February 14th, 2006

Is the Age of Media Giants, and Media Companies, Over?

by Scott Karp

  •  View Comments

The Guardian wonders whether “massive media companies have a compelling reason to exist in an era of media fragmentation”:

The argument is simple: as global media conglomerates struggle to hold position against falling sales in publishing, a fractured TV market, music piracy and advertising migration to old fashioned billboards, what are these groups for? The market also seems tired of them. Shares in ‘old’ media firms have fallen 25 per cent in the past two years; Google is now equal in value to Walt Disney, News Corp and Viacom combined.

The larger question, it seems to me, is whether there are any economies of scale left in media. If the costs of content creation, distribution, and viral marketing are near zero, is there a viable growth business model for media companies of any size? Will the fragmentation that’s shattering the media landscape make it impossible for any media company, save brokers like Google, to maintain revenue growth when the value is being scattered to the winds? (Even Google’s growth may hit a brick wall when there are no advertising dollars left to squeeze out of the market.)

For most of the 20th century, the economics of media were based on a mass audience — including within niches, i.e. you could reach the entire audience within any given niche. Now that even niche audiences are fragmenting, does the business of media need a fundamental reorganization? It strikes me that even the Web 2.0 vanguard is still working within the old model of building — and ultimately trying to monetize — an audience in a centralized location, i.e. a website.

Each time I raise these questions, I keep coming back to brands — if a brand like BusinessWeek can create value in a dynamic, medium-agnostic fashion, can it effectively monetize the value that the brand creates?

A lot of questions, but few evident answers. Google figured out a way to monetize media value in a way that nobody had ever thought of before, by leveraging technology to create efficiencies that were beyond the capacity of human intelligence. But what about human intelligence? We need to dream up a new way to monetize the value created by human intelligence in media.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post  Post to Facebook Share on Facebook

  • Great post and interesting point about the Web 2.0 vanguard still working within the old model of building and monetizing an audience in a centralized location. I think, however, there's more to it.

    Commercial value is and will always be determined by the ability to attract an audience. In general, the more the better, but sometimes all it takes is an audience of one: out of a small group of people willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for Van Gogh's Portrait of Dr. Gachet, one person was willing to pay $82.5 million.

    While a single Van Gogh might be considered a centralized location, not the Harry Potter books. In my mind, they represent a monetized, distributed model. Or how about Daily Candy? It's not a centralized web site but a widely distributed newsletter whose impending sale could fetch $100 million.

    It's the size of the audience, not the distribution model that determines commercial value.

    To answer your question regarding the value of human intelligence in media, look in opposite direction, away from Google's fantastic success. What does Google do? Simplistically, they deliver what I'm looking for based on the number of links pointing to a piece of data on a particular subject. Google's value is their ability to determine what is valuable based on what is popular. What's the opposite?

    Edge ideas.

    Human intelligence, not Google, is needed to find ideas out on the edge that have the potential to become popular. In addition, human intelligence is needed to promote these ideas. Google can't; even though Adwords can drive traffic, it doesn't facilitate acceptance of an idea and then build a relationship (read brand). Finally, Google can't make the connections necessary for innovation, the putting-together of dissimilar ideas to create a third, more powerful entity. Ultimately, the value of human intelligence in media is the ability to create this innovative entity: meaning.

    A media brand gains a large and loyal audience when it finds edge ideas and gives them meaning so that we can better understand and act on them. The value of human intelligence in media is exactly that, human intelligence. I believe people will continue to pay for media that makes them smarter about the rapidly changing world around them.
  • Bold questions ... from where I sit, the issue is Return on Attention. Big Media's ability to deliver experiences that supply adequate ROA, vs the experiences that people are increasingly creating for themselves, is under enormous threat, isn't it? And where there's diminishing quality of attention, there's diminishing brand ROI. Pull on this thread long enough, and the whole media tapestry unravels. This logic seems to point to advertisers moving to an 'enhancement of experience' model in order to avoid complete marginalisation. Brand sponsorship of the consumer experience itself, as distinct from the content that comprises a piece of that experience, is perhaps a way forward? Keep up the great work.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe

Receive a free daily email newsletter with new Publishing 2.0 posts


Recent Posts

Clicky Web Analytics