Finding hope in difficult times

It's very difficult to live in Western society today without becoming cynical, or at least without seeing a lot of things as a "glass half empty". We have one universal language: Lies, and one universal religion: Money. Corporations, politicians, pundits and commentators lie so much and so often that it leads to deep cynicism--we expect our institutions to lie, and are pleasantly surprised when they tell the truth. Even the press, which we've relied upon for more than a hundred years to tell the truth, is regurgitating stories fed to them by PR flacks, avoiding stories that would alienate advertisers, using sensationalism to deflect attention from stories that are more difficult to tell and more important to understand, and spinning the news to the benefit of political parties or corporate interests.

The worship of money is very closely connected to the proliferation of lies. When there's no money at stake, there's no need to lie, but when the cost is high, it often costs much less to lie than it does to tell the truth and accept the consequences. Here are a few examples: Many energy companies and firms that either output greenhouse gases or make products that create greenhouse gases spend tens of millions of dollars in an effort to stop legislation designed to curb global warming. They hire lobbyists to convince legislators to block laws, underwrite bogus research that questions the impact of human activity on global warming, or even that global warming exists at all, and create "astroturf" groups to further inflame voters already panicked about the state of the economy.

Multiple pharmaceutical companies have been accused of suppressing research that found that their drugs may be unsafe. Health care organizations publicly supported U.S. reform legislation, but privately lobbied legislators against it and created their own "astroturf" organizations to try to defeat the legislation. The tobacco industry spent decades lying about the health effects of their products, and is now focusing on less-developed countries where companies can freely advertise to children and don't have to warn consumers about the risks of cancer and heart disease.

Banks and other financial institutions sold millions of mortgages to consumers who couldn't afford them, and then bundled the mortgages together and sold them (and their risk) off to others without detailing their shoddy quality. Companies pursuing high-profile mergers say and do everything they can to convince government agencies to approve the deals, and then backpedal on their commitments whenever they can once the merger is approved. Some corporations claim publicly that they're cooperating fully in civil and criminal investigations, while privately, they're destroying evidence that could be used against them.

Politicians, political appointees and staff members regularly go to work for lobbying firms hired by the same companies that they formerly monitored and regulated, at many times their governmental salaries. Some politicians are on a "Merry-Go-Round": They get elected, then after several years, move into the private sector as a lobbyist or corporate lawyer. A few years later, they make another run at public office. Their staffers often follow them, from public jobs to private, and back to public.

Journalists sometimes follow the same path, moving from a career reporting on companies to jobs in public relations firms, where they're paid by the companies and organizations they used to cover to pitch stories to other reporters and spin the facts. Of course, a reporter who's diligent in their efforts to learn the truth about individuals and companies that they cover isn't likely to get very many PR job offers, so there's strong pressure to run stories as they're pitched, and to not look under too many rocks.

Even with all these lies, all this gaming of the system, I maintain hope. Almost every day, I see organizations (primarily government-run and university laboratories, as well as start-ups) working on solutions to our energy and global warming problems. Some corporations recognize that global warming represents a bigger business opportunity than maintaining the status quo. As we get more existence proofs showing that we can maintain our standard of living while still decreasing greenhouse gases, the arguments of the companies and their paid advocates who say that it can't be done will be shown to be lies.

Our consumer protection systems continue to work, albeit often slowly and poorly. Some (but, unfortunately, not enough) of the abuses I wrote about above were detected by these regulatory agencies. Despite efforts to water down or eliminate many of these agencies, I believe that their value will ultimately be understood as essential for capitalism to be both effective and fair.

As "old media" companies find themselves in an ever-increasing spiral of sensationalism and irrelevance, new companies, large and small, for-profit and non-profit, are launching to fill the void. The Internet has eliminated the need for transmitters, printing presses and government licenses, and has decreased the cost by several orders of magnitude. Individuals can report as an avocation, and millions of them do, using their mobile phones, camcorders and personal computers. When you don't have to make a profit (or very much of a profit), it's very difficult for an "old media" company to kill you.

Even with all that, there are days when I just want to turn off my television, radio and computer, toss out the magazines and newspapers, and move to a cabin outside the range of modern media. There are just so many lies that I can take.

Separating the medium from the message

Wikipedia defines the word medium as follows: "In communications, a medium is the storage and transmission channel or tool used to store and deliver information or data." It's the means of getting information from point A to point B, not the content or structure of that information. However, it's virtually impossible to consider a medium without including its usual content and structure. For example, we have expectations of what we're going to hear when we turn on the radio, and what we're going to see when we turn on the television. We don't expect to find the nameplate and headline of a newspaper on an inner page; we expect to find them on the front page.

Content and structure have been an integral part of our understanding of what a medium is, until we got to the Internet era. The Internet is a medium that can reproduce the content and structure of radio, television, movies, compact discs, books and newspapers. The Internet decouples the physical medium from its content and structure.

The Internet's flexibility is both a blessing and a curse. It makes it relatively easy to copy the content and structure of other media, but history shows that copying one medium into another isn't a successful long-term strategy. Radio copied theater, concerts and vaudeville, but it didn't come into its own until unique styles of entertainment were developed specifically for radio. Television initially copied radio and the media that radio itself originally copied, but like radio, television didn't take off until artists started taking advantage of television's unique capabilities.

The Internet can be a replacement for today's radio and television, with the added benefit of time-shifting, but with its sometimes tinny sound and small displays, it's a poor substitute. You can make a website or app look just like a newspaper page, but experience shows that people read in a different way online than they do in print. Despite apps, most magazines available online look just like their print editions, with a few additional features. These "digital magazines" are often very hard to read, requiring lots of zooming (some readers only allow one level of zoom), panning and scrolling.

One can argue that webpages are themselves a unique form of structure, if not content; with the exception of interactivity, they're an amalgam of text, audio and video forms that existed well before the web itself. What are some of the other unique capabilities of Internet media that can differentiate them from existing forms?

• Interactivity: Video games and interactive CD-ROMs predate the web, but the web brings interactivity to a new level, and mobile apps are accelerating the trend.
• Multi-way creation: Instead of the "one creator to many consumers" model inherent in incumbent (old) media, the Internet enables many creators to reach a few or many consumers. It also enables creators to interact with each other, and makes the roles of creators and consumers fluid--one can become the other, and one can play both roles simultaneously.
• Support for most kinds of existing media: The temptation to simply copy one medium's content and structure onto the Internet is great, but the ability to integrate the capabilities of multiple mediums into a single composition is very powerful.
• No gatekeepers: Creators can reach consumers and other creators inexpensively, without having to go through distributors, retailers and networks.
• Low production and distribution cost: The Internet has helped to drive the cost of the software and services needed for content creation down to a tiny fraction of the prices paid by old media companies, and Moore's Law has driven down the prices and increased the capabilities of the devices needed to create and access the content.

Simply taking a radio show and moving it to the Internet, either as a webcast or simulcast, won't cause the Internet to displace radio; it only creates a poor substitute. The same goes for television. Magazines that simply reproduce the content of their print editions in electronic form aren't reversing their downward circulation and advertising revenue trends--the best they're doing is slowing down the decline. Newspapers aren't adding enough extra value on the Internet to make their paywalls work.

One-to-many media don't work on the Internet, or more accurately, they don't work well enough to maintain the business models of incumbent media companies. Native Internet media have to be highly interactive and incorporate an audience of content creators, not just content consumers. If any content consumer can instantly and painlessly become a creator of virtually any kind of content, and if consumers of that content can in turn create their own content, that's when Internet media becomes very different than any incumbent media.

Twitter, YouTube and The Huffington Post are all early examples of true Internet media, although they have limitations:

• Twitter's is the kinds of content that can be delivered in-line with its 140-character messages (which itself is a limitation).
• YouTube's is the amount of effort necessary to create a video that doesn't look amateurish.
• The Huffington Post's is that it's very text-based; the HuffPo is adding more video, but it's primarily produced in-house and represents a regression to the "one-to-many" model. Also, anyone can submit posts to the HuffPo, but that doesn't mean that they'll be accepted.

If you think about how those three companies' models can be mixed and improved, you can come up with some very interesting new visions of Internet media.

New media has to break its addiction to old media

People have been trying to turn the Internet into a new medium that can compete on an equal footing with television, radio, newspapers, etc. since the Netscape days of the mid-1990s. So, fifteen years on, what have we accomplished?

• Netflix has more subscribers than Comcast, but it lives or dies based on which television networks, cable networks and movie studios are willing to do business with it, what shows they're willing to supply, when they're willing to supply them and at what cost.
• Hulu has much the same problem, even though it's owned by three of the four major U.S. television networks.
• YouTube is trying to cut distribution deals with many of the same television networks, cable networks and movie studios as Netflix and Hulu.
• Pundits spend an inordinate amount of time discussing how much The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are charging for access to their newspapers online, whether paywalls work, how to circumvent paywalls, etc.
• Hearst, Condé Nast and Time Warner will offer their eMagazines on the iPad if they can only get a business deal worked out with Apple. Meanwhile, News Corporation's "The Daily" is on the iPad and is losing money.
• Clear Channel is building its own clone of the Pandora streaming music service and plans to launch it this summer.

The "new media" has largely become a repackaging of old media for Internet delivery: Old wine in new bottles. Almost all of the content on the Internet that's economically viable comes from old media companies.

In order for content to be economically viable, it has to have two key attributes:

1. It has to attract a large audience, and
2. It has to be repeatable--audiences have to be willing to come back day after day, week after week

Content that repeatably attracts large audiences can be sold to national advertisers, which generates the revenues necessary to create more content and make the business attractive to investors. Viral videos, like those found on YouTube, meet the first criteria: A popular viral video can get millions of views. The problem is that they're not repeatable. The vast majority of viral videos are "one-hit wonders". Google has found that it's possible, but very difficult, to sell advertising against viral videos. Many advertisers don't want their ads to run alongside "objectionable" content, yet it's that same objectionable content that makes many videos go viral.

On the other hand, webcast networks like TWiT and Revision3 get audiences that come back week after week for original shows, but the audiences aren't big enough to generate a lot of advertising revenue. They make enough money to make a nice living for a few people, but not enough to attract investors.

That's why new media companies keep turning to old media companies to get their content. The problem is that old media companies don't want to risk their existing revenue streams, even if those revenue streams are already being eroded. If you're an Internet company and your business plan depends on convincing old media companies to license their content to you, you're starting with two strikes against you. Even worse, your biggest suppliers are in a position to become your biggest competitors, if they aren't already competing against you.

New media companies have to break their dependence on old media, and the only way to do that is to produce original content in new forms that old media companies can't, or won't, duplicate.

The old, old media

I've been thinking about how hard it is for a new media company to attract audiences of the size of old media companies, at least in the old media companies' markets. One impressive thing is how old the old media companies in the U.S. really are, and how long they've survived. Let's look at the companies that dominate U.S. mass media, based on when they (or their original predecessor companies) were founded:

• Chicago Tribune: 1847
• New York Times: 1851
• Washington Post: 1877
• Wall Street Journal: 1889
• Warner Bros.: 1903
• Paramount: 1912
• Universal: 1912
• Fox: 1915
• MGM: 1915
• Columbia Pictures: 1919
• Disney: 1923
• Time Magazine: 1923
• NBC: 1926
• CBS: 1927
• ABC: 1927 (was originally NBC's Blue Network)
• Turner Broadcasting: 1970

The most recent company on this list was founded 40 years ago, and the next two were founded 87 years ago. There have been mergers and acquisitions, but these remain the leading media companies in the U.S. The media businesses of Yahoo and AOL are tiny compared to any of these companies. Google sells advertising connected to other people's content rather than creating content on its own, and while Facebook's audience dwarfs most of the major media companies, it's a stretch to call it a media company.

There are certainly other successful media companies out there, but they tend to focus on market niches. Discovery Communications, for example, focuses on science and nature, although it will expand into children's programming with The Hub, its joint venture with Hasbro, which launches later this month, and OWN, the Oprah Winfrey Network, which launches January 1, 2011. The National Geographic Society has published its namesake magazine since 1888, but formed its cable network as a joint venture with News Corporation (Fox).

Perhaps the formula for success as a new media company is to avoid what the old media companies are doing. Don't try to be a movie studio, a television network, a newspaper or magazine. It also means being independent of old media. If your business model depends on getting permission to distribute old media companies' content, or getting old media companies to distribute your content, your fate isn't in your own hands. In other words, don't play in the big guys' sandbox. Build your own.

Burn the boats, and don't use the iPad as a life raft

An interview that Marc Andreessen gave to Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch on Friday is causing much discomfort in the "old media" ranks. In essence, Marc said that the only way for newspapers and magazines to save their businesses is to fully commit to digital media, instead of taking halfway measures designed to protect their print businesses. It's the cannibalization argument--it's much better to cannibalize yourself than to allow competitors to do it for you.

Those thoughts were interpreted by some to mean that he was suggesting that publishers should get out of the print business, but what I believe he meant is that they should be prepared to give up their print businesses, once it becomes clear that those businesses are no longer sustainable. However, what Marc said about the iPad is even more interesting. Rather than paraphrase, I'll quote the article precisely (with my apologies to Mr. Schonfeld and TechCrunch for the length of the quote):

"With all the recent excitement in media quarters recently over Apple’s upcoming iPad and other tablet computers, and their potential to create a market for paid digital versions and subscriptions of newspapers and magazines, I wondered if Andreessen still felt the same way. Does he think the iPad will change anything?"

"Andreessen asked me if TechCrunch is working on an iPad app or planning on putting up a paywall. I gave him a blank stare. He laughed and noted that none of the newer Web publications (he’s an investor in the Business Insider) are either. 'All the new companies are not spending a nanosecond on the iPad or thinking of ways to charge for content. The older companies, that is all they are thinking about.'"

"But people pay for apps. Wouldn’t he pay for a beautiful touchscreen version of a magazine? Maybe, if it were something genuinely new that blew him away. It would have to be more than an article with video and graphics though. (I agree, otherwise it’s no better than a CD-ROM)."

"Oh, and he points out, that the iPad will have a 'fantastic browser.' No matter how many iPads the Apple sells, the Web will always be the bigger market. “There are 2 billion people on the Web,” he says.' The iPad will be a huge success if it sells 5 million units.'"

Last week, Penguin showed a number of iPad applications based on its books; only one of them looked like a conventional eBook. However, all but one of them could easily be written in Flash and run in any modern browser, and the one that required use of the compass and accelerometer could probably be customized to use those features without having to be a completely native app. The problem, of course, is that Flash doesn't run on the iPad and won't run in the future, not for any serious technical reason, but because Steve Jobs hates Flash.

Writing applications for the web allows them to be used just about anywhere, on any device; writing them for the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad means that they can only be used on those devices, in the Apple environment. Time will tell if Marc's prediction about iPad sales will pan out, but why would a publisher lock itself into a single platform from a company that has a history of dictating terms to its content partners?

If you talk to executives from the record companies, they would probably say that they turned Apple into an 800 pound gorilla in the media business by ceding pricing control. The book publishers have apparently just done the same thing, in part to attack Amazon's pricing model, but at the price of giving Apple pricing control at slightly higher levels.

My opinion is that the iPad is going to be successful, more for its applications and user interface than simply for media consumption. Nevertheless, Marc's comments are on target. Publishers should build their digital businesses sustainably rather than defensively, and they shouldn't depend on the iPad to save them.

The Content Paradox

The "old media" Goliaths like News Corporation, Viacom, CBS, Disney, NBC Universal and Time Warner are often said to be doomed to extinction by the Internet, yet it's content produced and owned by those same companies that's the most popular on the Internet. Those of us in the U.S. may complain about Hulu's limited selection of and time limits on access to content, yet Hulu is envied by content consumers around the world. YouTube would never have gotten to where it is today without all the "old media" content that was (and still is) uploaded for free consumption. If YouTube had depended totally on user-generated content, it never would have reached critical mass.

We may not like the restrictions and limitations that the old media companies put on usage of their content, but they own it, and they have the right (subject to "first sale" rules and other restrictions in the U.S.) to control how it's sold and distributed.

No Internet "new media" companies have content that's in the same popularity class as the old media companies. Producer/Distributors such as Revision3 and TWiT have built very solid businesses. TWiT, Leo Laporte's company, is attracting bigger audiences than TechTV ever did, and judging from Laporte's own comments, it's making a nice profit. However, the audience for all of TWiT's programming is tiny compared to any of the old media sites. Thus the paradox: The Internet relies on old media to drive traffic to new media sites, but the vast majority of original new media properties can't find big enough audiences to sustain themselves financially.

The Internet has lowered the barriers to entry for content producers and distributors down to almost nothing, but making the content available and getting people to read or watch it are two very different things. Building a big enough audience that your content or site becomes attractive to advertisers is much more difficult, and getting people to pay to access the content is even yet more difficult. The old media companies have at least solved the problem of getting people to watch or read their content, but the new media companies all have to start from scratch to build an audience.

Old media isn't having that much easier a time of it on the Internet--just today, for example, Hulu announced that Viacom's Comedy Central is withdrawing its programming at midnight on March 10th, thus removing some of the most topical and popular content from the site. Hulu is widely believed to be unprofitable, and rumors have been flying for months that its parent companies (News Corporation, NBC Universal, Disney and Providence Equity Partners) have been pushing it to adopt a pay model in addition to its existing advertising-supported model. So, simply bringing old media content to the Internet isn't a formula for financial success.

This argument is going to continue until someone releases a breakout hit on the Internet, figures out how to make money with it and builds a profitable, growing media business. Until that happens, the Internet will remain primarily a distribution channel for old media, rather than a viable channel for launching new media.