This can be even seen filtering into mainstream education see A Bet On Free Education and A Bet On Free Education 2: University Bubble, Democratizing Education Via Creative Destruction.
In fact one can argue that the internet has "democratized" information that has allowed people to close the gap of so-called "informational advantages" long held by so-called experts, when the cost of information had been exorbitant or prior to this eon.
Yet democratization of information comes at the cost particularly to those who wish to do online business-particularly on the subscription facet. And that includes me.
That's fundamentally because information providers have been in a steep "invisible" competition.
Research recap quotes a Forrester study that says despite the thrust to increase the online subscription business by information providers, this has been elusive due to the resistance by the market.
From Researchrecap,(bold emphasis mine)
``A recent American Press Institute survey found that 58% of newspaper respondents are considering initiating paid access for currently open/free news and information online, and nearly 25 % expect to implement a paid strategy in the next six months. “This is a big change, considering that 90 % of the responding newspapers currently do not charge for content, and only 3% currently have a paid-only site.”
``But in Publishers Need Multichannel Subscription Models Forrester finds that “most consumers (80%) say they wouldn’t bother to access newspaper and magazine content online if it were no longer free (no surprise), and the rest are split about how they’d like to pay for content:
``What’s more, “those consumers can’t be identified by demographic segmentation alone; publishers must use engagement metrics to target the right consumers with the right offer. And what that offer is will vary: While some consumers say they’d prefer a multichannel subscription bundle, others say they’d consider a single-channel subscription or micropayments. While some consumers voice a preference for Web delivery, others prefer access via mobile devices like phones, eReaders, and netbooks.”
``The situation in Europe is similar, in Who Will Pay For Online Content? Forrester finds that 4% of European Internet users surveyed pay for online news content, and 12% said they would pay for it in the future. The picture is somewhat brighter for music and movies, followed by eBooks and games:
The reluctance to pay for information doesn't mean most have been for free. What has been willingly paid for by subscribers have been specialized content. The Boston Consulting group says that localized information gets more of this business.From the BCG, (bold highlights mine)
``New research released today shows that consumers are willing to spend small monthly sums to receive news on their personal computers and mobile devices. In a survey of 5,000 individuals conducted in nine countries, BCG found that the average monthly amount that consumers would be prepared to pay ranges from $3 in the United States and Australia to $7 in Italy.
``John Rose, a BCG senior partner based in New York who leads the firm’s global media sector, said, “The good news is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, consumers are willing to pay for meaningful content. The bad news is that they are not willing to pay much. But cumulatively, these payments could help offset one to three years of anticipated declines in advertising revenue.”
``BCG’s survey found that consumers were more likely to pay for certain types of content, specifically news that is:
• Unique, such as local news (67 percent overall are interested; 72 percent of U.S. respondents) or specialized coverage (63 percent overall are interested; 73 percent of U.S. respondents)
• Timely, such as a continual news alert service (54 percent overall are interested; 61 percent of U.S. respondents)
• Conveniently accessible on a device of choice
``In addition, consumers are more likely to pay for online news provided by newspapers than by other media, such as television stations, Web sites, or online portals.
``They are specifically not interested in paying for news that is routinely available on a wide range of Web sites for free.
``While encouraging, this willingness to spend is only part of the solution for newspapers. For example, in the United States, advertising—which accounts for around 80 percent of newspaper revenues—is in a steep decline. If consumers start to pay for their news online, it will slow, but not stop, newspapers’ decline. As a result, newspapers must look to innovate on multiple fronts.
``Consumers More Likely to Pay for Online Content from National and Local Newspapers Than from Major Metros"
And this reminds me of marketing guru Seth Godin's counsel,
``The problem with "everyone" is that in order to reach everyone or teach everyone or sell to everyone, you need to so water down what you've got you end up with almost nothing...
``You don't want everyone. You want the right someone.
``Someone who cares about what you do. Someone who will make a contribution that matters. Someone who will spread the word.
``As soon as you start focusing on finding the right someone, things get better, fast. That's because you can ignore everyone and settle in and focus on the people you actually want." (bold highlights mine)
The point is that the industrial age of mass marketing has been gradating into the information "internet" age which focuses on niche or specialized marketing.
In other words, business trends (like the subscription model) in a more globalized setting backed by real time communications are likely to shift markets into highly segmented (localized) or customized backed by real time features, since generalized information is likely free.
This also suggests that traditional metrics in appraising business models or even in economic conditions, largely based on the industrial age won't be accurate or even effective.
Perhaps organizational capital -a procedure implemented by businesses to complete work (wikipedia.org) -will matter more than final output in measuring of productivity.
This also suggest that what we know of as success models of the past won't likely be the same models going forward. So the axiom of past performance don't guarantee future outcomes becomes increasingly elaborate.
No comments:
Post a Comment