marketplace; the market comes to it. Ditto jobs. That is our new distributed world. There is value that can be added in this transaction as well; that, too, I’ll save for another day.

Now add technology: The mouse, the remote control, RSS, and the soon-to-exist TiVo-of-anything-digital-anywhere makes bundles for us so we don’t have to pay someone else to bundle. So technology adds value and many will make money at that, though only until the next technology comes along. And technology won’t solve all problems (see how TiVo recommends gay channels if you dare to watch gymnastics; you won’t believe what Amazon pushes on me after I ordered one book about Yiddish and another about pianos plus some books for my kids).

People help. That’s why weblogs have become popular: We read so you don’t have to; we click on your behalf; we bundle for you. There’s incredible value to be built there; that, of course, is for another day.

Finally, look at how advertising will be turned on its head. In a distributed world, it won’t come to us; we will go to it. I’ll spare you that rant today; see this post on Love Ads.

In this new distributed, unbundled, post-marketplace, molecular, commoditized media world, value can be added in many ways. It’s about relationships. It’s about relevancy. It’s about service. It’s about uniqueness. It’s about perspective.

I gotta go buy Tim a beer and talk this over….

: UPDATE: Rex Hammock disagrees (though quite agreeably).

12 responses to “Media value chains”

  1. Brett Avatar

    Provocative post.
    Jeff, you’ve said in the past that you don’t like the current environment of war politic. But don’t you think all of this agitation in our culture is due to severe componentization? It is _our identity_ to attach these select components to ourselves. By this process, our inner thinking becomes more exposed, whether we want it to be exposed or not. This leads to inevitable tribalism – or labelism. I love the use of Tim’s word “valence” because it’s very much about chemistry.
    The Internet makes componentization possible. We can afford niche because niche is readily available – whether it’s in the person we choose to be our spouse, the clothes we wear, the content we absorb, etc. We will ignore the provider – unless the provider can consistently deliver the components that we want.
    So where is any unity to be found in that? Community, yes. But unity? No.
    Is there peace in a world of niche? We yearn for community, but no “brand” will be able to completely deliver all that we need to give us identity. We rebel against the brand when it doesn’t give us the identity we seek. (The aggression of your commenters who like you yet rail against you is a great example of this.) So then we choose other brands that that are more cohesive to our identity.
    How do relationships survive massive niche availability coupled with individual identity growth and crisis? It’s probably wrong to expect that they should. We’re all niche, and brands won’t grow along with us.

  2. Tom (American Voter) Avatar

    This is interesting. I’m going to have to think about this before I could saying anything intelligent.
    Good job finding something worth discussing, instead of the silliness of memogate.

  3. henry Avatar

    Three cheers for atomization and disintermediation after centuries of conglomeration!
    But even as we celebrate the atom, I think there are also still unique molecules “above” the post or article that have value: people and communities of people.
    In the age of commodification, everything (words/paragraphs/ideas/insights) is mass-producible EXCEPT the individual minds and communities of minds that produce ’em.
    Anybody can write a great post or article occassionally, but only a Josh Marshall or Glenn Reynolds or Duncan Black or Ana Marie Cox or Jeff Jarvis can pull together his/her unique community of minds.
    To put it another way, lots of people can tell jokes… only a few people can do it really well day in and day out. Those people/communities can’t be commodified, no matter how many algorithms you deploy.

  4. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    Tom, why is the memo story silly?

  5. Tom (American Voter) Avatar

    For me the story is silly because the whole thing has degenerated into a comedy show. Consider:
    1) We still have journalist hedging their bets on whether the memos are fake or not. It’s like watching someone say we need to give equal time to the Flat Earth theory.
    2) We have headlines like “Fake, but Accurate”
    3) Watching Big Media try to catch up is like watching a race, but in slow motion.
    Journalism as a profession is revealing itself for the joke it has been for sometime. People like Jeff will try to put their finger in the dike and they might actually succeed for a while, but the downfall has begun and will only accelerate from here. At best it’s amusing to watch, and at worst it’s boring.

  6. Brett Avatar

    Regarding journalism as a profession: we need big journalism. The reason is that us in the citizen media don’t have the brand power to get close to decision makers and whistleblowers to learn the truth. They have greased paths. Without that greased path, those in power can better hide what they do.
    The problem is that journalism as a profession leans left, and in this latest incident, that lean caused it to walk away from journalism as an exercise in discerning the truth.
    Jeff’s post here details further how content and delivery are changing, but that won’t reduce the need for content or delivery.
    I think we in the citizen media need to be careful that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I first heard Jeff talk of a cooperative relationship between citizen media and Big Media, I couldn’t see how that would work. But I think it’s true that we need one another. Citizen media as a check in a currently unbalanced system and to poke holes in overly inflated egos, and Big Media to provide details for us that we can’t otherwise get.
    Evolution, not revolution. Otherwise, the greased relationships could be lost.

  7. Brett Avatar

    Jeff,
    The conversation between you and Rex dovetails very well with Tom Peters’ thoughts. Have you ever browsed one of his PowerPoint slides? Point number 6 about experience in the following PPT is very much right in line with this.
    http://www.tompeters.com/slides/uploaded/PMUSA012004.ppt
    Good stuff.

  8. Ruth Avatar

    MSM the great problem, is able to mobilize resources and check itself out. I have enjoyed being the protagonist in this website’s problems with Dan Rather’s use of memos he received and has had checked out. He has acceded to problems with the memos, and has never re-attached memos that were delivered by the white house that reflected the same problems that were cited by internet analaysts. I repeat, the memos were extensively veted before they were aired. Mr. Rather interviewed an 87 year old retired secretary to the fella who supposedly wrote the memos. Sorry, but I have a 90 year old mother, and a close friend whose 87 year old mother recently passed away. They have very strong memories that often are not corroborated by the facts/ and my friend had to have the cemetery her mother had a contract with inform her that her contract was with that, and not another different cemetery, before her mother would believe her that she was wrong.
    My mother refuses to see a doctor, since the one that she chose – an onological specialist, and she has no cancers – has retired.
    Back to your concerns. Need we trivialize public interests further?

  9. Tony Gentile Avatar

    Very interesting. I wrote a /similar/ post on Sept. 9th in response to a Techdirt article on Japanese newspaper’s blocking Google. Too long to post it all here (find the whole thing at: http://www.buzzhit.com/2004/09/techdirtjapanese-newspaper-says-no-to.html), but here’s the intro:
    “Techdirt’s got a post, “from the short-term-stupidity dept.”, about a Japanese newspaper publishing co blocking Google from displaying their content in Google News (i.e., not allowing deep linking). Mike goes on to say:
    :The newspaper is upset that people might go directly to the news they want, as opposed to visiting the front page first. This is short-term thinking. There are a lot of news sites out there, and the ones that make it more difficult to get to what people want will lose out. Instead of driving more people to a front page, it will drive fewer people to their overall website. It’s a little worrisome that a modern news agency would actually turn away one of biggest channels that could drive them traffic.:
    And, Mike might be right. He might also, however, not see the implications from a newspaper perspective.
    Imagine that you’d built and run a company for 50, 100 or even 150 years. You’ve worked hard to become a trusted source of local news and information. You’ve sustained operations (and even earned a profit) by selling advertising. Life is good…”

  10. AndrewBB Avatar

    So much of it is not news. But yes, a good post. Thank you.

  11. hugh macleod Avatar

    A friend of mine just got laid off from his high-paying editorial job at FHM. He’s 37. His bosses figured they could get a 26 year old to the job a lot cheaper. They were right, of course.
    Every non-executive media, publishing and advertising person I know is hurting. But I don’t expect the pain levels to ever decrease.

  12. Michael Avatar

    “We read so you don’t have to; we click on your behalf; we bundle for you. There’s incredible value to be built there”
    I don’t see why this is necessarily a good thing. Shouldn’t I be responsible for gathering my own information and coming to my own conclusions? How is this any different that CBS or NYT or FOX selectively reporting and editing what they want – will all biases intact.