From the new magazine by Forrester Research's, News Corp President Peter Chernin lists ten rules for media survival - pithy and interesting. Open for debate. My personal opinion is that digital communication and consumer choice are fundamentally changing traditional media. Not necessarily for the better, though.
1. Consumers are not driven by technology
- This seems odd - the tech-savvy consumer should be the norm by now.
2. The wired home changes nothing
- I would beg to differ. Digital media convergence in my home has changed my media consumption to a blend of web, film and television.
3. Media companies and advertisers must redefine their relationship
- Indeed. Transparency in advertising. Eyeballs moving to new media sources
4. Consumers reject complacency, not advertising
5. Content is still king, but financing the kingdom is complicated
6. If content is king, then marketing is the crown prince
- Then there was the royal scam
7. Get noticed
8. It's a small world after all
9. Nothing compares to live
10. All other rules are meaningless if our content is not protected from digital thievery
- Strong choice of words there.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
thanks Aaman, I think overall the changes are for the better, and while he makes some good (and obvious) points, #10 shows he is an idiotic dinosaur and should probably be shot and put out of our misery: "our content"? Who is "our" - the content creators or the consumers, or both? One of the great things about blogs is that comments cause the "content" to be a collaboration between writer and readers, plus like broadcast TV or radio, the content is "free" to consumers in that it issupported by advertising, affiliate programs, etc, which encourages the collaboration
2 - Aaman
I see a general bias against new media and the value of technology to deliver business value - a bad sign when you lead a large company.
3 - Eric Olsen
a catastrophic sign, I would say
4 - Horace
You guys realize that Chernin is thought of as the most brilliant executive in the entertainment industry? Most of points are spot-on.
The consumer is not driven by technology, but by convenience. You do not go out and buy an iPod for the sake of buying an iPod. You buy it so that you can have control over your music and the ability to bring it with you where ever you go. While most consumers nowadays are tech-savy, they are not driven by it. They are driven by convenience and necessity.
As for rule 10, he's right. As much as people love kazaa and whatnot, it's illegal and the producers of entertainment and other content deserve protection.
5 - Aaman
You, yourself, are fair and balanced, I assume.
All your points are valid, but are not connected with his premise - which is that technology does not change the rules of the game - it does, fundamentally.
Point 10 - the producers deserve protection - but again, people are resorting to an alternate channel because existing channels were hitherto not meeting their needs. Look at it as the industry having to improve distribution effectiveness - you don't do that by driving your customers into the arms of the pirates.
6 - Temple Stark
Eric's reaction is over the top in dismissing this guy. I would have thought being a creator, Eric, you would seek to understand more about personal property and copyright rights.
What's wrong with "our content?" It does belong to them if they created it. Just like authors here should not have expectations that their work is lifted for a book or for another Web site without their permission.
Should every artist be destitute and poor?
More people are consumers than creators and so their interests lie with themselves. But that doesn't reduce the rights of the creators. Nor should it.
And is this a typo - 5. Contact is still king, but financing the kingdom is complicated
7 - Aaman
Temple, I, for one, use the Creative Commons license - if you use my writing, and you are free to do so, all I ask is credit. Of course, I'm not a starving writer whose work is being ripped off by some Broadway producer. I might think differently then.
Yep, typo - will fix
8 - Eric Olsen
re ownership, actually no: once a work is released it belongs to the culture, it's a part of the fabric which belongs to all of us. Now proceeds from the work may belong to the creator for X amount of time until copyright runs out (which is another problem - copyright now lasts WAY too long, completely out of historical balance), but the work belongs to the culture.
9 - Temple Stark
We went through that before. sir. I agreed if an artist WANTS TO give it away for free that is entirely their choice and a good choice for me as a listener/ reader.