Additional Content, Blog Edition
In putting Scarcity, Experience, and a New Seat at an Old Table together, I invariably had to leave out some passages that I really liked, but just couldn’t fit in for one reason or another. Some were the wrong tone, some expanded the list of topics too broadly (and tacked on a couple more pages) and some were…well some were just rants (barely) disguised as intellectual discussion.
The below is an example of the latter. While I completely stand by the sentiments, it just didn’t match the tone of the rest of the essay (read: angry.) Originally it stood as the introduction to section 2 “Getting From The Present To The Future” but I felt the overwhelming negativity got in the way of discussing actual solutions and progress.
I still enjoyed writing it though.
The reason I’ve been discussing the more mainstream content plays to the exclusion of online content is to demonstrate the current playing field. Knowing where the pieces are on the board and how they matter to each other is the only way to plan ahead or have any participation. In that vein, before I jump into what I think the future will hold I’d like to discuss what I know aren’t the answers:
Branded Entertainment – as much as people like to cite cutting out the middlemen between content and advertisers, the fact is that brands aren’t equipped for, or interested in, creating entertainment; they’re interested in brand messaging and selling more product. There have been some experiments, and even some moderately successful projects, but none that really could claim to compete with traditional content.
Hulu – Hulu is a business with a three year lifespan. Right now, they’re a viable alternative, but the moment Comedy Central wants more money for The Daily Show and South Park, Hulu simply has to acquiesce. Their Achilles Heel is their brand: Hulu requires mainstream TV and film content because their entire brand is mainstream (they call it “professional”) content and without that content, they’re literally nothing. To a very real degree, Hulu’s true customers are the content companies and the advertisers, not the viewers. If I were a more cynical man I would say that Hulu was created as a stall tactic to buy time in an era of collapsing business models.
Litigation or legislation – The world does not bend to your business model whims (Yes Michael Lynton, I’m talking to you) and your arguments about putting “guardrails” on the single most transformative technology in the history of human communication – for the sole purpose of saving you the hassle of adapting your business model to the modern world – are naïve at best. If you’re inane enough to title a publicly posted opinion article “Preserving Creativity Online” you deserve all the scorn received for your faux pas. There is plenty of creativity online, your argument is simply that none of it is as good, important, or worthy as your own company’s creative.
Instead of revisiting your comments further, I’ll simply be clear to the point of harshness here: the reality of the situation is that this technology exists. The intellectual argument about what should or should not be is irrelevant. You either take it into account, or you don’t. If you don’t, your company dies. Your job is not to pass moral or legal judgment on those consumers who roam outside of your established business model; your job is to take content to market that reflects the current market conditions, and this is one of them.
Adapt.
Or.
Die.
