LATEST ENTRY

MEDIA | Steven Kalifowitz

A Vision for the Future of Media Distribution

In this altered universe I've imagined, consumers will have ultimate reign, and artists will have way more freedom - no wonder corporations hate the future.

June 13, 2007 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 9 COMMENTS

The other day I noticed a sign in Blockbuster's window, announcing an exclusive agreement with The Weinstein Co. I work in the media business and honestly don't know anyone who's compelled to watch a film because The Weinstein Co., or Universal, or any other studio made it. But that's not the main point of this story.

The implications of Blockbuster paying for exclusivity made me think about where the media industry is, and where it “would� go if I were king of the media universe. The first thought was that when Blockbuster gets content creators to sign exclusive agreements, they show a lack of appreciation for who their primary competition is, and worse yet what their customers' expectations are. Customers don't pay Blockbuster for their ability to curate films, they pay HBO for that. Now that Blockbuster is a completely subscription based business, competing on offering may help to fight with Netflix in a winner-takes-all game, but in the big picture, they're only helping their primary competition: free file sharing services on the web.

File sharing services don't care about exclusive agreements, and neither do customers; until it keeps them from accessing media via their chosen distributor. Everything is available on-demand on the web, no matter where you are in the world. So as a customer considering an incomplete offering from both Blockbuster AND Netflix, what would compel me to pay either, or both of them if I can get it all for free, more quickly, online? While I could recommend ways for Blockbuster and Netflix to fix their businesses, they're going to die anyway... so here's what I see coming down the pike once those two (among many others) are out of the way.

I see a future where portals will offer access to every piece of media ever created (and by media I mean everything: from TV shows & films, to video games, music, books, magazines, poems, paintings, etc...). Furthermore, no portal will have exclusive offerings (similar to Internet portals), and there will be minimal barrier to entry (contrasted with the NFL Network's problems). The business model has two fronts, one facing the consumer, and one facing the content creator.

The consumer facing model is based on the fact that every person has “x� number of minutes per day/week/month to spend consuming various forms of media. There is a dollar figure actuaries can determine those minutes are worth both to the portal and to the customer. Quickly a rate plan very similar to tiered cellphone plans will emerge. All the media you can consume in “x� number of minutes per month, for “x� dollars per month.

The content creator facing model will include paying each content creator a fixed amount per unit of time each unique customer spent consuming the media that content creator made available. The kid who took a picture of himself every day for several years & made a film with those pictures deserves the same amount of money per unit of time spent watching his film as did the creators of Spiderman. Why? Because you can't watch both at the same time, and you have a finite amount of time per month to consume anything.

This type of model will take the curating role out of distributors' hands, and leave it in the hands of the artists and their investors. The portals (formerly distributors) will no longer compete on content offering, but on services related to the searching for and interacting with the content. One example is re-inventing the idea of product placement. It won't be about “hoping� your audience noticed everyone in a show only drank Coke. It will be about making a pair of jeans, or a car that's seen on-screen an interactive object that a viewer can click & buy.

Note: I don't assume that the portals will only be accessible on your computer – the computer and the TV will, at this point be minimally different screens to access the same media. But hardware is the final element in this plan: creating tools for consumers to interact with media. Apple is WAY ahead of the curve on this front. With the advent of iTunes, they're not only acting as a portal, but with iPods, and AppleTV they're also offering the hardware and a “whole-product�. Software is relatively easy to develop & roll-out to market, hardware is much more difficult, and anyone who wants into this game had better start partnering with hardware manufacturers, if not buy one or two.

In this altered universe I've imagined, consumers will have ultimate reign, and artists will have way more freedom. The portals will at once offer two-way access from content creators to the smallest niche audiences, and the largest mass-markets. There will no longer be a studio boss, or book publisher who instructs an artist to change their art in order to distribute it. If an artist can afford to make something on their own, they can, and won't need a distributor to reach their desired market. Artists will be free to display their work, and get paid fairly for it. The most successful artists will be picked by mass appeal, rather than by “payola� systems which enable the distribution companies to shove whatever they want down our throats.

Let me know what you guys think!

-
Steve

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1Philip Hodgetts

YES! And again YES! The closest anyone has come to "getting it right" (ie reaching the same conclusions I've reached). :) We have some interesting developments coming (not under the branding above) that facilitates a good portion of what you're talking about in an open television way. (Did anyone say Open Television Network?)

Great analysis and I couldn't agree more.

Philip

June 13, 2007

2Shayna Kulik

Good case study! You leave the window open for heaps of exploration within every media outlet...

Speaking of which- have you seen the barcode billboards that you can snap w your camera phone, upload, click- then it takes you to a (mystery) brand's website that then shows a coupon that you can then print?

Very interactive with an element of mystery! Audience participation is back and here to stay...legwork that challenges a consumer will continue to prove beneficial so long as the formula's correct, just ask David Chase about that :)

June 13, 2007

3Charles Edward Frith

Thats a stimulating post. Lots to think of. I like!

June 13, 2007

4Lon

Good points all around. One exception here-- you mention that "The kid who took a picture of himself everyday ... deserves the same amount of money per unit ... as ... Spiderman ... Because you can't watch both at the same time..." Incorrect.

Spiderman deserves more: given a finite amount of time, people have to make choices about what to see, therefore the media that's more likely to draw more viewers deserves more money.

Currently, viewing venue (movie theater or youtube) keeps such media separate from competition; most people won't stay home to watch youtube clips rather than go the the theater. However within a single forum (e.g., the media super portal you've mentioned), they are more likely to go head to head.

June 13, 2007

5Piers Fawkes

I don't think this post is written well at all. A lot of words with very little story and no real point.

I went to the Effies last week and some guy from AdAge stood up on stage and said, There has been a big change, the consumers are in control. And I thought, he;s wrong, he's just using soundbites he's picked up off the web to make some inpact in front of 800 execs. There is a huge rise in consumer power but do consumers really even want to be in control??

The utopia you describe Steve won't happen because (a) it leads to a level of average quality of content, (b) it ignores a role for curators and (c) the only artists who will get paid well in your system are not the good ones, but the ones who paint the most naked women.

June 13, 2007

6Steven Kalifowitz

Hey everyone, thanks for your feedback! Piers- I particularly appreciate you bringing to light the three issues you raised. I've thought about those thoroughly, but didn't include them as I wanted to focus on the bigger picture (and not write a 30-page dissertation). I'll try to address your specific issues here.

Your overall point about whether or not consumers want to be in control is a good one. I agree, they may not “want� control – but my vision doesn’t change the way in which consumers exert the control they currently have – it only increases that power. If ABC puts a TV show on that viewers don’t watch, it goes off the air. The same thing would happen in my model. Only the revenue per episode would be a direct reflection of its appeal. My model would help to avoid shows like Family Guy getting pulled after season one, only to come right back because the distributor didn’t read the market well. I’m not proposing that everything is user-generated content. HBO, Warner Bros., Harper-Collins, CNN, et al will still create content and promote the hell out of it. The difference is that the infrastructure to have a big TV company green light & fund a project won’t be as necessary.

For your specific points:

a) In today's world the mass-media available is below average. The good stuff isn't being made because investors don't want to risk loosing money. The distribution model is still too expensive - and unnecessarily so.

b) My model absolutely doesn’t ignore the role of curators. In fact, it allows far more room for curators to exist. One of the services offered by the “portals� will be curation services. Services like Pandora.com and others like it will flourish. My whole point is that distributors shouldn’t perform the role of curators. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

c) Here you’re missing the point of “scale�. In today’s world, porn is already a huge industry – so I’m not sure how that would change much. But with a world-wide market with equal two-way access, it won’t take much for an artist to make a good living. And with the viral spread of content we’ve already seen, clever artists can make LOTS of money. I was at a conference recently where I learned of a website that charges old women to play Bridge on their site. With 22,000 members world-wide, they’re very profitable. My model would work the same way.

June 13, 2007

7Steven Kalifowitz

Lon,

Good point. That’s a tough issue that seems to have at least two answers so far.

The first answer is that Spiderman will inevitably make more money than the kid because it’s longer, so it’s eating up the finite amount of time each person has. Furthermore, if you’re right and it will draw more people, then only after it draws more people will it see more money.

The second answer is that the tiered rate plans can include “extras�. For example a definition for “premium content� can be created – for especially long-form products which still eat up your “minutes per month� but have an added charge for their premium offering, which customers may or may not want to pay, but will have the option.

June 13, 2007

8Mark Lewis

I think you can come at this a different way. We are all waiting for the ultimate movie disttribution mechanism that allows to consume that medium a) when we want it and b) in the chunks that we want it in. To that end, it's worth considering why iTunes is successful and can survive despite the continued existence of kazaa, Limewire etc. (given that I don't think that the RIAA activity is having much effect).

iTunes took the work out of searching for songs, made it bug free and made the media portable (albeit on a proprietary (and very nice) technology. Like Amazon, we have infinite choice, consumer feedback, guides and we are not forced into a consumption mode.

The video world does not have this as of yet: iTunes library is limited and not as open source as need be, whereas, Netflix and co. don;t give me the portability or consumption flexibility.

So in short, we have not hit on the ideal system yet. When we do, there will be a role for curators, long tail films (to not dilute quality) and you will reach some sort of temporary equilibrium.

June 13, 2007

9George Burke

As founder of an online book rental service BookSwim.com, I firmly believe that the distribution model of media is changing. Instead of paying per book, our unlimited-books-per-month subscription levels the playing field when it comes to choosing a book. The price of a book is nulled and effectively allows a member to choose ANY book, not just tchoose "safe" books -- the popular ones. Now a member can take a gamble on an obscure book. If it stinks, just return it. If it's great, now you've just found your new favorite author and the word is likely to spread throughout the website based on positive reviews. This gives indie authors a chance at glory because the purchase price of the book has been removed from the equation.

June 14, 2007