by Jon Husband
January 30, 2008 at 8:29 am · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Artisanal Economy, Business Model, Change, Chris Anderson, Community, Culture, Economics, Emergent, Facebook, Long Tail, Relationships, Social Media, Social Networking, Social Objects, Trusted Space, Web 2.0, Web Advertising
A few days ago I wrote a post and linked to an Aspen Institute report titled The Rise of Collective Intelligence – Decentralized Co-Creation of Value as a New Paradigm of Commerce and Culture.
Today I’d like to offer readers an example of new tools and web services operating in social networks that in my opinion make the concepts and observations in the report come alive. The example involves people using search, content, collaboration and sharing, which are all central elements of the ecosystems of commerce and culture in which we will all be living, working and consuming.
There’s a small company up here in Vancouver, British Columbia (the warm and beautiful part of the Great White North of North America) that develops social networking platforms and customized elearning solutions. The Donat Group is also creating a social music initiative (Project Opus), a part of which involves Mixxmaker, a web service that helps music lovers build playlists collaboratively. Building playlists collaboratively creates a "Social Object", offering people a means of co-creating value around music they like and want to share with others they know.
We all know that the music industry is in real turmoil, and is searching frantically for new business logic and new business models. The major participants have all been under pressure from free downloads, and the price of music is under pressure as never before. Where will additional value, and eventually revenue, come from ?
David Gratton is the founder of the Donat Group, Project Opus and Mixxmaker. David recently wrote a post about why the digital packaging around music, especially as a social object, can and will be of value. Mainly, being able to search for, locate, aggregate and acquire various elements about a song or an artist that someone likes will help create meaning and in turn value.
He also wrote about ‘who’ is involved in the co-creation of this new form of value … or in other words how the market for value associated with songs is being broken up and then co-created anew. Doing this around a playlist that is built in collaboration with others also helps mightily in creating connections and trust, and lays a foundation for putting the dynamics of word-of-mouth marketing into dynamic operation.
It’s important to note here that David and his colleagues at Project Opus and Mixxmaker put a lot of work into staying within the bounds of Fair Use, an all-important consideration when exploring new paradigms for creating (or co-creating in this case) potentially new economic value.
.
.
Once people start building today’s equivalent of albums together with their friends, the changes to the ways music is distributed and acquired will continue to diversify away from purchasing CDs, as David has noted. But people will still want that unusual album cover from the old vinyl days, or the most recent YouTube video clip of a given band’s performance, or a series of photos from Flickr (carrying the appropriate Creative Commons license, to be sure) to add to their own personal collection of digital artefacts about that kind of music, that band, that group of friends .. and so on.
It’s a pity, really, that this fun and easy-to-use capability exists only as a Facebook application at the moment. I seem to be observing a rapidly-growing trend of people turning down invitations to add another Facebook application to their Facebook profile (I am one of those people). While supposedly Mark Zuckerberg is aware of the growing dissatisfaction .. and you’d think the Beacon fiasco was notice enough … it’s hard to shake the sense that Facebook and its partner applications are all really just looking for ways to maximize page views and ad impression.
That, for me, does not fall into the category of decentralized co-creation of value, no matter how you spin it.
But .. I suspect that in the coming months and years we’ll see many more examples of applications and services like Mixxmaker that let and / or help people co-create online things that they care about and enjoy.
.
Tags: Aspen Institute, Decentralized Co-creation of Value, Donat Group, Project Opus, Mixxmaker, Facebook
Powered by Qumana
by Rob Paterson
January 11, 2008 at 6:43 am · Filed under
Autos, CES, NPR, News, Podcasts, Public Media, Social Media, User Revolution, Web 2.0, Web Advertising
[photopress:traffic2.jpg,full,centered]
Part of the growth of audience for public radio has been the car. For many Americans, commuting can take up between 1 and 2 hours a day. NPR’s key shows Morning Edition and All Things Considered have been designed to meet the demand of thoughtful people who sit alone day after day in traffic. Many of the hosts seem to have become friends – after all for a 4 hour commute, the radio hosts spend more “talk” time with the commuter than any other person.
Until now, the car, like the plane, has been a “Web Free Zone” But all of this is going to change.
At the CES this month, Cars moved onto the spotlight. (AP)
Cars and automotive technologies from startups and established aftermarket makers are abundant at this gadget show. They’re coming in such variety that they encapsulate many of the advances seen elsewhere at CES in cell phones, TVs, video games and wireless Internet networking.
For example, one theme at CES is the development of touch-screen and voice-activated controls for portable devices. Cars are showing that off, too, with systems that let people make phone calls, navigate, choose music and have e-mails read to them without dangerously fumbling for manual controls.
Or look how CES overall is highlighting the widening availability of Internet content. Autonet Mobile Inc. offers a small box for car trunks that takes a cellular broadband signal and uses Wi-Fi to relay it to portable computers in the car, so people can browse the Internet in the vehicle. And while the car is parked near a home wireless network, people can beam music and video content to it for enjoyment on upcoming road trips.
“The car is a lifestyle product,” said Sterling Pratz, Autonet Mobile’s CEO. “It’s not just a car anymore.”
The clock is ticking for the car terrestial radio market. Wifi is not only seen as being key to car entertainment and guidance but also enables the systems in cars to be updated.
One reason for automakers’ increasing comfort is that powerful computers now found in cars can get software updates fired in by wireless networks, letting vendors fix bugs and keep features up to date, said Erik Goldman, president of Hughes Telematics Inc. His company is expected to begin outfitting Chrysler and Mercedes cars with a navigation, entertainment and diagnostics service in 2009.
Another change is that car makers have often sought to differentiate themselves with proprietary electronic systems, like General Motors Corp.’s OnStar, that operate independently from gadgets people regularly use outside the car.
But these days automotive electronics are being more closely integrated with standard Web technologies.
For example, the Hughes Telematics system will include a personal Web portal that lets people remotely lock and unlock their car doors, plan routes, check their auto’s emissions and engine status, select music playlists and even monitor their vehicle’s location.
Increasing ties to the Web could broaden the field of automotive-tech vendors beyond traditional players. Last year, OnStar began working with MapQuest.com, part of Time Warner Inc.’s AOL LLC, so drivers could plan their routes online and send them to the car.
At a CES panel on the interplay between cars and electronics, Eckhard Steinmeier, general manager of BMW’s “Connected Drive” initiative, showed a commercial in which a woman says she wants to investigate sushi options. So she heads out of her house, in the rain, to do a Google search from her Beemer’s dashboard.
Where and how we connect to the web and to each other is becoming ubiquitous. Finding the best interface is therefore shaping up as being very important.
by Rob Paterson
October 29, 2007 at 9:15 am · Filed under
Blue Monster, Chris Anderson, Enterprise 2.0, Fox, Gaping Void, Hugh McLeod, Hulu.com, Long Tail, NBC, NPR, News Corporation, PBS, Public Media, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Objects, Web Advertising, Wired
Hulu.com is an important experiment for how TV will shift from being available only when the broadcaster schedules it to when we want it – Having it My Way!
[photopress:hulupage.png,full,centered]
(From the NYT) Hulu is the new-media creation of two old-media rivals, NBC, which is owned by General Electric, and Fox, owned by the News Corporation. Since March, when the broadcasters announced their joint effort to bring free, ad-supported television shows to the Web, critics have pounced, predicting the venture would be doomed by diverging agendas, technical challenges and an all-powerful enemy: YouTube.
Skeptical bloggers even slapped Hulu with a derisive moniker: “Clown Co.”
Now the defense is ready to present its case.
Today, Hulu, now an independent company with more than a hundred employees and its own offices in Los Angeles, will begin privately testing its new service with select users at Hulu.com. It will also begin sending its videos to the sites of five distribution partners, Microsoft, AOL, MySpace, Yahoo and Comcast.
Hulu is presenting select episodes of some 90 television shows, including new and old programs from NBC (“The Office,” “The A-Team”), Fox (“24” and “The Simpsons”) and an assortment of smaller broadcasters like USA Networks. It has also added two new partners, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which distributes programs like “Chapelle’s Show” and “Reno 911,” and Sony Pictures Television, which will make selections in its archives like “I Dream of Jeannie,” available on Hulu.com.
All the shows are viewable inside a Web browser and festooned with advertisements.
However Hulu works out – they are on a track that is clear – people want video as they ant their music:
- Easy to find
- Available in chunks
- Available ON THE WEB – when they want it and usable on a variety of platforms such as an iPod and a 50inch HD LCD screen
Who pays and how will still be settled.
Also what I think Hulu has missed is the value of creating community around a show – this is Hugh’s great insight about Social Objects – it is the Conversation around the object that is more important than the object.
3. The Blue Monster wine is also part of the “Smarter Wine” conversation. The main thesis is that it’s not the wine per se that is interesting, it’s the conversations that happen around the wine that is interesting. And that is true for all social objects. People matter. Objects don’t.
The advertising money is shifting to the web – so will the content – it will go there faster than we imagine. For the laws of exponetial growth are in force. I think that the Tipping point is here:
[photopress:adwebrevenue.jpg,full,centered]
I think that Broadcast TV is now in the Titanic Mode – It is large and feels unsinkable – BUT – the ship has grazed the ice – at the moment no one feels anything – but the wound is fatal and it is only a matter of time before the ship sinks.
[photopress:titanicice.jpg,full,centered]
The Iceberg is the weight of money that is leaving conventional media and going to the web. My forecast is that 2008 will be the year – 2008 will be the year where the web/digital will become where the ad money will go – the work for all providers of all types of content then will be to reset their universe.
Today most people in TV and radio see the web as a growing and important channel. In 2008, the smart people will see the web as the primary channel and that their old channel is now the supporting channel. Of course most will not see this and they will be lucky to find a life boat.
You think I exaggerate? Here is Chris Anderson on the “Music Industry” I quote him in full:
At a speech last week I was asked a question that has come up every day since the Radiohead (and Madonna, NIN, Prince, etc, etc) announcement: What’s going to happen to the music industry?
To which I answered “Which music industry?” You don’t mean just the one that sells CDs, do you? Because it’s a big mistake to equate the major labels and their plastic disc business with the industry as a whole. Indeed, when you stand back and look at all of music, things don’t look so bad at all.
Indeed, it appears that every single part of the music industry except the sale of compact discs is up.
- Concerts and merchandise: UP (+4%)
- Digital tracks: UP (+46%)
- Ringtones: UP (+86% last year, but probably just single-digit percent this year)
- Licensing for commercials, TV shows, movies and videogames: UP (Warner Music saw licensing grow by about $20 million over the past year)
- Even vinyl singles (think DJs): UP (more than doubled in the UK)
- And, if you include the iPod in the music industry, as I’d argue a fair-minded analysis would: UP, UP, UP! (+31% this year)
Only CDs are down (-18%). They’re around 60% of the industry not including the MP3 players, but just around 25% if you do include them.
So the problem with the music labels is not that music is an industry in decline, but that they have a too-narrow view of what business they’re in. Madonna’s switch from a label to a concert promoter should be a clue. This quote from an excellent article (it’s worth reading it all) in Entertainment Weekly says it all:
”Soon a lot of these companies won’t define themselves as record companies,” says Steve Greenberg, the former head of Columbia Records who now runs the independent record company S-Curve. ”They’ll define themselves as artist development companies. If you’re involved in an entire career with an artist, then everyone’s interests can be aligned.”
I think most music will soon be free, as artists give away the product as marketing for their performances and licensing, and as a celebrity accelerant that creates more opportunities to make money than just from the sale of a record.
And for those who say that this avenue is only available to artists at the head of the curve, such as Madonna and Radiohead, I’d point out that the other group poorly served by the labels are those at the bottom of the curve, the many thousands of bands who fall below the radar of the hit-driven majors. I’d argue that they, too, have nothing to lose by letting their music go free, nothing to lose but the prospect of becoming indentured to companies stuck in last century’s model of monetizing music.
Most people see TV and Radio like the people who make CD’s. All the forces that are turning the music industry upside down are coming to TV and Radio – for after all – a video and an audio file are the same as music – they are in reality all digital now.
