The Root Trend

The Difference Between Pioneers and Settlers (part II)

post note: this post summarizes my blogging effort at iroM. The "part II" is a reference to a simple post I offered there a while back. This follow up offers the organizing ideas that, IMO and very generally, sum up why and where one vector the business of content will follow to its benefit...and yes, I see correcting social mood as an important component of the bigger picture helping to swing experimentation that way. There are no final destinations on the digital frontier but there will be structural shifts in markets that reflect changing shared values as we continue the socialization of the web. Markets with depth and breadth of competition are more likely to work in the public interest and since content businesses of all shaoes & kinds will not socialize their losses, we should let them settle the bigger issues allowing full contact. I've added five bullet points at the end summarizing the biggest and longer term aspects of change.

 

An Evolving Marketplace Will Uncover the Hidden Value Needed to Unleash A Golden Age in Journalism (and much more) Through Digital Cooperation

The digital ecosystem is still a wilderness.  It is being settled quickly but evolving very slowly into a place where social order will eventually trump aggregation-minded opportunists.

The flow of data runs away from individuals and across the digital frontier. For the most part, this is harmless for now but attitudes have been changing. As time passes, in order to form a more perfect union of interests on both sides of the divide, digital enterprises will begin adding a layer of socially responsive entities balancing interests between enterprises and consumers of everything. The different thinking of this new layer will encourage very important transactional change that sticks, and eventually, will redefine relevant challenges by creating new currency used to measure and trade.

The Business of Monetizing Content To Change A Lot During This Social Correction (part 3)

* see post note added at end

Successful enterprises tell us where perceived value was yesterday and today. Consumers point to where it will be tomorrow. How we value things and ideas of all kinds changes as social mood changes...and what we pay attention to changes with social mood. Lately, there has been enormous attention focused upon how companies make money (create value) in the area of content. I point at these endeavors and markets in the broadest possible manner and not towards any one kind of business. 

For five or six years we have seen an extreme experiments in social sharing as social networking moved into the digital ecosystem for the masses. There's no doubt, people want to share aspects of their life. There is also no doubt how this behavior will be subject to shifts in social mood over time. I prefer to point toward the larger shifts able to be seen using social mood because they point to basic structural change in how people want to be served by enterprises. 

The Chief Executive of Forrester, George Colony gave a talk you can go watch here. In 20 minutes he talked about where he sees the internet headed and he does in a way readers here can appreciate. In a nutshell, an excuse me if I abbreviate a great talk entirely too much, the world wide web is likely to be replaced by a wave of app-like ecosystems across the internet. Technology certainly seems to bear that conclusion out but most ordinary people are left wondering what that that really means for everyday folk. Is tech really in charge of where we take the internet or is it something else? In periods of positive or expanding social mood, we might just wait and see. That is much less likely now.

In my very humble opinion, his vision can be guided towards content markets offering a little more meat on the bone by seeing through social mood and how consumers define value (create value) through their changing perceptions and through their behavior.

Apps certainly seem to be the short-hand tech development paradigm that has become mainstream practice today. Apps by their nature, create closed-like systems. I think the idea of Choice matters more. I have defined Choice in many posts over years over at the media blog that was spawned in posts here years ago. You may use the blog search to see just how often and in many ways I have approached it. Choice, in the way I use it as a social trend, is about getting content in the digital environment and how centuries of practice and behavior have been altered in just two decades. Demand has changed and will see enormous new shifts and this will change existing industries even more than we have witnessed so far.

In my thinking, the creation of value is what really matters...and to consumers that means getting Choice, for starters. It really is that simple. As social mood changes Choice will see subtle shifts that could rock many businesses off their business model because the early digital enterprises are simple copies of analog era business practices and do not reflect the massive changes in how transactions for digital content occur. They all ignore Choice in ways that serve their business needs.  This reality has been covered up by large new successful digital companies that appear to have beaten old media companies to the digital frontier. The fight has been portrayed as if it is about old media versus new media. That way of seeing things is all wrong. In fact, it could not be more wrong.

Value to consumers in the digital ecosystem is about Choice and the old way of transacting is increasingly at odds with the perceived expansive freedom associated with the digital frontier. Picture a town with crowded streets, billboards everywhere, salesmen pushing offerings in our face as we stroll along for a view of our new surroundings. Increasingly, the anything is possible perception has been replaced by captive viewing that is increasingly limited because endless space wars are limiting creative potential. You could embrace these new managed and gated communities but they will soon be seen as left wanting of Choice. In short; good intentions driven by greed and chaos*** have taken over the scene for now. Mobile internet has been given to us by forward looking companies but what they really gave us was closed systems, not the open web experience. Users are captive and watched and served what they appear to be needed. Boy, that sounds bad when put that way, right?, but it does not have to be. App ecosystmes can be part of a chapperone style enterprise.  The open web began falling away with mobile development and now the chief of Forrester says it will be a pervasive change. Essentially, in exchange for a little creative code writing we are incrementally handing over our freedom to wander and see whatever we Choose to see and do and instead agree to be served what someone else thinks is best for us. Trust has been extended up till now.

If you are a regular reader that last sentence says it all because trust and social mood are highly correlated during big swings. This issue will be a pivot point in developing digital markets for content.

At the risk of repeating myself, As social mood changes what we pay attention to changes and how we value things of all kinds changes. I am going to cut this post short and offer a single powerful slide I created maybe five years ago when Viacom sued Google for a billion dollars(it seemed like a lot back then).  I saw this change and now I see it even more. It could go right along with what the Forrester Chief suggests is coming. It could completely agree with his vision if only one small change in approach is made. If some app enterprises shift their focus and fully face the consumers they serve....100% and nothing otherwise, then this is exactly what is going to result in an explosion of newly created value. Consumer facing enterprises could reset the web and all high quality content enterprises. 100% consumer facing enterprises could produce a new currency to redefine value in a way long overdue.  In order for that to happen some gargantuan shifts will have to happen. There will be winners, losers, and those willing to recognize social change as it is happening. If you ever got caught in a rip tide or found a useful thermal of air, then you know they are invisible without some good idea of how to identify them at the right time and place. Social mood makes these events appear differently.  To me, this is the future of content of all kinds as we work through this giant social correction of previous periods of expansion. Trust the customer consuming content first and only and they will trust you. That is the singular basis of this idea working. The rest is just tech details (and a lot of social change):

 

* I will be updating this post over holiays and consolidating it with the two previous posts on the same topic and shrinking it all down to a smaller profile. About Face Part 1 (a simple explanation), About Face Part 2 (A Basic Structural Change)  The point of sharing these ideas is less about making a prediction and more about suggetsing where the big influences will shape ongoing events so that we can use existing momentum to fully exercise the freedom to be informed and to inform. I do not take this for granted especially in light of the trends I propose will drive these changes.

*** to be clear: greed and market chaos are both absolutely necessary and good. Any seeming opinion about the atmosphere (in that paragraph) was my own sense of consumerism and should be considered separately. Social mood suggests how we should see all market particpants as part of the trends being expressed and the main thing I am trying to highlight in this paragraph is how diverging shared values create images like those I attempted to capture. Our shared history offers many episodes of social expression extremes that are later sharpy diverted. Many.  Seeing through social mood may allow us to consider trend directionality from the standpoint of specific changing behaviors. Sharing will not stop but some expressions will change a lot as mood corrects.  This is where and how the larger forecast matters most.  Once you know how to match up these forecasts (large chunks) with your market(s) you can use deep market knowledge to see both confirming and divergent issues. I submit that this kind of "seeing" is a zone of competitive advantage and why this is valuable.    

 

 

Part II to the post About-Face is now posted here. Part one, below, was intentionally succinct. Part II offers some detail on how I see current trending opening a brand new divide in digital markets. This view presents both opportunity and obstacle for enterprises. This follow-up post, and Part I, has been my attempt to demonstrate how social mood can help see into big challenges in specific markets. I began considering the case of markets for content here several years ago when Viacom and Google first clashed legally over links and clicks(page down to oldest posts). At the time I likened it to the range wars on the old western frontier that led to fences and legislatures. Their legal face off lead to the big idea in these two current posts and will, in time, affect everyone. Social trends lead while businesses, industry, and government follow us where we are going. There is a lot of value in seeing trends from this perspective and it can help make sense of change in any market.

post note: This is posted on the media blog (link to the right here) but the trend point makes more sense here as it is something I have watched and considered for a long time.

Choice is an obvious general trend that reflects how the nature of demand for content is changing because of the digital environment after a very long time, (centuries?), of the opposite circumstances through the various media. It has always helped me to see Choice as a very large social pivot point relative to technology and content; affecting our use of media in many ways.  Social shows us it goes beyond scheduling and will have more dynamics to express.  Add the context of changing social mood and the potential for this trend to impact commerce broadly and in ways not previously imagined is worth noting. That stated, what follows is purely my opinion.

About-Face

Does your business sell advertising to generate revenue?

Is that dynamic creating a conflict with primary customers in order to serve
secondary customers? Who are your primary customers, exactly? Are they
consumers or other businesses?

The time has come to make clear distinctions between customers, their needs
and values, and secondary constituencies.

Why now?

The market dynamic that can be called Choice has taken us here along with
social mood. The long era of broadcast effectively began closing with the
advent of digital networks of connected people. The result, the market
dynamic I call Choice, will now increasingly require a distinction to be
made by enterprises. This would not be necessary in a world without Choice.

Businesses will not change to mirror this overnight but because the nature
of some transactions has changed forever, we are now slowly moving to this
end.

The consistent expression of Choice will be impacted by social mood and
result in changes to commerce requiring many new kinds of specialization.

So, the question is likely: which customer will you decide to face down and
which will you serve by aligning your world view (and actions) with theirs?

The need to ask this question is new because just as the times change, so
does how we value things and ideas of all kinds. Choice will eventually
require a decision by content oriented enterprises (and others too) that
have multiple kinds of customers with conflicting demands. Glossy ideals
about anticipating digital customer's needs better will be re-framed inside
of this new movement. (It may seem early for this larger trend but, it is
morning.)

To truly know your primary customer and to engage them in a manner that
serves you both well, requires trust be established and maintained without
the help of legalese. Choice will, in the changing light of shared social
values, force businesses to make important distinctions.

In coming years markets will demand that enterprises choose which customer
to face. There will be opportunity and limitations in either choice because
this is a fundamental change that will shape other decisions and business
dynamics.

If the choices your enterprise makes puts it at odds with the primary
customers then,

About-Face!

This first era of social reaction in the digital age will be different than
many expect but do not think this is an argument about one kind of company.
The digital ecosystem will interact with changing social perceptions and shared values to force incremental & ongoing specialization upon the entire business model.

Last thought: on the media blog, I posted this under the trending category, "permission and accountability".  Consider that a primary thread developing inside of Choice. 

current links in this thread of trending after the jump...Last add 11 16 11

Clarifying and Classifying Information Rights = Define those rights, please?

5 recent links now added below...

As I see it, we are approaching a critical need for clarification of the rights conveyed by ownership of ideas and information.  This theme is where privacy issues originate in an age of digital sharing done by people and machine alike. Before we narrow our focus to privacy issues though we must first acknowledge how the related issues are also in critical areas:

Patents The system is a mess. Some enterprises have learned to cheat rely on the advantage of deep pockets in all matters involving litigation and arbitration. ('First, let's see if forgiveness is really needed.') Others believe that software and business method patents stifle innovation. But if the small players innovate better but gain no benefit from doing so where is the incentive? A correction is needed here according to respected sources but what is it? Is it a free market fix or specific rules?

Copyright A real threat to content was the digital video recorder but now, even that concern seems a little pale out on the digital frontier where piracy across international borders is common now. The bigger players are beginning to see how delivering on the idea of consumer's Choice is a path to profitability and security, though there are no complete answers right now.

Enterprise privacy How can a company compete effectively when technical complexity makes stealing information so hard to defend against and even to prove later? This may sound identical to the patent concern above but it encompasses computer hacking community. Consider what we heard about at Lockheed Martin this week. Yes, what we see now is mostly isolated. They key to using this perspective is seeing how that general mindset will eventuallt shift and that will change how enterprises and entire industries behave.

Personal privacy In the 1970's, 80's we were urged to tear up the carbon paper from credit card receipts.  Today, not long after a historic peak in mood we hear about concerns about how all of our digitized information being aggregated and used (most times fairly, and only occasionally illegally with tough results). Behavioral profiling does indeed make the internet better for people but, the slowly evolving question is: do we really know all the concerns we should be aware of and how to work around them? Is that even possible? A conventional mindset would suggest, simply, that this is not a problem now or yet. Social mood shows us, again, how our perception of these potential events will change and as consumers, this will affect the perceived utility of various products and services.

The question behind these concerns is this: What rights come attached to the ownership of ideas (IP) and our various kinds of (personal and enterprise) information? Of course there are laws and rules now but how has the digital environment created the need for updating? How can we assign the right to use our personal information if we do not clearly understand the rules governing these agreements to use our data? Distinctions need to be made. What responsibility do enterprises have to consumers?  Is regulation really where this is headed? What if people began to think?, "If it is not going to be defined clearly in a way that is enforceable by me, then why participate in their desired interfaces that cater to both customer & enterprise convenience?"  The genie isn't going back in the bottle. Is that really true? What if some rules favor those that do revert to old behaviors where control exists? For instance: Will we go back to making phone calls for purchases because web sites have one set of rules and phone calls another? The trade offs I am suggesting here are indeed speculative but all transactions are evaluated and reevaluated as necessary by all market participants. Ok, as of today so far so good, right? My main point, right now, is how correcting social mood will influence this process considerably and it is not hard to see how it may develop directionally. This mindset is essential.

It may be easy to think I am taking this too far...making too much of nothing. The rest of this post provides limited background on my opinion about how if anything, I believe I am underestimating the challenges. So take note. The times they are a changing:

Links for the recent posts from the media blog are now in the nearest right column here (just below the fold).

I spun out the discussion thread here a while back about how media will continue to transform rapidly, and how directionally, some of the key changes are signaled by a combination of historic context and social mood. So as the media topic became a separate blog I have been careful not to let the discussion of social mood bog down the posts with too much explanation and simply offer it as an example of how the socionomic model might contextualize current events and beyond in any industry. If you are involved in a business that is affected by big social changes, knowledge of the socionomic model is critical insight.

Focus and brevity in any kind of content is a must, these days especially.  The exercise, for me, is slowly sharpening a way to use the socionomic model to form a view of the core industry of media more clearly in terms of big social trends that matter most. My hope is that eventually the general example will be a useful beyond media business issues.

The latest media post is a result of sensing one step into the early stages of the social trend towards privacy concerns growing within a background waxing social correction. More than one interesting email link this week suggested most people say they are concerned about privacy and few actually behave as if they truly are concerned much at all. I wonder...what percent of people really know what to do about it?  It appears we are discovering quickly, across several disciplines, how to better gauge the developing social mood through respondent surveys. The frequency and overall quality of surveys wishing to measure social behavioral nuances has become increasingly important. This last observation, no matter how obvious, will interact with several big trends to produce the end I suggest in that latest post. Critical adjustments (compromises) alter entire industries at critical junctions, sometimes slowly and sometimes very quickly.  People do it to get what they need. Enterprises do it to make a profit....and short dated representatives love to jump in before elections saving citizens from reading the instruction manuel. 

Longer term trending shapes intermediate changes

This post is a timely example of how some short term noise is part of a much longer term process. It's a longer read again, but is worth it.

Making the case for using socionomics in business with an example

Post summary:

Longer term social trend development can be visualized, with the aid of relevant medium term issues that fit in a general hierarchy of social responses experienced (collectively) by large groups as the developing social mood moves through its own cycles. This is not intended to be exacting (like a calendar) but it is much more practical than you may imagine, especially if you are in a particular business and looking for catalyzing events. 

*

The current explosion in privacy concerns has its roots in social mood (very generally) and more recently as experienced back in the early part of last decade between late 2001-2003.That time was an important low in social mood that produced hints about today’s newly observed reactions and beyond. Also important, in a much longer time frame, is how matters related to general privacy are written into our social charter with varying levels of specificity.

One fundamental lesson socionomics offers us in seeing social trends is to always begin from far back as possible to gain a larger perspective on where the trend fits amongst other group processes going on in the society. We are each a product of our individual society and are greatly influenced by the specific concerns and groups processes happening there both now and over longer time frames that we may (individually) only acknowledge generally but not talk about regularly. It is the connection between short term events and long term developments that challenge us all the most but like any long division problem, there are general ways to reduce the problem to the larger influences and then use those to visualize your enterprise in that specific trending depiction.

An example I have monitored follows:

Social Mood Versus Social Media; how to anticipate granular change

see post note added at end  as well as link previously added  1 10 12

 

Large scale social change is a remarkable thing.

This blog is about a model for seeing change. It is about a tool that offers trending insight to large groups of people. Social mood, the primary social trend, operates at this level and it is here that it can be used to orient us to seeing why groups and our tools experience incremental changes at varying rates.

The socionomic model is a way to organize distinct trends in social change. It allows us to sort seemingly disparate changes based on subtle, shared beliefs that impact behavior. I often refer to these, here, as shared values.  

The mass adoption of social media tools like Facebook and Twitter in the US has had an underlying set of assumptions (shared values) attached, very generally, to these endeavors. It is important to recognize them in case any of them begin changing:  everyone is a potential friend, sharing is good, and more is better have been widely reflected in our US culture for many, many decades. So it's not surprising that when the initial open invite of social platforms turned to active marketing to sustain the impressive growth, we saw these shared values reflected to us in varied messages.

The wonder of our new connectedness using social media is unprecedented but even that becomes boring after hearing it many times. What is important now is how we might use this perspective to witness real granular change in the robust trend called social media.

two very powerful ideas

The ideas in the last post are powerful, even if they are abbreviated.  Social corrections change how we build on ideas in very specific ways.  Add to that an understanding of the impact of degree of trend upon specific trending issues and you can potentially see your business much more clearly in times of change.

As with all posts here, when I use "we", I am referring to the collective "we", the social crowd of "we", and not individuals. That distinction is very important. Crowd behavior can appear to parallel the choices individuals make but more often it reflects social mood owing to the powerful pull of our social, emotional nature.

In four years of writing posts one thing is clear. Post titles matter. Instead of creating a new title for the last post, allow me to share a few folder titles from the trend library I have kept for five or six years so that I could watch specific trend threads develop and decide for myself the potential value of this insight. My hope with this post is to offer just how broadly these ideas apply and maybe encourage a few more people to reach for an understanding of what it is that "degree of trend" implies in the context of specific social trends.  If you have no idea what degree of trend refers to; it is a reflection of the fact that human social behavior (reflected by crowds) is often being expressed in a manner or some form that is repetitive and has some generalized pattern that is repetitive.  Understanding how some trends are reflections of different degrees of trend of the aggregate social mood could change the way you see your business in relation to your industry, your market, or the competitive advantage you now enjoy. It may seem complicated but really is no more so than the Wed. or Thurs. crossword puzzle in the NYT.

Here are a few very broad threads of social trending I have watched for a while now:  

scandals and controversy   (this folder is intended specifically as a social correction trending collection by this title though we know how that depending upon the degree of trend (of social mood) you consider, we can always be considered to be in an impulse wave (social expansion) at some degree of trend. If you conquer understanding that one piece of the puzzle, half the larger challenge will be won.  Do you recognize examples of scandal and controversy in your competitive industry? How about in Congress? Your state government? Your local government?  Where did all the varied business and social heroes go from a few years ago?  Was retirement a generational fad?  More far sighted insight to that question may be in here; Are pensions in serious trouble as suggested recently?  Will retirement still be a valued social goal for the generation beyond Boomers? Will shrinking money-ness change family structures and influence individual values in the US as well as affect structural change in the government of The People? There were many articles about potential pension trouble in 2002 and 2003. Were they completely different then? Is it right to re-neg on promised benefits? Should public benefits be paid to people in their 40's? In many cases it was a promised perk and a major recruitment incentive.  This is a wildly broad thread of issues. It is easy to focus on the obvious wrong doers or the blame behind specific problems but if you focus on the changing shared values, you can see how those will affect your business in some way.  Some concerns will develop more slowly and last much longer than others. How can you tell? (begin by understanding degree of trend)

heroes to crooks This folder is reserved for the people who end up being publicly transformed in the same way as the fictional character, Gordon Gecko was in the old movie Wall Street. In the movie Gecko was an obvious crook but in this social trending process, the group's changing shared values take us from a general mindset that supported chasing success "any way you can" and is transforming the shared values toward "responsible people follow the rules and those who do not pay the price".  These unfolding revised interpretations were often not overtly defined previously and therefore subject to varied interpretations tomorrow. During social expansion we spread out as we chase ideals and in periods of correction we come back together focused on what matters most. Was anything criminal about behavior at AIG or Countrywide Mortgage? The answer up till now is "no" but this trending dynamic suggests we stayed tuned for revisions to how the public sees the general price of membership changing. Rules are established during social corrections and enforced.  There are so many great examples of heroes being transformed to bastards from the last few decades and they were often convicted in a court of wrong doing. Have we skipped over wrong doers from the last decade up till now, and will we circle back to line em' up soon? Time will tell.  The trending suggests, "yes" because shared values are changing a lot right now.

smaller units of association....maybe the most basic of Prechter's observations as it relates to changing crowd behavior during social corrections and it is most easily perceived using different time horizons (or degrees of trend). Examples can begin as small as failed trade negotiations between states and industries and expand outward to...other very broad areas of social trending.

The body of the issues looked at in this folder include how nations (large groups & societies) get along in periods of correction and also how individual parts of a (free) society are more visible during corrections.   

One sub folder I keep titled "fight the war" began as a pro-war / anti war trend folder that a couple years later expanded very broadly into a thread capturing the general expressions of social anger and how these expressions have generally become war-like, even at home in the US.  ie. shouting down a President in the State of the Union on a matter over state medicaid expenditures. Hey, some House members carried sidearms in Congress in the mid 1800's.(that period was another cycle degree social correction but I doubt that will come back)

   "the value of a human life" ...a pretty dark extreme of this trend dynamic.  This is a big picture trend folder that borrows international ideals on this subject over years. The dynamic can be seen to have improved in many smaller countries up till recent years.  Since this is currently a cycle degree decline at one degree of trend in the US (that is a long term trending time frame) the idea of "the greater good" is bound to be trotted out and proclaimed with authority as the President did in late 2001 & 2002 as some American freedoms were traded for safety measures. Trends like these are more difficult to follow because they go dormant and when activated they become labeled by the events that precipitate them. Overall the value of a single human life, and the rights attached to lives decline during deep social corrections, even in a free society.  Many trends overlap in how they might be considered. One critical value in seeing a large, long trend like this is to appreciate the extent of the perceptual change (in terms of polarity) from the peak in social expansion...and how these shared values change our communication on so many levels as the social correction moves toward a nadir.

iroM  the (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media  is made of of several individual trend folders: Manifesting Choice, Privacy related threads, Specialization developments, and Generational dynamics. Each will play a pivotal role in the redesign of content companies that use advertising based business models to provide for hungry content consumers in the US.  Each reflects varied degrees of trend of the social mood.

All of these folders just mentioned but the last are tenets of Robert Prechter's socionomic theory as put forth in his books and publications. I may not have sampled them squarely but instead offered those aspects that stand out to me somehow. It took me following them for a while to make them real and usable as opposed to reciting them. There is a lot of value in seeing this broad set of ideas right now.  The iroM folder of threads was built using what I already knew about the industry and what I was learning. All but iroM clearly suggests "social correction" dynamics. iroM involves numerous trending processes that need to be sorted and considered from varied degrees of trend. In the end iroM is about building new ideas and tools and that involves expansion on some level. Business trends bring to mind the broad ideas of creative construction and creative destruction as they relate to highest and best use of ideas and resources. By understanding how different social impulses (trending forces)are both impacted by and reflect different degrees of trend (of the aggregate social mood-expressed by us all) can offer a lot of extra insight to trending hierarchy in periods of great social change.

First, this thinking offers us how social trends shape business trends in a lagging manner. Next it shows us how the ideas supporting some social trends will be around a lot longer than others. All of these ideas are supported by changing shared values(amongst crowds of people), because as social mood changes how we values things changes and that changes how we see both the present and the uncertain future. A lot can be derived from a simple proposition. Seeing how we collaborate and build differently during social corrections and how the degree of trend of social mood reflected by some shared values influences how pervasive some trending will be are both very powerful ideas.

Intro to the socionomic basis for change to the media business model

Familiarity with a business or industry is a product of time and effort. The same is true for socionomics and how the insights social mood offers us can lead to highly effective decision making by businesses that use it during critical times of social change. At certain junctures social changes can be anticipated to have directional effects on the markets we intend to serve through an enterprise.  The media business is a perfect example of an industry at a long term cross road because of social change and social mood has a lot it can tell us about this primary social tool (media), and the changing profit picture that will result over the next five to ten years.

Four years ago this past June, Viacom sued Google's You Tube over infringement of copyrighted material and a new offshoot of the larger trend in media began to express itself in earnest. At issue (though not often discussed this way) was control and the obligations of manufacturers and distributors of content in the digital environment. (Previously, manufacturers did their own distribution.) This discussion, when framed properly, can also be seen as being related on different levels to the key issues in the music business and also in the newspaper/magazine/publishing businesses this past decade. The business of selling content has already been forcibly split up but few existing enterprises recognize the present reality, choosing instead to think like an industry that still enjoys some kind of mandate to persevere without the competitive barriers to entry that aided them for decades. This tendency is an echo of the old exhausted secular social trend (and the older generation still at the helm of many businesses) and has been replaced by a new complex set of perceptions towards content by consumers. 

Humans using technology created a new dimension of space used to share ideas ( a very natural human social behavior) in 1989 called the world wide web and it took a few years to gain traction but, when it did the existing businesses that had previously enjoyed sizable barriers to competition were caught completely off guard by the social changes in attitudes and behavior that resulted from new technology. Within a few years of Yahoo's and Google's services being widely available and demanded, the existing business model used by content companies began to experience the first effects of secular profit change (correction) due to new competition for the consumer's time using traditional channels of distribution...as a result of evolved consumer expectations.  Unfortunately, most companies in the media industry outwardly acknowledged them as recessionary forces that would mostly pass in time as they figured out how to "monetize the internet".

The unofficial protected competitive status of US media companies was now completely vulnerable despite decades of flowing profits because no resources were set aside to protect market positions or anticipate change in the core of their business model. Instead the profits were aggressively siphoned off and distributed to lenders and owners in offerings during what wave principle (the trend following analytic technique that inferred the existence of social mood being a natural group expression) calls an "extended fifth wave".  In wave principle, a fifth wave is the final advance of a particular social trend before exhaustion of the impulse driving it and when an extended fifth wave is observed, what happens next is most often a quick/dramatic correction of the uncommon gains accrued in the recently expressed social trend. The point is that, analytically, the present position and course of the entire media sphere can be understood using various techniques and, from each of the related perspectives (using social mood), we can see a little more qualitatively about what needs to happen next based upon social trending dynamics that are shaping the business of media (monetizing content).

From a socionomic standpoint it might be easy to look at a basket of media stocks and how their value changed through the late 1990's consolidation era up to the dot com peak in 2000 and then sharply correcting to 2002. Many went downward even after that because despite the boom elsewhere in the US economy, the frenzy for media company shares ended with the dot com bust and the realization that a lot had changed. In fact, a multi-generational media trend had ended.  Execs in the business knew it but communicated little or none of their true concerns because of the effect of such uncertainty might have on the share prices already in free fall. My position on the best perspective socionomics can take when evaluating media as a business is to look at the consumer of content first and foremost because it is from that perspective that we can see more about what will constitute value in the post broadcast era. The consumer's version of "what is value?" is often a moving target subject to social mood. 

This blog post is intended only as a fly-by discussion of a very large topic I have looked at for four years now: The socionomic basis for specific change to the media business model. In order to mine down into this discussion a combination of social mood modeling and an appreciation for how the media business works in the US is essential. With both of these prerequisites you can begin to see why substantial change is needed and why it is not far away.

In order to give shape (or at least outlines) to the broad picture of change needed, let's look again at the typical social trending dynamics surrounding a period of social correction and then compare them to a few of the changes we've witnessed in the past decade.

Social mood is influencing the transformation of social media tools

12 06 10 This post is evolving beyond itself by now. Changes are taking place across the spectrum of social technology.  Choice is influencing these changes and social mood is motinvating them for sure. Look for a newer post soon that creates a timeline I have been keeping. Many posts here that seem disconnected are all working to influence this group process of true Choice in social media tools...and that means gates and controls chosen by the user, not the platform. 

10 25 10 German Firms Blocking Facebook over Security Concerns

10 24 10 update  Facebook's new groups dymystified  ... under pressure from user to allow segmentation, Facebook adds tools that do just that...the ability to control for small units of association within your larger social universe

Page down to end of post for 8 or 9 other links previously added to this thread

 

The world wide web has transformed our lives since its quiet debut 21 years ago in 1989. It's about being able to share data with any connected point, and sharing is a social behavior and subject to social mood.

Witness Facebook and the revolution surrounding social media tools: The dramatic period of mass adoption in the past five years can be reasonably compared to the social adoption of the dot com era stocks in the late 1990's. Kids playfully embraced social platforms and sparked a mega trend that has resulted in the majority of Americans using some form of social media. Hours spent using social media have increased often at the expense of other forms of content. The mass adopters built what they perceived to be purposeful networks consolidating and increasing connections to the various parts of their lives. The notion of "the larger the network, the better" has been a driving shared value socially and the trend spread (without regard for geography of course).

Anyone using the socionomic model to broadly observe events and the causality supporting mass social trends had to notice that the Facebook phenomenon has been a consistent example of a behavior running counter to the expectations of social mood these past two years.  Up until now the premise used by various social software platforms has been based on inclusiveness. This idea has been socially supported despite declining social mood since late 2007.

During periods of social correction (negative social mood at larger degrees of trend), the opposite inclination will be seen to manifest: "Smaller units of association"**. Why hasn't that behavior taken hold yet?  Here are a few thoughts:

First, it is beginning to in small ways, initially. Social trending categories that include tools like like social media considerably lag the short & medium term trend of social mood. Second, I believe that various degrees of trend may be assigned to how specific social trend dynamics are commonly triggered. And while this is bound to to be imperfect as a broad rule, there is still value in the idea for specific case studies. (This is the value of using wave principle to see socionomics better.)

This particular trending issue is especially worthy of a group discussion focusing on how the social media trend has developed up until now and how social demand for these tools is just beginning to change in important ways.

I suspect that core shared values attached to (broad) social media behavior is connected to the longer cycle degree of trend (and parts, even super-cycle degree) and that this trend could manifest in a remarkable reversal in the next few years. This does not mean social media is going to become bad or is going away. No. It means our collective perception of the value of the various tools will be reassessed and that the moving average of mass perception (and behavior) will shift considerably. For instance: right now there is a team of NYU programmers using considerable & quickly donated money to build an open source version of Facebook putting the user squarely in control of their own personal brand in the digital environment. Take three minutes to watch them talk about it. Then extrapolate in the direction of a new behavioral vector (based on changing shared values). It would be easy to dismiss this as a side event of lesser importance. I think it is a trend change.  Whether I am more right or more wrong about the degree of trend issue, the behavior (with attached polarized shared values) can be seen shifting right now on multiple fronts (as seen in behavior and headlines) in the digital environment.

There are times when the socionomic model may seem less able of seeing into certain kinds of qualitative circumstances especially if the kind of data needed to identify impulse waves is immediately hard to find. There is no replacement for time spent observing the interplay of business trends and  surrounding social trending in order to gauge (changing) core shared values at work. At times there is much chaotic change that is impossible to predict but this particular period of time is bound to see some decisive directional social change and there is a lot of value in seeing this right now.  By identifying the core shared values at work in markets of people it becomes easier to consider how durable a trend may be at any particular time.  

Smaller, managed, units of (digital) association will manifest as features in the launch of many new social media platforms that allow for total user control. Open-source platforms may see explosive growth in the process but the larger social dynamic will clearly support the 'smaller & tested' is better dynamic in many social circumstances.  In the end, <I believe> that social tools are about being better and more efficient and that this will come to be seen as easier to control in smaller groups. 

In the big picture: Socionomics suggests that the cost of inclusion is going up <not money related>. In time, smaller, well defined groups will be prized, gated, and likely have more specific protocol. We are likely to see many tools developed to support these changing shared values.

** Socionomics, R. Prechter Jr.

 

LINK THREAD  ( I will consolidate this neatly after a few different behavioral vectors manifest)

The example in the article discussed below may not seem related at first but this is one direction I expect these issues to splinter towards as social momentum develops. This is part of a topic I discussed recently at the (industrial) (r)Evolution of Media blog. A more formal examination is warranted.

Apple Tests User Location Data, Consumers' Patience Media Post 6 22 10

The FT this AM has a discussion that covers why the smaller company is better than the big company. The discussion frames a large trend that has polar ends to it. This particular trend is very important to the big picture media trends I write about on the other blog. Start-ups Focus on the True Prize FT 6 24 09

Microsoft adds encryption features to allow cell phone users to share privately together and not share information through the network Technology Review MIT 6 22 10

Farmville-Maker Zynga Losses Gamers  SF Gate  6 01 10

Behavioral Targeting in Mobile era questioned re privacy in 6 27 10 Wash Post

Why Do We Trust Google?  InfoWorld 6 28 10 

(is this article above related? think: uncertainty & changing trust dynamics)

Open Source alternative to Facebook coming mid October

10 17 10 update  WSJ report: Facebook in Privacy Breech  discussed how app users on the site are exposed to prying eyes as well as friend lists too. Also, be sure to see the graphic inside the article that is a glossary of tracking terminology.

9 05 10update: Link Thread still being added to end of this post to chart incremental activity over time: 8 links as of today

 

 

 

Why Privacy controls will matter more soon to everyone (What our shared reactions to uncertainty tell us about social trending issues and changing business policy)

7 23 10 thread folder is growing fat...I do not post all links but is easy to search at his point...The NYT had a great discussion this AM that finally transcends Facebook and looks at the era when Privacy became a concern broadly...The Web Means the End of Forgetting NYT 7 10

5 17 10 trend is reported in all manner of mainstream media. This flash graphic link is proof of the trend and how this discussion was late, not early.  See this annual progression of privacy details on FB

5 13 10: Wired Magazine link re Open Alternatives to Facebook Grow  5 12 10 FT link added re European privacy concerns  (9 links total to-date added on this thread) The subject is almost a mainstream discussion now whereas it was only a few months ago when digital execs were still opining on how "it's different this time" in the digital environment. And while that is true in many regards, this trend is happening because how we value things is changing as it always does with social mood.

This post was first published in early March. Until further significant developments the thread will be suspended. Privacy is a closely held shared value among people in a free society that waxes and wanes with social mood. Social networking is here to stay but changes in dailyt practices is clearly ocurring now. The original post follows:

As social mood changes what we pay attention to changes.

The very same can be said, broadly, for people (Americans) in the digital environment right now. How so?

The broad issue of Privacy was growing large several years ago (2001-2003). Think Patriot Act, the NSA's warrantless spying, and the internet in general.  Then it began shrinking away from the headlines in 2004 as social mood redirected our collective attention for the golden age of the granite counter top. This could easily be a longer detailed discussion but my intention now is to simply lay out one aspect of the landscape of social trends we are witnessing now as they relate to privacy (as a shared social value).

Privacy is looked upon as an issue of relevance to all people and every business in the US (and the world too but I focus on the specific social mood as it relates the the US right now)

The birth of the new universe of social media tools is about sharing through user generated content. It tells us a lot about how we view content and its relevance in our lives. Social media has shown us clearly how 1) it is not a fad, 2) it is about specialization of focus, and 3) The era of Choice must be served by enterprises (as it relates to content dissemination). In order to see how our collective shared values related to privacy issues (on many levels) are expressed requires only a little bit more discernment.  

When we (large groups of people, on average) view the uncertain events of the future in a more optimistic manner, we are more inclined to share broadly with expectations that lead to more inclusiveness connecting us to ever wider groups of people.  When we, (in our social aggregations seen as a moving average) view the future with a more pessimistic sense, we share less freely, or more selectively. This is a patterned social behavior and from a this larger perspective we can always be seen to be in a period of social expansion or social correction that expresses one of these two states. The values expressed today by most social networking enterprises (related to privacy issues) are positioned as if we are in a period of social expansion. When looking at the longer term time frames we are clearly in a period of social correction and eventually changes (related to privacy concerns) will be demanded by customers, and corrected for by these companies.

CNET published a discussion about privacy yesterday where Mark Zuckerberg (Face Book founder)was quoted as saying privacy is a generational issue and therefore seen differently by Y's and Xer's compared to most Boomers. His position is that 'it is different this time' for today's younger digital networkers. I disagree with his basic assumption and by doing so I am generally predicting that the shared values in the US towards privacy will re-emerge and come to dominate issues faced by digital enterprises across the US in the years directly ahead. Attitudes towards Privacy are about trust in a sense and I have written about how to see trust related social trending issues in a previous post. It all boils down to social mood and where it is headed in general. For example: During the past two years we've witnessed dramatic changes to the financial landscape. An important part of these events occurred because risk aversion became an important new shared value in our society. You don't need to think too hard to see how important risk aversion has been as an underlying causative issue in our economy.

As our shared values evolve in the groups that we attach ourselves to we can reduce these changes to some form of optimism or pessimism toward the uncertainty of the future.This is the essence of social mood.

At some point in the not too distant future, this shared pessimism will manifest as a greater need for privacy, both personally and for enterprises too. These are not separate issues but, in fact, directly connected.

As this need for privacy reasserts itself, it will likely be incremental. Many businesses that began by willingly sharing our information about ourselves will retreat from this posture to a less all-inclusive format. Membership in many platforms was often free to everyone and that seemed to serve both the business and the customers as the platforms grew. At some point "we" will require incremental "costs"(requirements) for inclusion in our networks as groups of people begin to recognize the importance of prudence related to this changing shared value.

Instead of viewing this as a prediction, consider it a behavioral pattern to watch for as it expresses itself. I believe Mark Zuckerberg is making a mistake when he cites a generational factor in the willingness to share personal information more freely. Every generation is indeed different in some ways. However, the variable attached to shared values related to privacy matters are affected by the always changing social mood. Business enterprises will eventually respect this fact and are sure to change going forward. Right now, it may seem like it is not that way at all. Allow for change because it is coming. 

The underlying issue (inclusion vs. exclusion) discussed in this post is given more thorough discussion in a few areas in this book pgs 230-235. It's worth buying if this subject is relevant to your business.

(or you can start with this DVD)

I still see Face Book as a somewhat faddish enterprise (even if they have 350 million users)but the larger digital networking trend is a permanent part of our social infrastructure. This era of Choice, as it relates to media, is about putting the consumer of content in control. Your customers should not trip over your business model because it is convenient for you not to find innovative solutions.  On the other hand, the intellectual property concerns of many media companies may benefit from this same changing set of shared values. The important thing to remember is that these circumstances change over time and how issues related to values toward privacy oscillate between extremes. For now, it is fair to say we are nearer one extreme and likely to head smartly in the next direction for a few years+.  How can an enterprise use this? The most obvious answer is to use the new two-way nature of marketing communications to stay in tune with your key constituencies. And while this last suggestion is obvious to anyone doing it now, using social mood to anticipate trending issues is still ahead of its time. Go for it.

This post belongs on my media blog but for now it is worth taking this deeper look through the Root Trend. Dave

further reading on issues surrounding this collective set of values:

posted: 3 17 10  How Privacy Vanishes online  NYT

posted 3 24 10  European Privacy Battle Looms for Facebook and Google  AP

posted 3 29 10  Sharpen The Pitchforks. It’s Almost Time For Facebook’s Privacy Wake-Up Call Tech Crunch

Facebook Seeps onto other Web Sites  NYT 4 18 10

Facebook's Gone Rogue; It's time for an Open Alternative  Wired 5 07 10

posted 5 07 10 Face book Glitch Brings New Privacy Worries  NYT 5 07 10

Tell All Generation Learns to Keep Things Offline  NYT 5 08 10

Facebook faces Fresh Privacy Concerns FT 5 12 10  (European focus)

Here's the Privacy Line that Facebook Just Crossed  Business Insider 5 09 10

Open Facebook Alternatives Gain Momentum, $115k  Wired 5 13 10

Generational Thinking that Squashes Innovation and how it is justified by politics (for now)

*updated with new links at end of post*

This post is the closest I've ever felt to controversy with my old professional environment when writing the root trend. Onward anyway:

This AM's Wash Post has a discussion of how Internet radio is struggling to survive. The story is characterized underneath as a battle of political wills and lobbying strength in that arena. The issue is made by both sides to be one of fairness.  It is offered indirectly by the writer that upstart competitors face many challenges...as if this disparity in treatment is not surprising. Maybe not but, the issues at stake are tremendous and transcend anything about music, the nature of competition in media, and politics in general. That no discussions of the very long term view (the secular trend) is available is disappointing but, not surprising. This issue will, one day, be framed as a generational conflict of interest. That is when this will be resolved and only then. I recently wrote about this topic (link above) but this update will frame it more briefly...I call it the (industrial) (r)evolution of media.

What follows will briefly frame this discussion in a very different manner than you see it told in the news today(Saturday 8 16 08); one that allows for both a changing social mood (the primary social trend) and our inexorable demand for information (content of all kinds).  The generational divide must be breached in order for this conflict to be resolved. Killing off the competition will not make old media's struggles better....nor will it serve the evolving needs of the market for content.

The first me-too suit against Google-YouTube (mirrors Viacom's)

post note added 12 04 11:  I leave all my posts up for both me and anyone following. As a breadcrumb trail they mark developments over time that are harder to see at any one moment. Looking back the development of today's successful social media models was a fast moving series of events business-wise. It was only well after these events I discuss below that the "facing"issue became aparent. That is not a reference to any one company, rather the issue of identifying primary customers and acting accordingly. This took years for me to see clearly. I begin to clearly define it in the two posts of October and November 2011 titled About-Face and About Face Part II (a basic structural change). I hope you will read them as, together, they are much shorter than this one post.

 

Update: Copyright battles heat up on Web  Washington Post today 8 02 08

...""People are moving online and there are going to be more questions raised about how moving things online subjects people to copyright," he said. "The Internet works through copying things, that's just how digital technology works."
As a result, copyright law is coming into play much more than it once did. "Copyright law used to be this obscure thing that only publishers were interested in," Siy said. "It's something that now affects everyone. When you change copyright law now, it affects everybody who owns a PC." ...

These issues today seem different from Google Viacom but as the quote suggests, they are not really. How we share anew in the digital environment and create  new levels of productive social experience is what this is all about. In order to do this we'll need to re-write the social contracts forged by the previous two generations and start over digitally speaking. The Boomers and the Millenials will clash hard as this generational rift prepares us for what is next. This is not theory. This is a secular pattern of generational change playing out one more time. See the category of posts The (industrial) (r)evolution of media for lots more factors in this process. Dave  8 02 08

I was sure there would be more complaints like this and suspect many more will follow. In a Bloomberg blurb this AM the Italian company headed by Italy's former leader (no less), the technological blame game was intensified. Why does this matter to all media executives? It does. (short read follows)

Google/YouTube v. Viacom legal update? or not?

Is this development as important as I think? (I am not a good source of legal insight) You decide and let's watch together as it develops.  Today, a landmark ruling was announced in favor of EBay vs. Tiffany. The case had to do with counterfeit brands being sold on EBay. Was EBay responsible as Tiffany had claimed, to police Tiffany's brand for them?  The message seems to have come back that brands are responsible for their own protection.  Is it possible this could be stretched to include makers and sellers of content too?

What the You Tube suit by Viacom is really telling us -- one year later--about where the media business is going

post note added 12 04 11:  I leave all my posts up for both me and anyone following. As a breadcrumb trail they mark developments over time that are harder to see at any one moment. The development of today's successful social media models was a fast moving series of events business-wise. It was only well after these events I discuss below that the "facing"issue became aparent. That is not a reference to any one company, rather the issue of identifying primary customers and acting accordingly. This took years for me to see clearly. I begin to clearly define it in the two posts of October and November 2011 titled About-Face and About Face Part II (a basic structural change). I hope you will read them as, together, they are much shorter than this one post.

 

Back in June 2007 we were first made aware of the Viacom lawsuit of You Tube for not protecting Viacom's content from being posted on their free site. The bold assumption in Viacom's suit is that if they cannot protect their content products themselves, then Google-You Tube must be responsible for protecting their content.  What are the You Tube suits really telling us was apparent a year ago and is triply so today, as the trend advances socially and also in business channels. The harshly clanging noises in the background are indicative of the developing social mood.  This social dynamic <social mood> is leading the process.
This suit and others to come are lagging indications of larger trends well under way. Understanding how technology and social mood mix is the key to seeing the bigger picture. These are dramatic days for everyone in the media universe, even if this topic is simply thought of as something 'legal' that needs to be "worked out".  In the really big picture, this issue will not be worked out for a long time and these circumstances will persist. No amount of regulation, or social finger wagging will put the Choice genie back in the bottle. In the human struggle for knowledge, business' right to turn a profit will come second to the natural human need to share knowledge. This truth puts business squarely in its place...as a purposeful tool of human endeavor and not having the quality of human life itself. <Many of us in the older  generations feel big business is somehow more important by how it is afforded such clout in the legal realm, but the reality is that businesses either serve us what we want, or they die off>

The human impulse to share information of all kinds includes sharing content as we explore the new human invention of the digital environment. People are attracted to expansive spaces and that media's front lawn is being trampled in the broad social rush is only a symptom of the importance of this trend. The only things that can fix this business development is more ground breaking technology or new approaches that create incremental value for the consumer of content (ie. new business models). Absent the development of being able to broadly protect content using technology, this issue will define the next decade (or two). In the meantime, players in business will either be very flexible in their business models or they will be naturally selected for extinction. This can be made obvious when you see the true social trending priorities in these developments. 

This post is intended as a limited update on a longer discussion about trends in media in the US. It is based on a new wrinkle published today in papers worldwide about a judge's decision to expose You Tube's customer privacy in order to demonstrate Google is somehow negligent for Viacom's own shortcoming. And while it sounds like I am taking a definitive position, it was only a few years ago this position would not have been necessary because technology to share was harder to come by.....and history shows how technology changes the world. Fighting this truth is like spitting into the wind. In the same way we might stop to consider our very freedoms on a day like today (7/4), we should consider the responsibility that comes along with that freedom. Is protecting the ideas and work of others essential to freedom? What if those ideas are now easily reproduced? Is it worth less? Is the responsibility to protect their ideas now less than before?  What's a story in the newspaper worth? What's a song worth? What's a current movie worth? Is it worth less on a cell phone screen than in a theater? How about a book?  What if it took a long time to produce? What if it took five weeks but was based on years of experience?  This sounds very difficult to do but the market will always give you an answer. The market is always responsive to such matters if we listen. It also can be shown that the market for shared human values changes with social mood. Join me for the rest of this short discussion.  It matters, no matter what kind of business you are in: Dave

 

 

Social media is about Choice, small groups, and eventually, specialization -- Why Does this matter to marketers?

Every big business out there that is betting on social media platforms like Facebook, Linked-In, My Space, Hip Cricket (or one of the many others), is leaning on hopes that aggregated user numbers can eventually be monetized along the same lines as old media outlets sold their programming/sponsorships for decades.  Most are trying to appear more sophisticated in presenting the value but, aggregation is what is valued by large businesses today. I’ve written a lot about evolving media trends in the US (and it has its own category on right side of this blog). Trends in social media may seem different than other media issues I’ve pointed to but the main trend toward the consumer controlling Choice is reflected clearly by social media developments.  Social media also allows us to see a little further in where it is going using the developing social mood. This post will briefly cover this perspective:

What it tells us is that unless some kind of significant proprietary technology is about to emerge, and be deemed socially indispensable <so as to aggregate us>, the path forward is not as is currently imagined by many large competitors betting big sums. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

What is social media telling us and where are we taking it? Part 3 (of 3) The era of Choice is about specialization

In part 3 of this discussion, I make 4 trend points at the end for marketers to think about and will add to these more later.  I also cover the implications of how the macro trend in consumer Choice is fueling the age of specialization and will augment and be augmented by all evolving manner of social media. I cover a very macro perspective at first in this post, like I did in the last, using what is offered by the root trend. Since these views are unknown to most people, I offer examples detailing both the macro and micro views available to show why using the lens of social mood as a tool to see the markets we serve is highly valuable for any business enterprise. The root trend is  both a tool and a method to get  focused on what truly matters to each enterprise, right now. Having spent many years in media, the current landscape is fascinating to me.  The monikers old and new media will quickly lose relevance as the larger trending themes advance but the quarterly demands of public companies are what appear (in the very short term) to be leading us to major change quickly. The challenges faced at  this point by old media enterprises will prove to be very instructive as the unstoppable force of Choice and the Age of Specialization builds momentum. The link between Choice and Specialization (as major themes) is critical in both medium and long term strategy building.

Questions and feedback are appreciated as this is a big discussion being fit into a blog format.    Dave

What is social media telling us and where are we taking it? The Generational perspective (part 2 of 3)

In this section I focus upon generational dynamics that suggest the real strength in the unfolding trend of social media is yet to come and will, in large measure, be the result of a group process (social trending) that requires generational turnover in order to unleash the momentum of creative power needed to change small group dynamics, and that is the ultimate promise behind what we see as social media right now.  So what? 

What is social media telling us and where are we taking it? Part 1 (of 3)

This post will be split into three parts. It will be easier to digest and sum up this way in a blog format. The parts that matter to different readers will vary but there is some very basic insight here that can be used in different ways:

These ideas are an example of how seeing the root trend can create value in a forward thinking organization. And while I tend to address marketers in this forum, this deeper look at social media may shed light on some desirable evolving core competencies associated with enterprise strategy that have little to do with marketing in an immediate sense.

The (industrial) (r)evolution of media picks up speed

Is Adweek on the web worth $20 a month? How is value set in a content rich world? That is the scary truth facing many for profit media organizations and the question cuts so deep that it threatens almost everyone in a very broadly defined vertical. This is happening while prices for ordinary things are going through the roof. 

 

Now, imagine a time long ago when generations of blacksmiths began to find their skills were no longer commanding a respectable living in a busy and faster moving world that required their craftsmanship less and less. Incredulity, scorn, ridicule, fist fights, you name it, happened for decades all over America as technology impacted culture on multiple levels and changed us forever. The same thing has been happening for the past decade. It's just getting started.

 

The industrial revolution in the US displaced families anchored for generations on hard work in every small town in a growing America and it happened in a cloud of mistrust and anger as America culturally "moved into town and took a job". This was, in fact, the positive outcome of a giant 'social correction'. Social corrections reorganize social capital in order to move ahead further. And while this really big picture observation chunks up decades into blurbs, it also helps explains right now.

The industrial (r)evolution of media is about content(information).  Supply and demand of high quality content in a world that is consuming more content than ever but, is suddenly and temporarily saturated with it because the damns have been removed from the river...or control over access to the market for content and ideas was lost to technology. 

The business model of "Choice" (on-demand) in media means something to every marketer

The implications of Netflix's updated business model (article below) exposes a trend that promises dramatic consumer benefits and huge challenges for any brand of media or brand marketer. The implications are as important for those who create content of any kind as they are to those businesses that distribute content. And while we have become numb to sweeping declarations about the Internet, what it means to all marketers is profound.

.

On the production side of creative content it means consumers now have multiple new distribution channels that are changing the way they shop for and value what content they will buy either with money or their time. In the long run this will influence how much money should be invested in creative projects. It also places enormous new demands on the marketing of creative content (movies, programming of any kind, editorial, news, information put out by marketers, etc)

.

On the distribution side of the equation, the old FCC inspired business model that evolved will see large incremental change because as "choice" becomes increasingly ubiquitous it will require those who monetize content to do it from the basis of multiple modalities and not any one distribution channel as consumers willingly adjust to the changes "choice" brings to their media experiences.

The implications of this take you right to the business model for all existing media. In the short term it will continue to appear as margin squeezes but the long term effects will require a different kind of enterprise to effectively specialize in multi-modality distribution platforms. Failure to do this will create obvious inefficiencies and new competition as the free market dynamics dominate.

.

I'll leave it to you to think of a few of the branding challenges in the media sphere but it also translates to branding opportunity for marketers of all stripes. For those offering creative services in any manner in the digital realm already, it is truly a new dawn for opportunity. Many on Madison Avenue already see it.  More will soon. The implications also demand that all marketers, everywhere, see what this will mean to executing their strategies, especially in a weak economy, as "choice" adjusted consumers carefully examine expenses of time and money.  What this really suggests is that marketers are not competing using multi-modal strategies will fall behind even more quickly in a slowing economy.

.

The Washington Post story (as you "keep reading") seems like a straightforward business story but take a moment to see the larger media trend and the implications for communicating with your market segments as engrained behaviors/expectations of media experiences evovle. It really is the "industrial revolution of media". The new economic demands for specialization now means much more than monetizing the Internet for old media outlets. It also means that the era of tag lines and positioning statement (sound bites) focused marketing must evolve as the consumer takes back control of their own experience. This means that offering "choice" of well placed positioning statements in addition to  making detailed content available (from marketers) is much more than a good idea. It is what your customers will increasingly choose.

The media universe continues its evolution

BBC inflicts MORE repeats on viewers as 1,800 jobs go and programme-making is slashed by 10 percent

The BBC confirmed today the trend we have witnessed in the US for several years. The business model pairing of content production and content distribution (ad sales/program sales) is breaking down in media companies everywhere. In the short term it appears to be a cost related issue. In the much longer term it is resulting from social forces demanding a significant shift in the dispersal of information labeled as 'content'.

.

(post  update 10 23 07)

the link from today's FT discusses BBC's need to acknowledge the kind of broad market change coming its way (suggested in this post), and supports the larger theme of the RT by demonstrating how owning the long view first can provide those with a shorter horizon for seeing more clearly the nature of "what's next". The BBC's mission is socialistic in a sense as it strives to serve the needs of all viewers by "doing it all". The free market is demonstrating with remarkable speed that 'doing it all' is antiquated in the current media environment and the only thing holding this old view of media together are the fraying threads of govt. support/regulation. Both are quickly losing efficacy in the digital age.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a433122-80c6-11dc-9f14-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Internet commerce making loud footsteps for FCC licensed properties

"Apple sells one millionth iPhone, 74 days after launch"  MarketWatch blurb 9 09 07...

Apple dropped the price $200 more than a week ago for the new iPhones. Everyone is clamoring if the launch is struggling or if this shift of strategy means just that, a meaningful shift...or some kind of strategic reactionary move. The white noise is quieted when you begin to realize the one million iPhones sold that quickly suggests average people want more connectivity and I believe it is because they perceive it will allow for more choice when they want it and that is THE theme of this trending thread for all media. If you are a media professional print out the word "choice" in the largest font possible and tape to to the wall in front of you. That is the secular mantra we will see related a thousand ways, and thousands of times in the years ahead. The implications of this shift go well beyond marketers inside of media companies. In an environment where consumers know that choice is a reasonable assumption/demand, they will settle for little else and that will change many subtleties of how we all market our enterprises.

Yesterday I noticed iPhones are also being launched in London soon. If anyone doubts that mobile connectivity is destined to be freely available everywhere in urban areas soon for the average person, you are missing the short term trend. The medium term trend suggests iPhone and similar gadgets will prepare consumers to be connected at all times to the Internet effectively making us open to ever changing behavior patterns and depending upon your business, the implications expand from this basic observation. The secular trend, as it matters to marketers tells us that the very structure of our enterprises producing (creative) content and distributing it will have to change to meet the evolving nature of ourselves collectively. And while most marketers may be satisfied reacting in the short term cross currents of the short term trends, seeing the big picture will make sure you deploy resources in a manner fitting of all the inevitable changes, some coming sooner than others. 

With iPods now using Wifi will old media ever be the same? And why it matters to marketers of all kinds

This post was updated in a few paragraphs at the end....9 09 07

If your iPod or iPhone can now access Wifi and download files to be replayed anywhere, how long before commercial radio loses all of its listeners who are not there for local content? How many are listening because of a local feel?  If Pandora.com must pay royalties for songs played, and can be received like radio anywhere with a WiFi signal, what exactly does commercial radio do for us to get this exemption?  I am not rooting against radio, nor am I being pessimistic in any way but, I am suggesting urgently that old media is facing a firestorm of long term social forces that cannot simply be managed; they must be faced squarely. To see them only as business environment challenges is short sighted and the theme behind this blog suggests an important social force, social mood, drives the business economy.

To see the big issues influencing your business you must first acknowledge the secular trending, because the long term social forces dictate the short term tensions that develop in all markets. If first, you understand the powerful social forces now shaping the increasingly complex competitive picture in broadcasting, then you can better decide how to deploy your resources in the shorter timeframes.

The secular social trend most affecting broadcasting as we know up to today, is related to (very, very simply) "choice". Perhaps it is best to view this in the context of what I call the 'industrial revolution of media'. The trend goes well beyond media to content of all kinds but my media roots like to emphasize the primary changes that will be emphasized commerically in the decade or more ahead.

Picture how the social forces that produced dramatic change right during and after the civil war delivered us the start of being a consumer based society by delivering us choices of better produced manufactured items to improve quality of life. Basic supply and demand economics dictated improving choice would quickly replace a craftsman oriented economy where production was the bottleneck to sustained economic growth before that development. This simple change when it spread wide, produced a profound social change in our nation as well giving quick rise to the need for larger cities to produce and centralize efforts. The social trending around these two related events shaped our nation's history for 140 years now and has prepared us to consolidate these gains now before we move on to what comes next.

I believe that what is being unleashed upon broadcasting right now is really the same manner of social forces and will result in similarly dramatic changes.  Yes, I believe so but rather than tell the future let's stick to describing the basic impulses shaping the trending process so business enterprises can figure from there how to adapt. That is my preferred approach to the analysis.   

Content Re-Runs are set for a new name and status

Below is a link for a Bloomberg ten minute streaming video interview.....the key comments come in the last 1:45 of the interview relevant to content copyright protection as a company and industry.

I do not look for ways to disagree with someone as successful over the long term as Summner Redstone. His track record suggests he is right. I also believe that secular shifts in the social fabric, as the internet has wrought, are capable of transforming the content business by completely changing how people get content. So the challenge from this perspective is less about content protection and more likely a pricing question within the new channels of distribution that have developed.

An offer they shouldn't refuse (record labels vs. Apple)

The repricing of content is one of the primary cues that the market is back in control in an industry where market restrictions were (finally) overcome by technology after many decades. From this perspective I would expect this to continue and intensify over time. This is not a Steve Jobs issue as the businesses involved would have you believe. This is a marketing issue that is occurring after the 50 year flood in the record business...(or at least during it).

What are the YouTube suits really telling us?

A site called Flickr.com is where people go to store and organize and share their pictures. Wherever possible a business model is being constructed to help every person organize their personal information and get needed information more easily. Information is only another broad and non-descriptive name for content or programming.

When Viacom sued You Tube recently for $1billion dollars for allowing their content to be used in that venue, it began a fight that we tend to see as one business protecting its turf against another. These seem like very common issues of who owns what and who can use what and more and more they are about use of content on the internet but they demonstrate aspects of consumer behavior that are not to be too simply quantified. While it sounds very sensible that if Viacom's Comedy Central invested to create the programming then they should be able to control it, consider the longer term trending perspective of these circumstances.

The smaller details of my prognostication in what follows may be missing something but, it follows closely the general position regarding the evolution of media stated here several times already. Ignore the big picture social forces at your own risk.

  link for previous posts on this topic: http://roottrend.typepad.com/the_root_trend/trends_in_information_and_technology/index.html

More on Media's Business Model Amidst New Competition

It seems clear that the basic business model of old media is being rethought.

This post is being prompted by a WSJ article excerpted below that highlights the immediate efforts amidst the explosion of innovation. It is also being updated now to include some additional links to this point(please bear with me as the links will be here shortly).  As marketers we swim in the (business)rip tides close to shore and often, it is easy to ignore the larger trends developing as immediate concerns demand full attention. I believe that understanding social mood can better guide everyday decisions especially when short term implications lead us away from the larger trending process. Social mood is very much a part of this process at all degrees of trend which are observable.

The conundrum facing old media is like one of those math problems where trains leave two cities at the same time, "when and where will they pass each other if going at different speeds?" In this case new media and old media are the two trains.

If you step back from the media business and see it for what it really is, a content delivery vehicle, then you see how the answer to present head scratching will likely work out eventually. This broad picture is enough for now especially if your current strategies lean too heavily upon the old media business model which is evolving quickly.

Content, creative, programming, news, information updates, streaming video, audio/music, funny, serious, whatever.......we all, everyone of us, wants and needs to use media as tools in our lives. It does not matter what it is so long as we can get it when we ned it. This is why YouTube takes their business of silly snippets so seriously. It is obviously part of the"choice" landscape developing. Under the current business model we take it when it is offered or we try to get it ahead of time and save it. That will change quickly and in some ways that are less obvious.

Incremental steps or giant steps?

A scan of the business pages these past weeks reveals merger mania continuing, especially in media-land. A daily survey of the business headlines reveals that much.

What is capturing my thoughts is the likelihood we are viewing some of the next steps towards a new phase of media consolidation, wrapped in another name...the "Search War". I have yet to fully read the strategy being offered, but my interpretation by the sound bite news this week suggests we consider these incremental changes being sought on the way to the next phase of consolidation...and they may ignite sudden change.

Since this is a secular, or very long term trending process, it makes sense that the best pieces get rearranged while others remain unaware of the larger process...or perhaps the evolving business models need to be tested by the biggest player who can afford to take the economic risk. I care less about the "why" of short term iterations of change and more about how choice comes into the consumer experience altering our expectations and behavior throughout this next phase.