The digital battle is getting serious but who is fighting and why?

It’s the giants leading on the battle; it amazes me that the rest of us let them rule the ground alone.

It is all about power, owning the value chain and keeping / achieving profits. Who owns the production line ? Who have control over the infrastructure (path of delivery) and who has the strongest grip of the customers?

For some; helping people to improve their lives and decrease their sufferings and problems seems to be a necessary (but undesirable) cost aspect. No wonder people distrust whole countries, corporations and those who want to sell us yet another vacant argument.

Facebook is coming up with a mobile solution, but do not launch a cell phone. IPhone got behind in the innovation race. Kodak is bankrupt. Sony is losing money all over. Many newspapers tries to generate sufficient revenues by hiding behind firewalls. AT&T (and of course Telenor in Norway) are fighting too, they want the free ride of earning on others production of content. Media moguls are on the ground too, armed to their teeth with copyright arguments. North Korea and other nations are accused for running a cyber war. Most nations want some sort of control over the Internet, they say it’s due to fighting crime.

Confused? No need to be embarrassed. Most people are.

The digital revolution is really about who is producing value in the digital era and are able to deliver solutions to people’s problems and fulfilling their desires in the most benefitual way. It can be a revolution FOR the people, but then the people have to wake up.

The question is not about copyrights, VAT, or that the artists will not survive when everything becomes free. It is not about journalism or literature, storytelling, pictures and film as dying crafts. It is really about a new level of democracy, where the value is in delivering real value to people – the market.

For the media industry  it is important to understand this, and at the same time to understand that the real producers of added value (the artists, the storytellers, the journalists and so forth) need to get the fair share of the value produced!

Behind Facebooks new ”Graph search”

It seems like people aren’t looking under the hood of what this new direction of Facebook really is all about.

What I’ve seen of reactions so far is concerned about the benefit for people searching (and the lack of benefit outside Facebook environment)Forbes is concerned about privacy in their article: “Facebook’s New Social Search”. [ ]

Forget privacy!
I believe that they aren’t looking closely enough. There is no battle of privacy. In fact that battle was lost before it started. Our governments (all over the world) have ensured that in all their new laws “against terrorism”. Forget privacy in the way we used to think about it.

Rather think transparency. And avoid using companies, and internet portals that refuses to be transparent about what they do.

What are they doing?
Google and Facebook are not trying to provide you with a more humane way of finding what you are looking for. They are not fighting over how personalization as the future of search should work.

They are battling to own your “social data”! They want to have as much knowledge about you, your friends and network, and your actions and interactions in any digital way you interact. They want this to profit from it. They want this in order to sell that social information about you to corporations. That enable them to present desired and needed commercial content to as where you are, when you need anything. None of them wants to be transparent!

Good or evil?
On the one hand this is great news, isn’t it? We finally get rid of spam, of disturbing and irritating commercials in our face. No more stupid “news letters”!

It’s a great idea to be presented by the great offer of a healthy lunch, just when you are hungry, and it’s right around the corner from where you stand. Isn’t it?

It’s great when your car breaks down on the highway, that the rescue car & the rental car is on its way, before you have to reach for your cell phone and start searching for the phone number to your insurance company, the rescue car and the rental company. You don’t have to call work and explain the delay or your spouse to complain to her, what shitty life you have.
That is already information delivered e.g. via Facebook status. Your friends and network knows, those who want to offer you help knows. That’s good – isn’t it?

The “evil enemy country” in the world has hacked into all systems and they also know what you think, what your actions are and what perfume you use, and more important, the credit card number and where/when used. Oh that’s maybe not so good, or is it?

Mobile first strategies

Trend reports have told us for a couple of years now that the use of smart phones increases so dramatically that many businesses need to rethink their strategies.

I believe that the lap top and the web is no longer the first choice. We want to perform actions and do shopping via our phones. The mobile phone has become a multi- tool used for many things, and it is first and foremost a very “personal” tool.

Think about it, I can happily lend the lap top for a moment; but let other people handle my phone? Hummm…

Mobile first is not just about mobile phones, it’s also about tablets. These are two different “gadgets”. Even if both are handy and you can bring them with you – they have different patterns of usage.

However, the mobile solutions greatest advantages are that they are geared towards individual needs. The needs are situational. I choose widget and channel, based on situation – it’s mostly not a shared experience.

“Meet me where I am, in the tool I’m using,  with a solution to the problem I have! »

Simplicity wins every time

It is really difficult to communicate complex messages in an easy and clear manner.

 

In any event – do just that!

 

 

Keep It Simple Stupid! K.I.S.S.

How do you interact with your online customers?

It may be painful when customers tell you what they think of your company or service. But is it really bad for you? When your customers complain, they are committed and will really like to help you – if you let them!

Feedback is a gift and of great value for your business. Do you let that value go to waste? You may turn negative feedback into: New and better products / services, improved customer service, improved communication, better visibility on the web, adjust what activities you focus on  in various  channels etc. All of this is very complicated and expensive for your business to find out by other means.

Invite and participate in dialogues in all the digital channels your customers are active on.

Make use of what you learn and establish internal systems that pick up knowledge, refine it and take action.

Be grateful for criticism and be thankful towards your customers for the help they give you.

What to pay?

Tell your customers what the prices for your products / services are. It may be cost, time or effort.

You are the only one selling something; the rest of us are buying. A purchase has to be of higher value for the customer than the asking price. Remember to tell the customer what the benefits are. And tell it in simple words.

Focus on the value your customer get, rather than the price tag you set.  

…did you read the tip of 1. and second of December below?

Beyond advertisement?

The media industries have to increase their revenues and can do so by rethinking why they are in business. Where would that leave the marketing and advertizing business?

The problems for the media industry finding sustainable business models may very well be with the point of view, from where most media companies are trying to solve the problem. In my opinion this problem is a huge challenge also for the marketing/ advertizing business.

Media companies keep asking: “How to monetize on our content?” That is the wrong question.
Content is an expense, not an income. Editorial (or for that matter user generated) content and commercial content are expenditures. It cost time, resources and money to produce.

Lack of innovation in the business of advertizing and marketing?
The advertizing and marketing business have been fortunate enough working in close relationship with the media industry for decades, without a need for innovation for years. Still the majority of activity and commercial approach on-line seems like a “plain” adoption of print. But we have seen that the business is challenged from various angles:

Nike has implemented a GSM chip in their shoes, registering location, running speed and so forth. This combined with an “app” let people get the data of their jogging pattern and enabled them to share this with co-joggers on a community portal called Nike+(2009).

Ford’s social media strategy is surely shifting from traditional advertizing to make use of social media and monitoring behavior “You need to listen, see how they behave and act similarly” (Scott Monty (Head of Social Media)

Musicnodes is a Norwegian start-up that offers contextual placed music for purchase directly (micro payment). This benefit the artist (higher income per sale), the media where it is displayed (income sharing’s for transactions) and the customer, because they can fetch the music they want, in a freemium/premium model by choice.

All three examples threaten traditional revenues from banner ads. All three examples are mostly driven outside of the traditional marketing and advertisement business.

“Don’t try to bend the spoon. Rather imagine there is no spoon!”
With a perspective where the real value is not in the product, but in benefits for users (and brands) gives media (and advertizement) companies an opportunity to rethink what their offer really is. What added value does one provide?

Furthermore it’s worthwhile to (again) ask the board: “What is the purpose of our business?” – Because: “… it’s not profit. Profit is the result of why this company is in business.” (Simon Sinek)

A purpose for a media company could rather be: “To improve the population’s capability to be an active part of democracy, by providing information and knowledge” For the advertisement business it could be: “solve customer problems, when they have them, where they are and in the most convenient way possible”

In other words: A business that improves people’s ability to take part in the public discourse for media companies, and ease the living for people for the advertizing business. With such a renewed perspective media companies and advertisers will have a whole new landscape of how to reach their goals. One can become a content store, an e-publisher or an online (and offline) knowledge centre, in addition to traditional “media activities”. And if media companies start doing their bit, where would that leave the advertising business, if they don’t start re- thinking?

The marketing and advertisement business will have to get in front of the development we see. In short the whole value chains for the media industry are changing. This leaves advertisers no other alternatives than to take control over the situation and increase their product/ service line far beyond what they used to do.

Cultivate knowledge about your users!
Media companies and the marketing and advertizing business should look closer at what values they are able to create from cultivating knowledge about their users. If so, media companies will be enabled to provide contextual, specific, targeted editorial products to their (singular) users/ commercial customers (brands), in all the channels available: Broadcast, print, web, “pads” and mobile phones. The marketing and advertizing business would get the opportunity to implement a whole new way of doing their business.

This is one way of making use of the term: “Big data“. The more knowledge there is about customers, the more one can monetize on that knowledge.

The key question is: What is the knowledge about our users profile, behavior, actions and location worth, -and for whom? The answers will have to go far beyond content presentation, subscription and advertising models only. “Social media” activities and believing that the “mobile revolution” will be the “savior” is at best a naive approach.

Both the media industry and the marketing/advertising business have to totally change their perspective from where the real values are made and how to monetize on knowledge about their users, far beyond traditional segmentation. They need to know what their customers’ needs and desires are (even before the customers know themselves), and to be able to deliver the answers in the channel/ device at the right time to the right person. The mass market is gone forever. We now have to be able to deliver superb services and products that solve individual, personal felt problems instantly. Tomorrows media companies have to become more than “digital news / entertainment portals? The marketing and advertisement companies that don’t have the answers will have a hard time surviving the next decade.

Who do you believe that will be the ones”owning” the value of customer insight the next decade? The media industry or the advertisement industry?

Digital advertisement, what’s the point?

 Last week Mitch Joel ( @mitchjoel ) made me think!

In his article “The Trouble With Online Advertising”  I made a very short comment “ … Why not just skip ads?… and Why not just get useful?…“ 

Since my comment where so brief I thought that exploring this a bit further might be worth while?

Mitch’s article point at the fact that very few people like online advertisements, they hardly click on them and digital ads doesn’t pay off very well for the owner of the website. (That is if you don’t have an enormous amount of people using your web solution, such as Facebook.com or google.com, where the numbers of people is so huge that it becomes a money making machine, after all.)

Still, most of what happens in online advertisement and marketing is an eyeball game. “Collect as many users as possible, and sell the crowd to advertisers!”  – Just as in the good old days. Many voices are now speaking about that this isn’t working. Advertisement, also in the digital environment is increasingly becoming regarded as pollution, and doesn’t make sense.

In the print world it had a purpose, in a digital environment it’s just a set of extra click’s between a customers needs and suppliers ability to deliver. “Why not skip the ads? ” was my question and go directly to deliver the solution to the user.

We know all the arguments coming from the business of marketing and commerce. – “Sales don’t work like that” – “The purchase process doesn’t work like that” –“the customers are maybe not aware of their needs yet, and need marketing to realize their needs, before they will be willing to make a decision and actually purchase a product”. We could go on.

Is there an elephant in the room?
The questions are wrong! It’s not about “How to market better?” I belive it’s about how to provide users with what they need, when they need it; at the place they are! – But that is not all…

“Why doesn’t anyone bother to get to know me?” “Why do I have to do the “purchasing process” all by my self?”  A wide range of businesses spend time getting the metrics right, collecting info about their costumers, defining target groups, finding out at when it’s best to present traditional advertisement to users. But…

Companies (and media houses) is not working to get to know what problems I could need help from someone to solve in my life. And it’s not about finding out what my values are, and what kind of ideas I’d like to support.

Maybe it is as Simon Sinek says? : “Because to many businesses doesn’t know why they are in business” and he states: “Profit is not a purpose of business, it’s a result.”  This TED talk  of his is about why people buy something at all. – Thank you for sharing Chuck Peters! ( @cpetersia )

For me, it’s sounds more important to discuss the purpose of your business, and then find ways (yes, possibly including advertisement) to meet users and customers that would like to support your purpose.

Feel free to Contact me for an informal meeting. if you would like to discuss your challenges.

Some older blog article (more or less) relevant to this subject:

Slik kan aviser ta betalt for innhold og kommersielle produkter 

What’s the value of you in the digital universe? 

Seven” right things” to do in digital business today

 

The Norwegian news business is restructuring, but is it enough?

This autumn will be one of the most thrilling times for Norwegian media business ever.  All major media companies faces no alternatives but change. What that change will be, is still unclear.

Schibsted is restructuring and is going to down size their paper activity. Schibsted says that they will reduce costs with a full year effect of approximately NOK 500 million over the next two years in the subscription based newspapers of Norway and Sweden, in addition to Spain.

From Reuters:“- The aim is to continue the digital transition in our media houses in order to gain as strong positions online as they enjoy today in traditional media. Strong editorial products will continue to be the fundament for healthy and profitable media house businesses also in the digital future, CEO Rolv Erik Ryssdal says.”

A pressen will announce their strategy at the «Media Business 2012-2016» conference in Oslo the 29th of august. We know that A- pressen and the CEO Thor Gjermund Eriksen will have to sell at least 7 local newspapers in order for the Norwegian authorities to formally accept the merge between Edda media and A-Pressen. According to  Kampanje  Eriksen states that the job ahead will be to merge the to media houses into one modern and powerful media company.

TV2’s CEO  Alf Hildrum says that they will spend more money than ever to maintain or even grow their market position. They now have Egmont as one of the major owners and have something to prove towards their owners. Not to forget that the broadcast business  also is in radical change and meet competition outside their normal arenas.

The main actions for the three major media companies as far as I can se it is in short this:

• Reduce cost and increase efficiency by:
  • Relocating
  • Restructuring of the organizations
• Increase and maintain market positions by:
  • Invest in mobile platforms
  • Invest in (digital?) content production

Does this sound familiar? This sounds like cut offs in staff.  I do hope there are changes more fundamental than this in the business going on.

I did not read a word about business models, new and appealing products both towards readers/ viewers or on the marketing/ commercial side.

I didn’t hear anything about investments in external companies that can offer such, or internal innovation activities.

I did not hear a word about what the media knows about their readers/viewers/ users needs – or how to monetize on the value of such knowledge.

And I didn’t hear anything about how to meet the real competitions in the media world: How to meet the fact that Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, streaming media solutions like Telenor is establishing and other disruptive initiatives are collecting the traditional media revenues in a quantitative- and qualitative way that has never happened before?

Fact is that a whole lot of other major enterprises have the ownership to the users/readers/viewers and are able to monetize that far better than the traditional media industry.

I hope that, by now, the news- and media industry has a strategy and concepts for revenues that goes beyond subscriptions and advertisement.

And I hope they are searching and getting hold of external competence, that is not “hold as hostages” but that get real influence with their outside perspectives.

This is far more important to focus on than the above mentioned bullet points. I’m not saying that reducing cost and increasing efficiency is not important, it’s just that it is basic, what will make the business transform and become healthy and strong for the future is in innovation and meeting real needs better in the new digital world.

As I’ve blogged about many times before, business models and concepts needed, already exists and many more are in their start-up, but I’ve seen few coming from inside the business itself.

For the people working inside the business (media people, and journalists) there are radical changes ahead. How to get the owners of media/ news companies and the employees to work together to make the needed change to happen?

In my opinion there is a problem with the public discourse, because it’s not easy to criticize your own employer. And it’s not easy for the parties to accept criticism from outside either.

In a situation where serious change has to happen, I’m afraid we will see defensive rhetoric’s from all sides in the coming year. Unions will try to defend their members from cut offs; management will try to defend the profit rate for their owners.

This energy rather ought to be used to discuss how to best serve the public in a manner they will benefit from, and enable the media/ news business to get a fair share of the value created.

Time to reflect, on blogging

Something happened today. It was input from a blog article that made me think.

I got it from twitter. It isn’t my words, unfortunately I didn’t bookmark, so now one of the ones I admire and respect for their meanings are left without credits for the insight I got.

Nevertheless this is how it goes. There are so many bits of information, opinion, statements during a day in my life I can’t keep up where I got it from. This is a touch of a set of ideas changing. Copyrights for one, and social behavior for another. We are brought up in a world where “collective consciousness” was an abstract idea (Jung), not a real phenomena happening to us everyday. (now it is!)

Well, to explain what I realized reading the blog article I read today. It was an article about why do agencies blog? Why do companies blog? Why do anyone blog? And the article pointed out a set of typical “social media reasons” for blogging, and engaging, such as it helps becoming personal, to be rated by search engines to promote your company, to build a personal brand and so forth.

And the author claimed that, despite of all consultants telling you that this is great reasons for blogging, it’s not. Most of blogs are copying (as I do now) other statements, from others without a genuine voice of themselves. Most bloggers are there to fulfill an idea of “have to” instead of “want to”

The blogger stated that most of professional blogs should stop blogging; they have no (inner) desire to blog, or anything of importance to say. One should blog because one wants something. Want to tell something (innerly), want to make a difference, want to point out something that others doesn’t see. Being a copycat is of no use.

I don’t know IF this is what the article really wanted to tell, but this is what I thought was of importance reading it. This is what collective consciousness is all about. You now need to read this posting all over again, because up till now you have had- even if you don’t wanted it, one question in your head: Who wrote: “What I am now referring to?” “Who is this blogger?” You should consider stop blogging, stop reading blogs if this question doesn’t go away, because it is missing the point, its missing the lesson I learned today.

Communicating is about having something to say, that is not put in that manner before, in order to give something, to somebody – hopefully. It’s about joy, communicating and it’s about having some skills in writing.

You might wonder why my blog went back being in English? Well that’s what I learned today. Every Norwegian I want to talk to, are able to read and understand my level of English, not everyone abroad are able to understand what I have the pleasure in telling are able to understand my native language; Norwegian.

For all blog articles from now on I’ll try to: State something that’s on my heart, something that’s not what I see everyone else already have stated, something that gives me pleasure to write about, and hopefully some of you get inspired to act on your own goals in life.

This blog posting inspired me by talks and readings of: @kairoer http://www.kairoer.com/ , and the blog article I commented on in this article was from @mitchjoel and this blog article: http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/this-blog-sucks-and-youre-probably-not-reading-this/

– So dear reader; you got a “pay of” after all, reading this posting to its end. Enjoy life and I’ll love to meet up and discuss !

” Bill mrk. Enslig konsulent søker selskap “

 Etter ganske mange år i konsulent- og rådgiverbransjen, har jeg funnet ut to ting: Jeg er god på det jeg driver på med, og jeg trives best når jeg jobber sammen med andre.

Det siste er en ganske nyvunnet erfaring, etter et års tid som selvstendig næringsdrivende. Det første er min nøkterne (om en u-jærsk ubeskjedne) vurdering av egen kompetanse etter ganske mange år som konsulent og rådgiver.

Du har sikkert skjønt tegningen allerede: Jeg har veldig lyst på nye kollegaer – altså en jobb hvor jeg igjen skaper noe bra sammen med noen, heller enn å jobbe alene for en kunde.

Prosjekter er også interessant, fordi da kan jeg gjøre det jeg elsker, mens jeg finner den rette stillingen i den virksomheten som virkelig trenger det jeg er god på.

Noen av dere kjenner meg, eller kjenner til meg og vet hva jeg kan, og er god på. Dere andre trenger kanskje noen knagger å henge ting på? Jeg har jobbet med og kan mye om:

Jeg kan forbedre virksomheters digitale løsninger:

• Som rådgiver.
• Som Strateg
• Som Forretningsutvikler
• Som Konseptualist
• Som Kommunikasjonsansvarlig/ rådgiver
• Som Prosjekt- prosess- og forhandlingsleder

Bransjer? Det er mange bransjer som vil tjene mye på å øke fokus på digitael aktiviteter.

For meg betyr det å kunne forstå brukere/ kunder, forretningsaspekter, teknologi og organisasjoner. – De mest fornuftige forbedringene kommer av et samspill mellom dette.

Jeg er god på å gjøre andre gode. Jeg liker å lede og å drive prosjekt- og prosesser fremover.

Jeg liker blandingen mellom å tenke «de store tankene» og å ta ansvar for å løse dem, med hjelp av å sikre at de små detaljene også er på plass. I tillegg kan jeg mye om relasjonssalg, det å kjøpe tjenester, forhandlinger og kontrakter innenfor digitale løsninger.

Det som «driver meg» er å se at jeg bidrar med å skape forbedringer.

Hvor kan det tenkes at dere, eller noen dere kjenner til har nytte av min kompetanse?

• I et en virksomhet der man trenger det jeg kan?
• I et selskap hvor man løser slike oppgaver for sine kunder?

Jeg ville setter veldig stor pris på tips, anbefaling, eller rett og slett et tilbud. Ta kontakt på e post stenegeir@gmail.com , twitter : @gstene, eller telefon 902 76 450

Bloggen min fant dere jo (siden dere leser dette) og kan scrolle nedover og se hva jeg har skrevet om.

Vil dere vite mer om CV, ta en titt på LinkedIn

Dialog eller ikke?

Fungerer internett og sosiale medier til dialog? Vil folk egentlig engasjere seg, spør Helena Makhotlova i Halogen. Jeg tenkte å kommentere Helenas bloggartikkel på Kjøkkenfesten. Men har for mye å si.

Derfor egen bloggartikkel inspirert av hennes innlegg «dialog? Nei, takk» Slik starter bloggartikkelen til Helena : «Undersøkelser viser at det er sjeldent mer enn 1% av brukere som aktivt engasjerer seg med merkevarer i sosiale medier. Brukere ønsker ikke å ha samtaler med selskaper. De vil ha godt innhold. Kringkastet.»

Selv sa jeg for noen år siden: “det finnes ingen “social media gurus” og at internett er relasjonell business”

Noen påstår at den prosentandelen som engasjerer seg er økende, som følge av at flere blir vant til å være aktive på nett og i sosiale medier, men jeg lar det ligge. Uansett er det nok riktig av det vil være de færreste som engasjerer seg spesielt aktivt i en merkevare. Og som Helena sier, hvorfor skulle de nå det?

Spørsmålet er hva defineres «engasjement» som? Og hva/hvem vil man være engasjert i? Er man «engasjert/ uengasjert» om man trykker «like/ ikke gjør det på Facebook? Jeg tror ikke dette viser om man er engasjert, eller ikke – og jeg skjønner fortsatt ikke at det er noe særlig verdi i et «like» på facebook, eller RT (re – tweet) på twitter, eller fem «stjerner» under et produkt til salgs hos el-kjøp.

Før i tiden, – før internett- gikk jeg aldri bort til Freia sjokoladefabrikk og snakket med inngangspartiet, eller Logoen deres, og nå går jeg ikke til Logoen selv om den er blitt digital. Jeg er ingen idiot!

Folk vil ikke snakke med et selskap, de vil snakke med mennesker. Jeg snakker ikke med Vegvesenet, jeg snakker med @EivindL (som han er på twitter) eller Eivind Lund som han heter, fordi jeg føler at jeg kjenner ham litt. I går engasjerte en annen seg, med nettopp @eivindL – og mente at begrepet «bilskilt» var et bedre utrykk enn det Vegvesenet brukte.(«registreringsnummer», «nummerplate» eller noe slikt). Stormberg fikk spørsmål fra folk på Facebook om de ikke kunne lage turtøy for barn som hadde større størrelser. Kunden mente at det var for liten mulighet for barn å bevege seg i dem –og at spesielt litt mer lubne barn trengte videre klær. Stormberg fikk produktutviklingstips av brukerne, hurtig og effektivt. Stormberg ber også om produktforslag og tips og premierer forslag som brukes. Disse enkle eksemplene er engasjement – satt i en kontekst. Kontekst er viktig!

De siste dagene synes jeg vi ser engasjement i overmål. 450 barn trues med å sendes ut av landet. Det er ikke bare @mariesimonsen (Marie Simonsen i dagbladet) som mener, eller samfunnsdebattanter på radio og TV. Kommentarfeltene i avisene fylles, twitterstrømmen går, blogginnleggene florerer. Mange engasjerer seg – i en sammenheng hvor de kan utrykke seg og nå frem direkte til @jensstoltenberg . Langt mer enn den påståtte 1% – i enkelte saker. Politisk engasjement har kanskje aldri hatt bedre vilkår enn nå med sosiale mediekanaler.

Spørsmålet er bare hva man engasjerer seg i? Det må ha en relevans , noe @nsb kan bekrefte (som for øvrig ER en logo man engasjerer seg i på Twitter) Helena Makhotlova skriver at folk ikke vil engasjere seg, de vil lytte: «Bare tenk – det er en milliard mennesker i sosiale medier som potensielt lytter til hva du har å si. Bare ikke ta det så personlig når du ikke får noen svar!»

Om vi tar ett eksempel til: Blogg.no – Norges 10 største nettsted (ifølge TNS Gallup) Portalen har på en uke 25.047 nye bloggartikler – og 69.295 nye kommentarer på disse blogginnleggene. Se denne presentasjonen

Jeg kaller det engasjement! OK det er 1,3 mill. unike brukere i uka, (ifølge blogg.no)  så % andelen «engasjerte» er «lavt» men har noen gjort en sammenligning med «før i tiden»? den gang da redaksjonene bestemte hvem som fikk publisert leserinnlegg og hvem som fikk publisert kommentarer? Jeg mener at folk vil – og de kan engasjere seg -i det som passer dem.

Det er de som før hadde «avsendermonopol» som er i en kinkig situasjon. Jeg mener at ønske om engasjement, fra selskaper i hovedsak er et “fordekt ønske”  – egentlig ønsker de seg ikke engasjement, men en effektiv kanal som gir dem mer salg og bedre omdømme – men de har ennå ikke lært seg at det er ikke deres ønske og motiv – forbrukeren er interessert i.

Forbrukeren er interessert i seg selv – og selskapet må ha lyst til å vite hva det engasjementet er og se om de kan gjøre noe for de enkelte som engasjerer seg. Premisset er m.a.o. endret, uten at selskapene egentlig har villet endre seg. Om forbrukeren, samfunnsdeltakeren har et eget motiv – eget ønske – da vil det gjerne i dialog, for å oppnå de man ønsker. Enten det er bedre mat på bensinstasjonene, mer presise togavganger, (eller noe så enkelt som at det er stikkontakt om bord slik at man kan få ladet mobiltelefon, nettbrett og PC) eller det handler om at man er indignert over NAV, utlendingspolitikk eller at verden gjør for lite for Syria, Norge gjør for lite for asylbarn, osv. osv. i disse dager.

Jeg tror ikke det er noe i veien med engasjementet, jeg tror at det er noe i veien med å ville lytte og delta på samfunnsborgernes og forbrukernes premisser. – men dette endrer seg fort.

Selskapers problem er at de er i villrede om hvordan «nyttiggjøre seg» de enorme verdiene som ligger der, i folks ønske om engasjement. Mitt forslag er å snu på problemstillingen. Det er bedre å legge merke til hvor behov og problemer er – og så søke å presentere løsninger for folk, gjerne med bruk av digitale virkemidler som sosiale medier.

Slik kan aviser ta betalt for innhold og kommersielle produkter

 

Avisbransjen er som vi alle vet inne i en svært spennende tid.

Det er store strukturendringer, det er en jakt på inntektsmodeller, selve journalistikken endres, alle «jakter» på å beholde leserne av papiravisen og på å tilby brukere digitalt innhold både tekstlig og audiovisuelt.

Dagens strategier
De strategiske valgene som nå gjøres er forskjellige. Morgenbladet og Klassekampen fokuserer på print. Dagsavisen legger (nesten?) alt sitt innhold bak betalingsmurer i løpet av kort tid. Det kan de gjøre ved hjelp av mediestøtteordningen, som den er nå – og ved en samkjøring av innhold, slik at leserne får samme innhold i alle plattformer. Hvordan det vil gå blir uhyre spennende å følge med på! VG og Dagbladet tviler jeg på vil (ønske/kunne) gå i en slik retning. Her er det helt andre utfordringer som må møtes. Torry Pedersens uttalelse i Kampanje tyder på at han i hvert fall vil gjøre alt han kan for ikke å bli sin bransjes «Kodak». ( noe Gisle Hannemyr kommenterer her) Aftenposten arbeider også kraftig for å beholde størst mulig inntekter på print abonnementsiden og vet at de må kompensere fallende opplagstall med økte digitale inntekter. Regionsaviser og lokalaviser er i stor grad eid av store aktører og har igjen andre konkurranseutfordringer, men har fordel av å være nettopp lokale og møter mindre konkurranse av den grunn. Nisjeaviser har noe av de samme fordelene ved å ha genuint innhold men har noen særegne utfordringer.

Felles for alle disse er at de må beholde så mange lesere de kan på print så lenge de kan og bygge opp inntektsmodeller digitalt som både folk og annonsører vil betale for.

Dekke behov og tilby noe som oppleves som fordelaktig
Jeg vet ikke hvilke resonnement som gjøres i styrerom og i ledergruppene rundt om i avishusene, men samtlige må tilby leserne noe de opplever at de har behov for og som hjelper dem i å «navigere» i samfunnet. Spørsmålet da vil være: Hva opplever leserne som en fordel for dem?

Å få svar på:

• Hva er nytt i dag, hva skjer?
• Hva er relevant for meg her jeg er og det jeg interesserer meg for?
• Hvordan kan jeg forstå det som skjer bedre?
• Hva burde jeg visst noe om?

Etter at internett kom og frem til nå tror jeg at lesere i økende grad opplever at de får disse spørsmålene mer eller mindre godt dekket via avisenes nettsider. (dvs. at de ikke opplever forskjeller mellom papir og nett som store nok, til at de beholder kjøpsvanene på papir) Robert Levine, (tidligere sjefsredaktør i Billboard og forfatter av boka «Free Ride») mener at det er betalingsvillige lesere i markedet. (les artikkelen i Aftenpostens nettutgave her) Robert Levine mener at hele kulturindustrien for tiden har, hva han kaller «gratispassasjerer», og at nettavisene er mediehusenes største fiende.

Jeg er ikke uenig i at nettløsningene til avisene er en utfordring, men mener analysen om at brukerne/ leserne er «gratispassasjerer» er å begynne i helt feil ende. Jeg mener at historisk sett at det er avishusene som har fått lesere og inntekter lettvint – om enn ikke helt «gratis». Hvert fall om man sammenligner med andre bransjer som har måttet arbeide mye hardere for å forstå målgruppene sine og deres behov/ problemer for så å kunne foreslå måter å løse dem.

Avisenes største «fiende» er ikke nettavisene eller leserne som ikke vil betale. Avisenes største fiende har vært deres tradisjonelle og veletablerte verdikjede og inntektsmodell. Det er dette avisene nå arbeider for å opprettholde – eller endre.

Inntektene på tradisjonell (banner) annonsering er for lave til å dekke kostnadene ved innholdsproduksjon i en digital verden. Løsningene på denne utfordringen har vært å redusere kostnader og effektivisere drift – bla. Ved samproduksjon (print/nett). Jeg har lenge hevdet at jeg ikke tror på denne modellen (med noen unntak). Ei heller tror jeg på forslaget til Robert Levine som i hovedsak ser ut til å være «Betalingsmurer». (Også med noen unntak)

Robert Levine sier noe annet interessant: «- Annonsørene betaler for kunnskap om leserne. Metoden vi har hatt til nå, har stort sett handlet om å telle antall lesere. Men annonsesalget på nettet baserer seg på hva du vet om leserne dine. Et tradisjonelt nyhetsmedium vet ikke spesielt mye, ikke kjønn, interesser eller alder.» Videre snakker han om at tjenester som Google, Facebook og Twitter vet mye om hvem man er, hva man etterspør, hvilke sosiale nettverk man har – og at det er de som tjener pengene online. Dette er veldig riktig og her mener jeg at avishusene har et godt stykke igjen å gå – men det er dit de må!

Jeg tror heller ikke det er en og samme typeløsninger som passer alle de forskjellige typene aviser. Det er stor forskjell på lokalaviser, løssalg, abonnementsaviser, og nisjeaviser. Derfor vil også løsningene på inntektsmodeller bli forskjellige. Uavhengig av dette er det to generiske faktorer som bør sees i sammenheng.

1. De forskjellige plattformene/kanalene har i stor grad samme innhold. Dette må for de fleste avishus endres. Om leserne opplever at de får dekket sitt nyhetsbehov gratis, er det forståelig at de ikke vil betale for samme produkt i en annen plattform / kanal.
2. Det må utvikles annonseprodukter som gir høyere verdi (og høyere betalingsvillighet) for annonsørene (som Robert Levine er inne på)

Et forslag er å lage forskjellig innhold på print, nettavis, lesebrett og mobil. Disse bør supporteres med egnede og sannsynligvis forskjellige forretningsmodeller. Nettavisen tror jeg det er klokt å la forbli gratis for brukere/ lesere. For å kunne legitimere betaling for de andre produktene må disse inneha kvaliteter og verdier som nettproduktet ikke har. En måte å tenke på er:

• Nettavisene fokuserer på hendelsesnyheter, interaksjon med lesere (debatt, blogg, brukergenerert innhold, nyhetstips, gaming osv.)
• Nettbrett tilbyr rike innholdsopplevelser: Tekst, touchdesign, bildejournalistikk, brett-TV, featurejournalistikk, samt gaming osv.
• Mobilproduktet er i høy grad personifisert og leser filtrert på eks. tema og kan tilby automatisk lokaliserings- og «pull» løsninger.
• Print- produktet tror jeg vil stå sterkest ved å øke papirkvalitet og grafisk/visuell design kraftig og tilby innhold som har lang varighet/ gyldighet. Feature, analyse og samfunnsstoff med både nasjonale og internasjonale perspektiver.

Dette er eksempler på hvordan aviser kan skape forskjellige produkter som utfyller hverandre, snarere enn å kannibalisere hverandre. Konsekvensen av dette er selvfølgelig at nettavisproduktet blir et «tynnere» journalistisk produkt enn i dag. Samtidig må ikke nettavisen som produkt bli et dårlig produkt. Det skal bidra til å bygge avishusets merkevare, øke interaksjon med brukere/ lesere (som kan brukes til flere forretningsformål) og markedsføre de betalte produktene i de andre kanalene/ plattformene osv. Dette vil kunne gi leserne behov for å benytte flere av avishusets produkter, noe som igjen gir grunnlag for å skape passende forretningsmodeller.

Kommersielle produkter i aviser
Aviser har tradisjonelt tjent pengene på annonsering og abonnementsinntekter. Frem til i dag har det dominerende kommersielle produktet bestått av forskjellige annonseformater (bannerannonser osv.) Rubrikkmarkedet er i all hovedsak overtatt av aktører som finn.no. Det er andre tjenester og produkter også, så som vektklubb, datingtjenester, kupong/ rabattløsninger osv. som bidrar til inntjeningen i avisene.

Geolokaliseringstjenester, kontekstuell- og atferdsreklameer på full fart inn i internettverden og har bare blitt benyttet av aviser i liten grad. Disse løsningene vil ha langt bedre forutsetninger for å skape større inntekter, dersom man differensierer innholdet i forskjellige produkter.

Annonsering som forretningsmodell er i all enkelhet å selge flest mulig lesere/ brukere til flest mulig annonsører til en høyest mulig pris. På web har man ikke klart å få spesielt høy pris for annonser, fordi det ikke har gitt annonsørene tilstrekkelig høy verdi tilbake. Dersom avisene vet mer om sine lesere (hvem de er, deres atferd, motivasjoner osv.) vil man kunne tilby kommersielle produkter av høyere verdi. Trendanalyser (sanntid), utnytte informasjon om leserne som øker deres konverteringsrate (folk utfører ønsket handling som f.eks. kjøpe et produkt) er to eksempler på å skifte fokus og heller selge informasjon om leserne enn bare å selge dem i volum.

Det er også spennende å se for seg om avisbransjen leverer annet innhold enn det man tradisjonelt har gjort. Et eksempel er å levere innhold som ingen andre har. Eksklusivitet har alltid hatt verdi. Kanskje VG’s, Dagbladets eller Aftenpostens økonomiredaksjon kan gå analyseselskaper i næringen og selge økonomirapporter/ analyser til næringslivet? Eller at man slår seg sammen med forlag eller filmselskap og blir ebokforhandler/ filmstreamingleverandør?

Det er vanskelig å spå om fremtiden men to ting er nokså sikkert:

1. Avisbransjen kommer aldri til å være det den engang var.
2. Folk har etterspurt innhold til alle tider og vil fortsette å gjøre det.

Les også :

What’s to do for the media business in turbulent times?

Medan bokbransjen leitar etter vegen, går andre på den.

Nokre gonger skal ein sjå etter andre stader enn der ein fyrst tenkjer at ein vil finne det ein ser etter. Forlag- og bokbransjen leitar etter ein veg å gå frå papir, til også å finne dei lønsame digitale løysingane.

Det er litt som då eg ein gong for lenge sidan vart kjend med Helge Torvund.

Fyrst såg eg føtene hans. Då eg var gut var eg titt på besøk hjå kameraten min og no og då hende det at dei vaksne hadde fest. Då låg me borna under stuebordet, slik at dei ikkje såg oss og me slapp å gå å leggje oss. Der under bordet høyrde me dei vaksne skåle, synge og spele gitar. Dei snakka om kunst, om litteratur, om keramikk og Japanarar. Eit av para med føter var Helge Torvund sine. Slik vart eg kjend med han. Han hadde utgjeve diktsamling alt då, trur eg. Han var diktar.

Dette var på syttitalet ein gong, og åra gjekk, eg vart vaksen og brått var eg på internett og no seinare på Twitter.

Der, ein dag dukka @2rvund (Helge Torvund) opp, ein morgon, nett då sola lagar slikt lys som gjer at ein ser etter. Det gjorde eg med dei fyrste Twittermeldingane hans òg, såg etter. 140 teikn, tankeskisser og klår poesi. Mest kvar morgon kom dei orda som fekk mange av oss til å tenkje tankane våre betre.

Og slik har det vore sidan. Så kom ein twittersamtale mellom han og @eidsvag (Bjørn Eidsvåg) og etterkvart vart det den hiten me alle trudde det ville verte. «Oppe for show,nede for telling» Mykje kan kome ut av dialog i digitale univers.

Så kom Alabama? Lite visste eg at det ikkje berre var eit artig påfunn og seinkveldstwitterhumor om ein stad i Amerika. Men etterkvart skjøna eg at det var ei diktsamling. Ei bok. Ei bok som vart snakka om på Twitter, som det vart laga biletblogg av om kor denne boka har vore.

No har diktsamlinga Alabama? vandra frå kjøkkenbenken til han Helge, ut i verda, heile verda. Ho har vandra frå hendene til Helge, fått hans signatur og helsing, vorten sendt til alle som har bedt om det – på Twitter. Helge Torvund har fylt Litteraturhuset, Rogaland teatersal og utallege bibliotek, kor han har lese frå boka si, til dei som vil verta betre kjende med Helge sine setningar, lest av han. Slik merksemd fortel @2rvund meg at han ikkje har fått før. Diktsamlingar plar ikkje få det. Fulle hus.

No kjem ei anna bok, Vivaldi, den ser ut til å få same lagnaden, frå kjøkkenbenken, via hendene og fyllepennen til Helge med signatur til alle på Twitter som finn verdi i å lese gode setningar og bli betre kjend med forfattaren bak orda.

Kva har dette med bokbransjen å gjere? Ikkje så mykje, og det er nett det som er poenget.

Forlag og bokhandlar har ikkje leita etter digitalvegen på rette stadane. Dei har ikkje gjort noko i digitale univers som har gjort at døme eg har brukt her; Alabama? er seld fire, kan hende fem gonger så mykje som andre diktsamlingar. Det har Helge gjort sjølv, blant anna på Twitter.

Samstundes har Helge vist noko svært vesentleg. Det vesentlege i det nære, det å kjenne, det å være tilstades hjå og med sine lesarar. Den digitale dialogen har forsterka det personlege og det fysiske møte mellom litteratur, tilhøyrar og forfattar.

Her kan forlag og bokbransjen verkeleg lære noko; denne gongen kom det frå noko av det smalaste, minst kommersielle innan litteraturen. Det er forfatterane og dikterane som sjølv les frå bøkene sine, skriv på Twitter og sjølv finn vegen mellom den tradisjonelle rolla og den nye tida.

Er forlag- og bokbransjen rusta for å ta spranget saman med dei (eg vonar det), eller vil fleire og fleire forfattarar og diktarar i framtida velje å gå vegen utan dei?

Tradisjonelle medieinstitusjoner er de “lost” ?

Jeg har skrevet om media  og hva som skal til for at medie- institusjonene har en funksjon inn i fremtiden tidligere. Nå skriver jeg om det en gang til. Samtlige medieinstitusjoner står midt oppe i radikale forandringer. Og ingen av dem synes å ville være med på det.

Robert G. Picard, en av de mest anerkjente økonomiekspertene innenfor mediebransjen gir relativt kraftig kritikk i forhold til mediebransjens økonomiske evner. De er riktignok farget av  at han er amerikaner, likevel har han  noen poeng.

Massemediene, som vi kjenner dem, hevder han, har hatt ett par hundre år, hvor man i bransjen ikke   har måttet beskjeftige seg med forretningsmodeller, eller å fundere på hvor inntektene skal komme fra.  Som et etablert ”massemedium” var det slik at publikum kjøpte avisene for å være opplyst og ingen stilte nevneverdige spørsmål videre. Tilhørigheten til hvilke medier man kjøpte av handlet mest om politisk tilhørighet. Denne ideen har levd så lenge at jeg har selv har snakket med folk  som ”savner ”Dagbladet som kulturpolitisk avis”. Det er faktisk lenge siden den har vært det!. Men ”vi” venter altså fortsatt., – snakk om god branding! Lars Helle hvor er du?

Forleden dag snakket jeg med en annen konserndirektør innenfor norsk medieverden. Vi var ”ukomfortabelt” enige. Det er behov for strukturelle endringer. Store. Alle journalister jeg har snakket med er engstelige for den slags snakk fra konsern, eller eierstrukturer. Jeg forstår ikke dette. Fremtiden eies kun av en eneste ting: Publikums opplevelse av å ha en fordel: Hvilken kunnskap kan dere medier gi meg, som jeg ikke kan fremskaffe selv? Slik tenker vi, vi utenfor journalistikken, utenfor medieverden.   Hva har dere å tilby? – om du vil. Det journalistiske faget står under ekstremt press, men det er ikke det verste, for kunnskapen (om enn fattigslig) kan publikum finne ved å ”Google” er enorm, men hvilken kunnskap gir google? Journalistikk er enda viktigere enn noen gang før, hva kan ikke ”Googles”? etter min mening : Kunnskap, erkjennelse. Når jeg leser tabloid og løssalgsavisene i Norge, eller majoriteten i  verden, savner jeg å tro på journalistisk kunnskapsformidling. Det er som om jeg selv kunne ”Googlet” meg til resultatet, hvorfor betale for å ikke å bli klokere da? Jeg “vet alt” men jeg forstår lite…

For å snakke om mediene – dvs. plateselskapene (husker dere?) filmselskapene( merker dere hva de hindrer oss i?) avishusene( ser dere hva de hindrer oss i?) magasinene( hvilken glede de ga oss) forlagene (hva holder dere egentlig på med?) – og hvor blir det av Donald Duck? Samtlige kjemper for en utdøende ide…

Det er en enorm kamp der ute – og vi som bare har lyst på de gode historiene, hvem spør oss? – Ingen. Og i den fasen av utviklingen er dette litt forenklet sagt ikke klokt. Vi – dvs. lesere, forbrukere, publikum vi vil ha noen som hjelper oss og gjør oss klokere. Vi har, som mennesker villet ha – og vist at vi vil ha -noen som hjelper oss til å bli klokere i minst 28.000 år. Og vi vil gjerne betale for det. Betalingsviljen er ikke et problem. Problemet er ca. 200 års vanetenkning innen (enveis) massekommunikasjon om hvordan ta betalt for innholdsproduksjon. Nå er dette endret, systemene for hvordan ta betalt,-  ikke viljen til å betale for seg-  er i endring. Kun det. Så hvorfor stritte i mot? De neste 28.000 år vil folk gjerne ha god faglig journalististikk, stor fortellerevne og kunstneriske utrykk og er villig til å betale for det, på den ene, eller den andre måten. Jeg ber dere ganske enkelt om å la være å stritte i mot fremtiden, for det er ikke så vanskelig som det kan se ut som.

Plateselskaper, kommer ikke til å være en suksesshistorie i fremtiden. Ikke tenk ideen om å lage et plateselskap! Det er smartere å tenke at man skal være et musikkselskap. Film. Ja hva skal man si, makten fra Hollywoodsystemet er ennå stor. Eies av sånne som Sony etc. Men hvor lenge holder det? Hvem eier gleden av fortellingene på Youtube? Hvor er den gode historien? Kapitalkrefter er ikke et godt måleparameter.  Kinofiilmen vil leve, den vil leve godt, jeg er usikker på hvordan de neste femti år. Men den har kvaliteter som ikke kan erstattes. Kan hende at det krever ett glass vin, ett event, en filmpersonlighet tilstede osv. (men slik var jo opprinnelsen til filmkjendisene. -Tilstedeværelse. Kjære journalister, vær tilstede med dere selv, dyrk faget!

Som sagt med mange ord: Massemediene blir ikke borte, med mindre dere – fagfolkene flykter. Om dere flykter er det fordi dere ikke skjønner elementære økonomiske prinisipp: Lever verdi til deres “kunder”/ lesere – som oppleves – for dem større en det de opplever at de betaler for.

The Norwegian e-book database is able to challenge Apple and Amazon.com!

The Norwegian ebook database “Bokskyen” (“Book cloud”) is capable of challenging both Apple and Amazon.com. I just wonder if they are aware of the value they have at hand?

In an article in Aftenposten today I read that the technology used and the set up they have made in the platform created they may avoid becoming dependent on Apple’s and Amazon.com walled garden ebook strategy. I knew this two years ago, when the ebook platform was presented in “Web dagene 2009”, based upon the way they explained the technology.

Since then the owners of the platform ( CapplenDamm, Gyldendal and Aschehoug ) have focused on a strategy where the political fight concerning VAT and governmental regulative agreements have been the focus. Also keeping the “old publishing hegemony” have been a important strategy of the publishing houses in Norway, as in many parts of the world. Meanwhile the Norwegian bookreaders have become eager customers of both Apples ibook and of course Amazon.com for purchasing their e books. I’m not at all sure that the publishing companies have had the best strategy up till now, training their market to use the main (and world leading) competitors.

As for now it seems like the positive news, that they now seem confident and happy to be able to avoid Apple and Amazon.com and by that being able to keep a larger part of the profit, is the benefit they see. They are happy for the “deals” made with the government and for being able to keep a pricing model they feel they can live by, mainly continuing their business in traditional ways. This is not a great strategy for the future. In best case it’s an OK short term tactics that have worked out well – for now.

I believe that they don’t see other than only a very small part of the real business value that’s embedded in the platform they have at hand. Both Apple and amazon.com should be looking out. Google should have a closer look at what is really going on. Not to mention, the owners of the platform themselves should ask themselves if they haven’t overlooked something of importance. What that is? – Well they are welcome to define where they want to be the next decade and come and ask me how to get there.

Wikileaks is a test of our democracies in the digital era

It’s disturbing what happens with Wikileaks and how governments worldwide react. Lately it’s Twitter that’s “under attach”, as these two articles from the Guardian and Telegraph points out.

To me it seems like politicians, governments and bureaucrats worldwide are seriously perplexed and mislead by their own fear.

Can leaks be stopped?
Politicians and governments does everything in their power to stop Wikileaks, including putting pressure on Twitter and also major private corporations, such as Visa, PayPal, Apple, Bank of America, Amazon.com and other companies running server parks around the world.

It’s like they haven’t realized that the Internet is here. There are no ways to stop the digital era and the spread of information such as misuse of power,  except for one thing: Act within the national and international laws, be transparent, embrace the ethic and moral standards we are so proud of in the western societies. Then there will be no need for fear of scandals.

Why attack Wikileaks?
The central question is really this: If Wikileaks didn’t exist, would confidential material still have been published? My bet is – yes it would, and I may add – it should! All material that has a public interest should be published.

Wikileaks is nothing but a mediator. The leaks have come, as it always has, from whistle-blowers with access and motifs, not all of them noble. The only new is the amount of revealed documents and secrets. More than 250 000 documents is said to be in the hands of Wikileaks, only a few thousand documents have been revealed to the public, and most likely even fewer published in the news till now.

Why refuse to comment on the leaks?
What is a radical trend is that governments in several cases refuse to comment on revealed information because it’s a leak via Wikileaks (mark: Wikileaks is NOT a source- it’s a mediator) this statement from the Norwegian foreign affairs is an example:

“- We are generally reluctant to comment on internal reports that are published by WikiLeaks and believe that such leaks are unfortunate. Confidential communications and contacts are a vital and necessary part of diplomacy,”“said Imerslund.”

Even the United Nations officials refuses to comment on Wikileaks revealed news:

“The United Nations says it will not comment on documents leaked by the whistle-blowing website, Wikileaks.” The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, also declined to comment on the documents.

The real problem
This is not only clumsy; it’s a democratic problem of dimensions! Shouldn’t we not take leaks like the killings of journalists in Iraq, the leaks concerning the Israeli Government and their strategy towards Gaza and a lot of other dramatic facts seriously  because it came from the mediator Wikileaks?  And shouldn’t we all worry when the US department of justice issued a subpoena against Twitter to obtain personal details of five individuals connected to Wikileaks? (Including a member of the parliament of Iceland!) – And even worse, have tried to keep it all secret! People are now starting to question whether Facebook, Google or others have been ordered the same kind of subpoenas.

This article by Jon Wessel Aas in the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen explains excellently a wide range of reasons why Wikileaks have to be defended. Of course we should get worried, and we should embrace that we have a very powerful information flow via the Internet, that we still have a well functioning critical media that dares to reveal what goes on behind the curtains of power.

A dilemma
On the other hand there is a dilemma with Wikileaks. They seem to want to control the publishing of the leaks. Sarah Ellison wrote an article in the Vanity fair about Julian Assanges meeting with the Guardian concerning who is to control publishing of secrets from the Wikileak files. To me it’s the amount of secret content, unclear motifs and that one small organization have the control of what, where and when to publish that represent a major democratic problem. I think that media organizations have spent very little time, up till recently, discussing this aspect. This seems to have been resolved by the ironic fact that Wikileaks themselves had a leak – according to the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. Another aspect is that other whistle- blowing sites are popping up according to Wall Street Journal. This makes the dilemma with Wikileaks less troublesome.

” The spirit is out of the oil lamp”
Politician’s and governments have no choice anymore.. Refusing to comment on allegations is not the answer. Whistle- blower websites aren’t going to go away. It has become radically more difficult to keep secrets. The Internet is a part of the digital era. It is great news for the democracy and terrifying for those who act behind the scenes with hidden agendas and “ugly motifs”. This new global transparency and speed of sharing information will hopefully help reducing corruption, genocide, global governmental mismanagement and a lot of other kinds of abuse of power from people, organizations and nations with substantial power. My advice to politicians, governments and officials is to act pro- actively, answer openly and willingly to allegations and to take serious and swift actions to correct faults made. Otherwise it’s our democracy that’s at stake, and the one to blame will in fact be our own politicians and governments.

The digital revolution involve you

We are in the midst of a revolution. Surely there are no digital armies, not riots on the streets, people  shouting “Digital – digital- digital now!”

There isn’t a digital bloodshed nor any ‘analogue heads’ chopped off. Nevertheless it’s a revolution going on, and it’s affecting us all in fundamentally ways.

 

I’m not sure what started it, maybe the introduction of the Internet is a starting point, and maybe it isn’t? In any event, the ways we use Internet have changed the basics of how we publicly communicate, conduct business and relationships with friends and our communities. It’s changed the definition of what a ‘public‘ is.

We used to have systems and technologies of: One – to one communications (like a letter or a telephone conversation) and we used to have one-to many communications (like the radio and newspapers).

The Internet represents a continuous communication between the masses and at the same time all the communication forms mentioned above. It influences all aspects of society: Politics, commerce, media, warfare and even the private sphere.

What is going on?
We are discussing all kinds of topics at the same time, and it becomes a myriad where it is difficult to apart the subjects. Some subjects are interwoven; some subjects are wrongly mixed together and are just creating confusion. We are discussing changes of the democracy (for those nations having that established) changes of how to conduct business, changes in the medias and even changes in the way our minds function.

There is no consensus if this is good or bad. Not really. Some are arguing that our capitalistic system is breaking down, and there is a need of a new one. Some uses the opportunity to crave for stronger control over the population and the digital flow of information. Some celebrate it and call it liberation, a kind of anarchism that will “save” us. Whom to believe?

Other questions are: Will this ever end? How long does it take until the dust settles? What’s next? Some says that they have all the answers, others that there are none. Its surely an exciting time to live in. All rules seems to be rewritten, or are they?

Some facts:

• No civilization has been there since the beginning of time.
• No civilization has stayed static.
• Every revolution (from the Latin Revolutio, “a turnaround” is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time…” – Wikipedia) alter what was before, with an uncertain future while being in the midst of it.
• The basic behavioral patterns in humans changes very slowly.
• People are highly adaptive to change in living conditions.

This means that, as humans, we have been exposed to change at all times. We adapt very well to changes in the surrounding circumstances and we keep some very typical behavioral patterns, such as being social and relational, striving for a safe life and a mind expanding lifestyle where cultural activities keep being some fundamentals we haven’t “given up”

Business
The way we organize work, provide and exchange values (goods, services) may change in structure, but we will still need each other to make everything we need, wish for and desire.

In a digital business the most obvious up till now is exactly this: Shared value chains, shared services, split revenue sharing. The way digital economics works is based on very old ideas: “The market place”(e.g. Kelkoo) “Community sales” (e.g. home parties like Tupperware, musicnodes.no ) one of the most effective marketing techniques are Direct mailing and social spread of opinions (word of mouth, rating)

How to organize work? Well the industrialism didn’t last very long, did it? We got that system in the 18th to the 19th century and it may take some years yet, but if you ask a blue collar worker in the western hemisphere (a shipyard worker in Norway, an automaker in the USA) you will be told loud and clearly that it’s going downhill. We don’t need the factory bells anymore, and we don’t need to clock- in anymore. Nowadays lots of us have’ mobile office’, and a cell phone where customers call, mail, Skype us at all times. Another reality; our clients might be in any time zones around the world. It’s not only consultants and ‘men in business suits’, it might as well be artists, poets, dancers, small family businesses and farmers. Does this resemble the way work was organized before the industrial revolution?

Communications
Never before have so many been able to consume, and take part in producing so much content. We read, watch, listen to all kinds of content, and to an extent that nobody could predict only 100 years ago. It’s said that an average teen, nowadays have more knowledge than Isaac Newton. The teen nowadays might not be as curious, but still.  The institutional structures are falling, and we do not know the outcome. Gutenberg never anticipated the outcome of the print press either.

But there is no need to be naive and to think that finally “the power came to the people”. The propaganda machinery in China, North Korea, Iran, USA and also Norway has an easy match these days. I’m not talking about the governments and military only. Corporations, criminals and political groups also know how to manipulate, and they do.

The private sphere
Kevin Kelly has said it better than anyone. He said something like that the Internet is not something out there, it’s surrounding us, it’s everywhere, it’s in everything. That makes our former idea of private and public irrelevant. At the moment we are confused by what role we have at work, and when we are private. We are concerned about privacy, and that government shouldn’t be able to conduct mass surveillance. At the same time we are freely giving out the most personal information to a wide range of Internet offerings, like Google, facebook, Amazon, YouTube and  iTunes to name a few. We gladly provide information on our name, gender, age, civil status, hobbies, purchases and locations. I don’t think this is necessarily bad for us, but there is no, or very little control mechanisms in place. The best example of how to make sense is to look to Visa. Visa has established a promise toward us. -They keep the secrecy about our credit card usage, and take responsibility to prevent us from fraud. They exclude businesses trying to cheat us, or misuse credit card information they have.  They have built a trusted relationship with all parties involved to let business on Internet happen.

The future
The digital revolution is like a wave at the ocean, you cannot stop the movement once started, but you can find ways to ride the wave.  Some people react at change with fear, and become insecure. Some people let their arms fall down passively and let the changes happen, feeling out of control. None of them will influence and participate in creating how the future will evolve.

I believe that every action taken now, by each and every one of us, will influence how the future will look like. If we embrace large global corporations uncritical, they will surely set the rules of the game. If we let governments grasp the opportunity to take control over our lives, they will – all over the world, whatever they call it. But if we, each one of us discuss, take part in our way, locally, by our blogs, our statements on facebook or twitter. If we address corporations and tell them how we want them to act, in order to conduct relational business with them, if we persistently demand our politicians to act on our behalf to protect the democratic ideas and demand that ethics should be incorporated in their every action. I think the digital revolution is worth it, and that it will lead to a constructive evolution; if we do our part of shaping the future.

Does Media businesses want to survive?

Reality is harsh for the media business, and has been so for the last decade. Is there any chance for the business to survive? It depends on what is the definition of what a media business is, and it depends on the media companies of today.

Ivar Trondsmo wrote about this in the Norwegian Aftenposten today. You can read it HERE The head of information in the Norwegian publishing house Gyldendal presented what they think is “six myths about the e-book”  HERE, what do you think represent the most relevant arguments for the future?

Why not ask the important question? What do we need the media production for? In my opinion, if we know the purpose, the business models and organization of it will evolve. The question is if the media institutions of today are willing to change, in order to be a future participant in the business.

I have a suggestion that I’d like to invite you to evolve and improve.

Using the press as a category for all news activities in TV, Radio, magazine, papers, web sites and so forth, and Publishing as another category for all production of “story telling” factual and fictional, in film, TV, books and so forth I hope to have made a simple viewpoint to discuss the core of what we as society want from media production, or – production of meaning. I don’t know if it’s sufficient, but hopefully you help evolve the perspective with me.

The press: We need the press to watch out and protect the democracy. This requires skills, quality, and guts.

Publishing: We need publishing to engage and tell us about life and what society is all about. It helps us understand ourselves and the relations we have towards other, as individuals and as communities. Publishing keeps us from falling out of culture and into barbary.

How to best ensure a system that provides these goals? As of today, the traditional media institutions are using their energy to preserve the power of yesterday, and aren’t able to realize that the fact is that this power structure is lost already. My problem of the ongoing development is that neither Apple, Amazon, Google,(or the like)  with their Apps stores, you tube sites iPad, Kindles and so forth have given an answer to what their purpose is, –  not a purpose we as a global, national society or for that matter individuals needs and wants.

Content production and products. I don’t think that it’s fruitful to fear the digital revolution, nor to be afraid of the “announced death of print”.  The printed newspaper, magazine, book have a glorious future in my opinion. They will surely evolve in quality and the prices change (as the volume of sold units will decrease, and most likely the profit increase). The digital business models are there, in place already. The Press and Publishing businesses needs to align their products, work-flows, processes, organizations and business models to a digital environment.All to be a part of the future. If they don’t want to, it’s not a real problem, others are already here to take their positions. I only hope it will be players in the business that are fulfilling our needs and wishes;  of a free press and an enlightening publishing system.

Publishing as the monks? In an internet world?

I could seem like Publishers have the same faith as the monks of the Catholic Church had in 1439 when the Print press came around and put the monks out of the labor of copying the Bible; they never thought it possible to replace the handwritten Holy book.

But a week ago one of the major Norwegian Publishing houses Gyldendal published posting at their blog an argumentation that reassemble the attitude of the old  monks and I simply cannot understand that it’s possible.

The blog posting is HERE (in Norwegian. The ingress states: “What’s the cost of publishing an e book?” Further readings on the subject be found at Eirik Newths blog (remember google translator can be used if not able to read Norwegian)

Why is it I have spent a full week thinking, before commenting on this? Simply because it’s difficult to believe the argumentation behind the figures presented. I’ve been speechless for a week on this subject. Now I’m able to speak again, – somewhat.

Gyldendal as a Norwegian Publishing house is not alone in this. This is NOT an attack on one singular Publisher, not in Norway, nor elsewhere. My comments aren’t even limited to Publishing houses providing books to the market. My comments are related to the whole of the industry of media productions including the press, publishing, music, broadcasting and so forth. There’s something happening within the media organizations, which are troublesome. –  It might be fear.

In short, the argumentation in the blog posting from Gyldendal shows how the industry has, for long,  wanted reality to be. Publishing houses are in problems, and still – in Norway – they doesn’t want to publish e books in Norwegian language ?!?  It all started approximately 10 years ago (The Internet was not something that would go away easily )and has evolved in several steps: (seen from a  publishing house perspective)

1) “No-  the decreasing revenues have no structural reasons – it will pass.”  (denial)
2) “There is a shift in media consumption, and we don’t fully understand it.” (still denial)
3) “Something is happening, nobody knows what it is.” (confusion)
4) “Internet is to blame, and we were stupid to give away content for free.”  (anger)
5) “Governments has to protect us” (grief)
6)” We have to get paid for the expenses we have.” (start of acceptance)

Anyone present able to see the flaw in this thinking? At the same time period Internet have evolved:

1) Internet is used for the web to present content, mostly for free
2) Advertisement is established as a revenue stream
3) Retail starts offering products via the Internet
4) Banking and travel businesses goes digital
5) The public sector goes digital and start offering digital self service solutions
6) Internet starts getting semantic, and long ago the knowledge of business on the Internet is established by understanding that the main value is knowledge about the users and how to syndicated services and offers towards them.

Anyone now getting the picture of how far off the media industry has been?

Fortunately the large picture isn’t as bad as it seems. Today I read the Schibsted ( one of the major players in the media industry in Norway have done a clever move. They have established a company that’s going to invest in start ups, to develop and grow great ideas for content and storytelling in a digital future. Look HERE , (and use google translator if you don’t’ know the minority language Norwegian) Most media houses have employed digital expertise, and established digital departments within their organizations. This is great steps in the right direction. Still it’s unclear what direction this is. That’s still a problem! If you do not know where you are heading – it’s not easy to get there. Schibsteds action seems clever, because it lets development happen outside of the traditional media organization (remember the comment I made in the start of this posting about the Catholic monks?) I believe that the people working in a organization with a 250 year history of backing and defining what they are, and what a “Public audience is” most likely aren’t able – as an organization- to do the actions needed to survive – not alone!  An important speech by Jay Rosen (Inaugural Lecture at Sciences Po école du journalisme in Paris sept 2010) explains some very important aspects of the rise and fall of the “audience” as we have known it.

Back to Gyldendals published figures of the cost of a print book and an e book. They may add up, but they have no relevance. The figures represent a need /wish to maintain the “old model”, to ensure the people continuing doing what they always did, to ensure that the publishers (heavily invested in book stores) get their investments back. And none of this has anything to do with the market, (the people/ audience) –  now able to decide not to join the ideas of what a piece of literature should cost.

The market offer books, e books, told stories in other manners than what a “Publisher” wants. (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple – and the Norwegian bookstore Haugen bok are more than ready to grasp the market, excluding the publishing houses – but without any other motifs than profit) By that, the publishers have forgotten what Gutenberg had to offer: A cheaper, more democratic, simpler way to add value for everyone able to read. The added value was Knowledge, without dependency. – This used to be the pride of media houses, content producers of any kind. It looks like someone forgot this, and it seems like the conservative and protecting mode may very well scare away some of the most valuable assets the media industry have to offer to the population of the world – protection of the democracy on the altar of their misunderstood job security.

A pop song born on twitter “ Nede for telling ”

It’s just great when events happen and it’s clear what made the difference. The age of transformations are here, and it’s not always to easy to find examples of direct impact. Yesterday we got one.

Quite some time ago, one of Norway’s popular and dear artists Bjørn Eidsvåg;  @eidsvag,  came across a tweet from another twitter user;  Helge Torvund; @2rvund. He is also well known in Norway, he’s an author and publish amongst others: Excellent poetry and children’s books.

The twitter message was a short (twitter ) poem by Helge. Bjørn Eidsvåg states that he saw the tweet as a chorus, and asked @2rvund if he wanted to expand the text .-  As most things on twitter; people join into the conversations, and ideas tend to expand. This event could have ended there,with a statement;  “nice text Helge” and a pat on the shoulder. But this twitter message ended up as a great single, released yesterday. You can listen to it here: Nede for telling More of the single @Oslopuls HERE

As a “happening” @eidsvag and @2rvund had a “Tweet conference” to honor the origin of the idea / birth of the text/ song in addition to traditional interviews and “press conference” when this single was released yesterday.

In my opinion it’s an example of how the media transformation takes place in real life; not in sudden dramatic shifts, but in concrete steps along a path that slowly grows wider until it’s the common way of “doing things” in a digital world. Nevertheless it’s the small concrete steps that counts. And as @2rvund states in a twitter message ” It’s odd to think about , but this text wouldn’t be born without  twitter.”
 

Social Media in a [business] perspective

Social Media is such a new term, that I reject the possibility that there already could exist something that could be said to be a “Social Media guru. “ There is no such thing!  You have to sort it out for yourself, and for your business

If you are a manager, or need to get your manager or customers to understand why one should get involved with Social Media activities, this blog posting might come handy. (a PPT presentation HERE) Maybe the buzz word itself might stand in the way to understand how to make business in Social Media? Social Media have had a sound to it that gives the associations towards the social aspect, as if that is a waste of time in a business context, yet another “cocktail party?” Another way of phrasing it might help to give a different immediate association: How to benefit from making the most out of “Relational Business” – is this going to improve the revenue streams, it this something the executive board would like to listen to?

We are all online. There’s a huge amount of statistics showing the mass of people being occupied in these Social Media, and I’ll not bore you with too much statistics. (if you want more THIS youtube video should be ‘it’ ) The important bit is to understand that in order to reach out to your audience, to the market you needed to be where they are and communicate in the language they are speaking. In Norway almost 2/3 of all Internet users (a penetration that’s approximately 85% of the population) are visiting and engaging in the popular community Facebook, weekly. That gives a huge market reach in the small nation of Norway. (Facebook has  2.262.820 registered members in Norway!  Youtube (1.637.178), Wikipedia (1.508.333) and Twitter (228.444) to name a few. (source TNS Gallup, Interbuss Q2, 2010)

The Native Internet generation is going offline? Another research from Germany is very interesting (Spiegel.de).  The research tells us that “The Native Internet generation” is logging off! What? Logging off the internet?  – Well not quite so, but it shows that young people that have never lived without the Internet aren’t interested in it at all; It’s become; just a part of life – nothing to talk about. The time spent in digital media is still high and it’s very clear where their interests are. It’s to be involved with friends and their network, on- or offline. Being “online or offline” is an absurd term for them. Being in contact with their friends isn’t. The youth have Internet internalized, that means that it’s taken for granted. It also means that social relations and entertainment are more relevant terms for them. At the same time youngsters aren’t as digital competent as we might believe. How to gather information, or increase their level of knowledge, filter or evaluate, isn’t something they neither are competent nor interested in.  From a business perspective, this is valuable information, indeed. It means that services, and offerings toward people that want to relate, that want to have easy answers without having to struggle, not to have to interpret the possible values, most likely will be the kind of offerings that will be preferred – internalized,” invisible” services.

Does this mean that Social Media have changed the rules of business – forever? I think yes, and no at the same time. I’ll give you a couple of concepts that are typical for what we will see a lot of the next months and coming years.  – All new cars got an installed GPS these days, to help us navigate. We all have cell phones, some even synchronized with a cell phone device in the car. This means I have knowledge of who you are, and where you are. In other words I know the demographics, and I know your location. Furthermore, the new cars have a car computer, to help the service and maintenance of the car. This means that I know the state of your car, how much gas there is on your gas tank, and for how long the car has been moving. By this I can assume some desires you as a driver might have, even before you think of it yourself. (Remember what I said about the native internet generation? Their internalized relation to the internet, make them expect to be connected and that they are in touch and have their needs fulfilled without having to search and actively find out things by themselves) By combining the information I have ( in this example) I can provide syndicated solutions, options to solve unmet, and sometimes unconscious needs. In this example; to give you (on the screen of your GPS, or voice) the information of how little gas you have left, and suggest that you stop at “your” gas station (since I know what relation you – or rather your membership gasoline company card – have to which gasoline company). At the same time, I know that you have been on the road for almost four hours, and could benefit of some food. What I just set up is a Relational Business concept by syndicating existing solutions, providing target advertisement, Contextual and behavioral marketing. Another example could be “The internet connected running shoes.” No- it’s not science fiction, it’s there, ready to implement. – With a GSM, GPS and USB / wireless in your running shoes Nike/ Addidas or competitors easily can provide added value to their existing communities. By the way, it’s more likely that it would be marketed as: “The shoe with the chip that connects you”. In addition to being connected to an online training club, you can let your shoe “find” people to run along with, in the park (more fun to run with someone, than alone) The shoe can give you a hint, when it’s time to replace them with a new pair. Most likely you can subscribe to a rescue / insurance service that will find you if you go missing, while hiking. To be able to adjust the shoes sole pressure, depending on which surface you are running on to ensure that you don’t harm your feet, and also this set of connected shoes will be able to transfer the information  about your running sessions to the Nike/ Addidas training club.

New value chains, or reorganizing the ones we have? What does this Relational Business, or Social Media as we have labeled it till now, do to other parts of the larger value chain? Newspapers used to be a distribution channel for advertisements. Newspapers experience a decreasing market of maybe as much as 10 – 20% drops in annual subscription revenues, 10- 30% in annual advertisement revenues. In the digital environment news organizations have only been able to “take back” this by approximately 5%.  Along the value chain this also effect the companies dealing with advertisement, commercials and public relation, due to the fact that they have kept the traditional concepts of marketing and tried to “transfer” print advertisement business models into the digital environment.( read more about future advertisement, by Helge Tennø, HERE) about marketing in the digital environment) In the end this have resulted in corporations lost opportunities; reduced sales opportunities, and marketing effects. Everyone sees this and is trying to find solutions, and answers to the fact that the world have moved from a mass communication form to a communication form between the masses.

Show me the money? Surprisingly few are talking about, or explaining how to build the business cases for Social Media – or Relational Business as I prefer to define it. Everyone seems to think that it’s something “new”, we have to find – or “New economy” as the buzz word was back in the Dot.com years. Other people are sitting still, hoping this is yet another Hype, and that everything will come back to “normal” again. As I mentioned, I believe it’s a – yes, and no.  Establishing sustainable business models and business cases for Social Media (– sorry –): Relational Business is like building any other business case where you have to follow the rules of the game you are in. And the rules of Relational Business are those of the internet!

ROI of Social Media The participants (customers) on Social Media channels, communities and the internet itself have stated (from the Cone 2008 Business in Social Media study fact sheet) that they would like companies to provide problem solving options (virtual customer services), they want to be able to give solicit feedback (fan pages, branded sites) and they want new ways to interact with brands. Nothing comes for free, Peter Kim / Business communication group. LLC, 2010, puts it this way: “while Social Media technologies seem to scale ok, “the programs – especially those with a labor-intensive component – don’t.” “There’s no real shortcut when it comes to holding authentic personal dialogues. That’s the point.” It will require a shift in how to use human resources in order to benefit from a Relational Business focus. In corporations, sales, marketing, support and call centre functions, Business intelligence, analytic personnel and so forth will have to act differently and get different work tasks done in their everyday life, much of it will be online activities. Advertisement companies, the news and broadcasting industry also will have to change in accordance to this, due to the fact that all are part of the same larger value chain, where the market have moved toward new arenas. Depending on what you want to achieve, each separate area /goal of business needs will demand their specific business cases. Some will follow the set up for a sales business case, others for increasing efficiency along the value chain.  To show how radical the organizational change might have to be this might give you an idea:

Some of the activities you want to establish, might not have enough material, knowledge “best practice” and so forth, to enable you to build a “classical business case”;  in that case – don’t! I would suggest that you make an audit of the situation today. This status is going to be used to evaluate success/ no result/ negative result in accordance to the goals you set up. Then take the three, four best “guestimates” of ideas and concept that you want to test. Measure effects during your test period, frequently. And stop the project if you start becoming sure that it won’t lead to the desired result. This effective, rapid development method, ensure that you quickly adapt to facts gathered during a testing phase. Keep in mind, some concepts doesn’t give positive results as quickly as you might wish for. Be realistic, and give your “babies” a fair chance! When doing something new – testing and failing is essential and every “failure” is of value – it help you from continuously doing the wrong thing. Another tip, ensure you have someone outside your organization watching what you are doing. It could be a mentor, a coach, a consultancy firm, just anybody you prefer, if they are able to help you “kill your darlings”, ask you the uncomfortable questions, and give you positive feedback along the road. Organizations have a tendency to look at everything from inside ( and not the point of view your customers have),keep to “old habits”, and by that being less able to act differently,  staff also have a tendency to provide uncritical answers, due to the fact that their job and success factors depend on the managements thoughts of them and so forth.  

Is there really anything new here? As I’ve said before; people haven’t changed much the past 28.000 years. It’s really not likely that people will do so the next coming few years either. The marketplace, such as the Farmers market has been around, most likely since we started farming. There is nobody arguing that the old marketplaces weren’t a Relational Businesses, where bargaining, split revenue models and so forth was in the core of how to conduct business those days. Furthermore the concept of Tupperware and home parties are more “modern” versions of Relational Business, and we are very much familiar with the effect they have had and revenues over the years. I’ve written a blog posting about www.musicnodes.no before and that is in essence a “Tupperware” concept – or as we would like to put a buzz word on it nowadays: “Viral marketing”.  It’s “new” because it isn’t done this way before, but there is in reality no “New economy” in it. In other words, my statement is: “There is no Social Media – Internet is social and business on the Internet is social too!” (To be more accurate, Social Media Channels are one of many channels in a digital environment, frequently being a part of a larger digital value chain)

But the challenges aren’t over by this. There’s always a “But” isn’t there? The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies have stated: ”Everything that can be digitalized will be digitalized – and the value goes toward 0.- $”. – How to make business when the value is cero? Well if the cost of producing products and services are approximately cero, then there is a low risk in the cost aspects too? To provide a profit it has to come from “elsewhere”? Furthermore there is a promising statement by Kevin Kerry, the editor of Wired magazine: “The value is beyond free”. This means that we need to create added values for the customers in other manners than via the product/ service itself, doesn’t it? A few generic key words where “value beyond free” might be created from, is maybe worthwhile contemplating over:

People would like to pay for:

• Accessibility
• Navigation
• Security and consistency
• From “Good enough” (free) – to High quality (paid)
• Exclusivity (added by me) (Source: The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies)

The benefit of sharing. This very blog posting is an example of what I’m talking about. I share this information, my viewpoints, free of charge, free for all to use, and to benefit from. Where’s the value for me, and the company I work for by doing so? Well information itself isn’t of great value, the ability to transform this to added value for my customers, requires something that is a scarce recourse; me and my colleagues network, competence, experience and our personality. This shouldn’t be confused with giving away strategies, the differentiators or business secrets; it doesn’t mean to give away any confidential customer information, of course. It means to share the information and common knowledge, and open up for conversations and discussions we all can learn from. The real value we offer our customers is what we learn, at work from our discussions and by that develop a mindset suitable to enable customers to create real value for their customers. (note: all of a sudden I went from “I” till “We” in my sentences, that’s because sharing means that Relational communication cannot be a individual process – it’s a social process shared between those involved)  We have the tools at hand to enter a given scenario at our customers, coach and help them with all aspects of the transformational process that’s needed. We are at the moment working on a handful projects with customers, none of them with identical challenges, where our competence is stretched to the maximum. Sharing our knowledge as  above, with as many as possible, will give us valuable discussions and we will gain more knowledge about other people’s / consultants achievements and will bring us as well forward into new projects and challenges providing our customers with real added value for their businesses.

Funding of public service broadcasting in the future?

The other day I commented on Twitter that a Norwegian party AP (Arbeiderpartiet) and their media committee had a suggestion that I mean was a  sidetrack and a bad idea.

The idea was that AP’s media committee suggested that the license model we have in Norway  today (paying a separate tax for NRK broadcaster, and also paying a tax when buying  a TV set ) should be replaced/added with a similar tax for PC’s and Cell phones.

The feedback of my statement was immediate. Why did I have that opinion? And why didn’t I argue for my statement? Why isn’t this a great idea? The twitter nick @fenilsen gave me a challenge: Argue for my statements. And that’s fair.  Well Twitter isn’t a great channel for discussing complex subjects, and to be fair towards the complexity I didn’t want to go there – in that format. Instead I suggested to meet and debate it – and that I just might write a blog posting about it.

So here goes: Broadcasting in Norway used to be a monopoly public service company (from 1945) – first established in 1925 (became the brand “NRK” in 1933) and had(from the beginning) the main financing model by commercials. It was the Nazi Germans that introduced censorship and prohibited commercials in Broadcasting in Norway (1940). NRK continued the policy of not financing their broadcasting by commercials and established the public service broadcasting model more or less identical to the model BBC had established. Norwegian public service broadcasting became as we know it such after the Second World War. This gave the legitimacy for the funding models and enabled the Norwegians to get a high quality and free broadcasting system (first Radio, later TV) with a sustainable financing model from the government and by the separate broadcasting tax. There were no commercials in radio, and later TV, and the focus was to inform and educate the population.

NRK had a monopoly up till the 80’ies. Further reading on this can be found HERE. Since then, we have gotten competition from cable TV and wide range of Norwegian commercial broadcasters (radio and also TV) and since then the license model has been under debate. Nevertheless the idea and political decisions have been to protect the system with a public service broadcaster, due to the value of having a commercial independent voice in our country. The legitimacy gets under attach as the development of Internet itself, and the digitalization of content becomes the standard and the infrastructure of transporting content such as TV programs just as well are via IP and the internet. The models legacy was in short: Independent broadcaster and producer of content, responsible (together with our governmental Telecom company – Televerket) distributor of broadcasting signals (read infrastructure) – these arguments are about to disappear for the future.

The question is: How do we want to finance TV and Radio in the future? One of the suggestions are, as mentioned above to start taxing PC’s and Cell phones instead (or in addition to) TV and Radio sets. I believe that this is a bad idea and a sidetrack since it doesn’t answer the challenges broadcasting is facing, nor do I believe that the consumers will understand or accept that a PC, a cell phone or the Internet as a broadcasting / TV equipment where our public service broadcaster has infrastructural responsibilities worth paying tax for. In addition there are lots of practical aspects of this equipment tax idea that makes it impossible as well. Buying a TV set abroad is far more complicated (heavy) than buying a lap top or a cell phone. Is a Kindle e-reader subject for such tax? And how to make sure that people register their electronic equipment (bought on travels abroad) just to be able to pay a tax to our public service broadcaster. It’s hassle, and if most people don’t understand why – they won’t do it. An even more interesting question is – what is broadcasting and TV into the future? As we know broadcasting is evolving and changing so much these days that everything we grew up with of what TV -is in dramatic change.

The Norwegian media politic is as well. In Norway we are discussing, and no doubt the government’s media support (funding) will change. It will change because the world is changing from an analogue world to a digital world – where the Internet will be one of the major infrastructures, -not paper,- not separate broadcasting transmitting systems.

I believe that it’s not sufficient  to define a public service broadcaster as we have done up till now for the future; it has to be a wider definition, maybe a “public service content provider” is a better definition? A “public service content provider” will be able to serve somewhat other objectives than today, in other platforms and in other manners. Trying to finance that via separate taxes on equipment seems like an absurd idea, and I don’t think the government will get support from their population by this approach.

I believe it serves us better to go to the core of; why is it we would like to have a governmental funding of communication (text, audio, visual) in the future? How do we want to organize that? What kind of participants do we want to support? Should NRK be in a special situation, or should we let several companies be able to apply for funding for public service broadcasting funding? The answers aren’t given for any choice our government has to make for some sustainable models for the future. What is certain is that any model will need support from the population in order to be implemented.

As a conclusion: I believe it’s better to answer these core questions and challenges before jumping into a “quick fix” idea of taxing the PC’s and cell phones.

Click HERE to read an older blog posting on the future of broadcasting

A ”dogfight” between giants have started. Will Apple.inc have someone taking big bites of their apple?

Apple launched iPhone 4.0 in Norway today. I have to say the show isn’t what it used to be. Yes people sat in line till midnight to get their hands on the very first ones.

But also an increasing number of people on twitter was shaking their heads over Apple’s attempt to create yet another mass hysteria, without anything else new to show, but a new model of a cell phone. Speaking of branding problems, Apple recently lost a lawsuit concerning their policy to stop ‘apps’, they’ve met resistance about their censorship policy, and there’s a wide range of lawsuits concerning patents going on between the giants.

All of this is hurting Apple in a different way than back at the days where Microsoft was the “enemy” and Apple was the underdog. This is a new situation where Apple seems to have become more arrogant towards their customers and partners. But something is about to happen, customers and partners aren’t going to be as dependent on Apple and their iStore anymore. Get me right, I like Apple, I like Google too. I like Facebook, and the good old IBM as well. I like Twitter and I like Amazon.com. In short; I like the new world we got with the Internet. But I don’t like that the giants all seem to have become greedy and all have tried to lock in their customers in their own one-stop-shops. It’s like trying to maintain old school business models into the future.

The “dog fight” isn’t on behalf of us as consumers; it’s a battle of big bucks and control! Google, IBM, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HP, Facebook, Apple, Amazon.com and the like all want to make sure that the competitors doesn’t grow to strong. This is a sad, unnecessary fight that seems inevitable. The threat for Apple isn’t only the battle of market shares.

The media industry is undergoing a dramatic age of transformation. None of the media industry participant can stand by the side passively and have Apple, Amazon, Youtube or other players control their ability to renew their business and business models.TV, Film, News corporations, publishing houses can’t afford it and have to go into the battle too. It’s really an easy calculation to make: Can some of the existing content platforms (iStore, Amazon, youtube) provide a solution that’s cheaper than if the corporations in the media industry cooperate and produce their own open content platform? In Norway some of the major publishing houses have done parts of this already and are in serious negotiations with the “giants” of how to get access to their marketplaces.

There is no way the worlds publishing houses will accept that Apple conduct censorships, like they did with the book Ulysses – or determine the cost of an e-book. Yesterday I read that Apple has denied Times.inc to sell subscriptions in their store, I’m not sure if this is true, it seems too unbelievable.

What I’m saying is that there’s an upcoming “dogfight” between giants of the internet AND amongst content providers. And it seems like Apple sits in a spot where they are far too easy to attack – from all angles, and I can’t see how they possible can win this – without doing the obvious: Open up for all to place their content in their store, let anyone buy it (whatever device, hardware or software) and let the market decide what business models that works. Make it easy and smooth to be a partner and to be a customer. It’s really not so complicated.

Update: Eirik Newth and I was interviewed by E24 conserning Apples censorship policy. You can read the article Here

Sustainable business models in a digital environment

People have been telling stories at least for the last 28.000 years, it’s not likely that the demand for great stories will vanish at any time soon. Professionals are more likely to be great to tell stories that  people would prefere to listen to. Journalism is in no way in danger – BUT, the mindset of newspaper people seems to still burden online media activities.

Even in this article  the word “circulation” pops up. When did an internet professional use that word? When speaking of how to generate revenue, the term subscriber, and advertisement is the only two ideas that is mentioned. This is sad, and leaves very little hope for the media houses as participants into the future if the mind set isn’t turned upside down in a hurry.
There are a lot of alternative ways to provide content in a digital world, but to be dependent of traditional media houses. There are lots of experiences of business models that work in a digital environment. The The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies’ 1 report and 2 report have published two interesting papers on business models. One comment is needed. CIF is supposed to study the future, these papers have the ‘problem’ that the future have met the present! The development is so rapid that the future is already here. One important statement from CIF is “Everything that can be digitalized will be digitalized – and the value goes toward 0$. Kevin Kerry, the editor of Wired magazine have stated “The value is beyond free” in order to explain how to make money in a digital environment, where the cost of content production is close to 0$, due to the free reproduction costs.

In order to defind value (a necessity if you want to build sustainable business models) it’s kind of clever to look for what is reconed to be a scarce resource, or in other words, what cannot be reproduced. An example is the music industry. The revenues in the world of distributing music have increased, not decreased. Surprised? The “stealing” sharingand waste downloading on the net have increased the sale of music – it’s true, whatever the record companies try to tell us. The only one loosing on this have been:  – The record companies. Content creators, have increased their share of the profit. In addition they have earned more money on something that cannot be reproduced by any other then themselves; Live concerts. A live concert is a scarce recourse, and cannot be reproduced. What can we learn from this?
1) The value is NOT the news/ content itself (ok, some times it might be, but often not). Rather try to look at the user/participant as your real value
2) Providing your user/ participant with real time/ location/ technology, content and advertisement with relevance is a must. In addition to that, content have to be contextual to the user/ partisipant. (segment/time/ location/ channel/device)
3) Generate revenues from the knowledge you have about your users / participants

How to start changing the mind set to enable innovation and transformation concerning establishing sustainable business models and revenues? It’s maybe worthwhile contemplating over this: (Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies) People would like to pay for :

• Accessibility
• Navigation
• Security and consistency
• “Good enough” – to High quality
• Exclusivity (added by me)

A new digital business model that works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all just love to be helpful and share. In social media today people are sharing everything and feel great about it. We tend to share knowledge, ideas and emotional experiences.  I found something very interesting that’s going on in Norway these days. I got to know this, by “accident”, some weeks ago, and I’ve thought about it, looked at it and wondered if this is just another idea, or if it is an idea that could move business models in the digital area one step further. And I think it might!

It’s called musicnodes.com . Still in an early stage of developement and it looks very promising. To get to the point of what this is: It’s a embedded player, where you can listen to a tune. There’s nothing new in that.
You can buy the tune as well and you can share the tune with your friends and network, nothing new in that either. 
The new is that the content is placed contextual. Another aspect is that it’s not a website, where you go to and find your music and then buy what you want. 
Musicnodes is a play bar that can be located on any website with relevant content. Since this is music, the daily news article, about music is a great place, the online music sites is also a great place to share music. The spread happens when people start sharing the play bar in their respective networks.(e mail, Twitter, Facebook and so on)

Business model
The business model is very interesting. As we know; creators of content holds copyrights. As far as I know all countries have organizations that take care of the business aspect of using someone’s music. Radio/TV, film and others are using music produced by others and have to pay for the usage. On the internet this is also the case, but has become very difficult to manage, since people love to share.  This have created a problem for musicians, for record companies and so on.  Revenues are dropping dramatically in the business as a consequence. 
Musicnodes have set up a model where the musician gets a large part of the revenue created. The publisher also gets a large part. The least part of the income goes to musicnodes. Furthermore when people listen to the tune, and want to share it, the embedded tune is sent by e.g. e-mail, “share on Facebook” and so on – the revenues split follow the tune and the all involved continue to earn on the sale of this tune, each time!
Online publishers will just love this model, and so will the musicians, and other copyright holders. This might provide the music business with a sustainable business model that take care of all involved parties in a manner no one have done up till now.

Contextual advertisement
When is it most likely that you will be the most interested in listening to a tune? Isn’t that when you are in the mindset, like when you’re  reading an editorial story about the genre, the artist or a news article about the music you love? And then, there it is.
For the publisher, it’s not even an advert, it’s just added value for the reader. The best part is that the publishers earn money sharing this added value. For the reader it’s not a “banner ad up in the face”, it’s a neat way to get the tune there and then, no hassle finding a music store (down town, or online), searching for the right tune. It’s right there, easy accessible.
The motivation for the reader, to convert into a buyer is very high, just in that moment. This is in fact a real and functioning example of the semantic web, and behavioral advertisement!  A very strong concept indeed. I’ve written about this in a former posting; HERE.

Network sharing
We are social, this idea appeals to our pattern of behavior. To give someone something makes us feel well and sharing makes us connected with others. Creating a business that “run” by the natural rules of human behavior is very likely to be a strong business model. I believe that this is the case with musicnodes.com .
It’s the same principles that’s behind “six degrees of separation”, viral marketing and whom we trust the most. Social media and networking arenas has grown immensely the last few years and there is no doubt that conducting business are about to get new rules to play by.
I’m looking very much forward to see what happens next, and in which ways this innovative concept will spread. The concept, is as lot’s of you already have started thinking is that it’s not limited to music. There is a whole range of products and services where this will apply.

While waiting for the script (to embedd on my blog) to be approved by www.wordpress.com you may have a look at the new concept HERE 
The tune is by Ingrid Olava, won’t be silenced – catchy title?

Update: I did some statistics: in one hour I had 51 unique visitors on my page. That created 90 Clicks on the node, and 62 that downloaded the tune for free (payed by sponsor) Ingrid Olava earned cash on this, and so did I. Amazing, the network sharing effect really works. Remember this test is with no player (just a primitive link) and I’m not running a music blog, nor is the content relevant for the player/tune

What’s to do for the media business in turbulent times?

 The media business has struggled greatly, worldwide. Advertising and circulation revenue have dropped greatly. Throughout 2009 we heard weekly about the problems, cutbacks, reductions and layoffs. Are we looking at a dying industry, or at best, a sharp change of the industry? 

 

 

There is an ongoing change, a paradigm shift between print media/ digital media. Traditional media houses have still not managed to sort out how to transform themselves, which last year’s poor results confirms. 

The real challenge is to manage the existing business model, and at the same time to build sustainable business models for the digital markets. 

It is important to be realistic, but realism has to be based on future expectations, not the history of a great past. Organizations that manage through tough times do not focus only on the problems they have with the existing business model. Successful businesses are able to focus on innovation and re-structuring as well. The winners are those who are able to position themselves in a favorable spot – quickly. 

Increased demand and a lack of willingness to pay at the same time?
There is no evidence to suggest that that the demand for knowledge and stories will drop – – in fact, we need easier access to more information.  At the same time media companies do not get paid for content in the digital world. Isn’t that a paradox? 

To answer this we must look at what customers traditionally feel that they have already paid for. Is it the content itself, or is it a combination of delivery media (paper), the transport of the content (to the news stand or at the door) and the trust of the supplier (that you can trust that the content is of quality) In the traditional business models, where these elements have been “inseparable”, the question has merely been of academic interest. On the other hand, digital consumers experience that they have already paid for digital services such as the news online by having paid for the PC, software, Internet subscriptions, etc. At the same time consumers are willing to pay for the ability to send SMS, to download “apps”, games and music to their PC and mobile. The point is that the willingness to pay for services online is there, consumers just don’t want to pay for the content itself. 

But in the digital world well functioning business models already exist — just look at what Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have established. What scale of users they have gathered and the value this represents in ad revenue alone. If we look at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kelkoo, Restplass.no to name a few, we notice that the business models are based on interaction, behavior analysis, profiles and user statistics in order to maximize sales. The business models vary, but one common feature is often “split revenue models”, where several players sharing knowledge and parts of the value chain.

Our recommendation would be learn from this, and evaluate what is the real value of the media business at hand. We believe that it is essential to connect traditional instruments with new ways to manage content. There are great opportunities to establish commercial services and products towards both advertisers and users.  

Perhaps content isn’t the future value for the media business. Perhaps the real value is the knowledge and management of users / participants and their behavior.  We believe the media industry as a whole has already been subjected to “Disruptive Innovation” and the only way to survive in the industry is to adapt very quickly. The main point is to create added value for the sum of buyers in the digital universe, through business models that also provide revenue to media houses. The most important prerequisite for success in this is to have the right combination of business strategy, organization, competence, and not least technology platforms, that can realize the goals 

Technology is part of the product
 Products like Apple’s new iPad will be a very important force to change the way we use PCs, Internet and handheld devices. When the major players (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Sony, etc.) facilitate easy deployment and use of digital content, it is obvious that the demand is increasing dramatically – and fast. 

Technology is the most visible instrument of the business model that until now has succeeded. Pervasive and holistic thinking assumes that the technological platform is part of the product being sold, and includes suppliers, distributors and consumer’s own infrastructure. The most important change is that technology is no longer just a tool to produce the goods, but an important part of the product itself. The development of consumer technology has both driven and been a part of the new successful business strategies, and has – in our opinion – matured the digital media market. At the core the major players have a complete set of technology platforms that implement the business model’s financial structure, production and distribution lines in a holistic strategy. 

The development of mobile phone and laptop computers are the consumer technologies that have contributed the most visible for the consumer for this development. Now, these devices meld together, and become smart-phones and reading lists that give users a unique experience. At the same time the digital distribution channel – the Internet – both increases their availability and opens the opportunity to deliver better quality, and ease of access, to the consumer. The development of broadband and mobile broadband will continue to contribute to increased quality of the services. 

The digital distribution has created many questions about the copyrights that both the business and organizations have tried to answer. Due to the fact that the internet characteristics are ‘open and free’, this will be a continuous discussion that will ultimately lead to answers. 

Our conclusion is that the willingness to invest in technology and include technology in hardware/ software/ infrastructure as a part of the business model is an important success factor in the development of new media products and services.  

Change Management
When the technology and framework conditions change, when value chains change and new players arrive and threaten the industry’s traditional players the only way to survive will be to defend their position by being willing to change the way the organization works, the processes of workflow and the perspective of how the market functions. The digital world is in its nature interactive. “Readers”, “listeners” and “viewers” are descriptions of users who will vanish from our vocabulary in a digital environment. We see a huge, rapid growth in use of social media that turn “users” into “participants” and “co-producers” of content and discourse. 

By this, the media businesses have gotten a new set of challenges in terms of how content is established, produced, presented and managed. In addition to completely new ways of defining products and services, media organizations have to change the production lines and workflow. As the manufacturing process to produce a book, news story or a magazine, has become irrelevant in the future digital media world it will affect, workflow and requirements of professional competences and organizational conditions. It will also be necessary to break down the strict distinctions (silos) that have been in different companies within a media group. 

It’s needed to establish a close relationship between the various divisions, products and services, in order to cultivate and manage the knowledge about user patterns, and transform that into added value towards the market of advertisement, subscriptions and services provided. 

Next step
We believe that quite a few media houses will need external expertise in business strategy, change management and technology. We know that coming from the outside of the organization and facilitating processes that help media corporations discover new perspectives will enable them to create profitable solutions. To make the move from “traditional” to “new” reality is a mission where a holistic perspective is one of the needed assets to ensure a strong strategic foundation to make such a transformational step. Media houses must implement innovation processes, replace business models, develop new concepts for products and services, invest in appropriate technology, ensure smooth organizational processes and implementation, and simultaneously develop criteria for success and value propositions. Establishment of  new, digital value chains and multi-channel strategies are essential elements in future business models for all media houses. Some newspaper has taken some steps along the road, while parts of the publishing industry (book / textbook / magazine) still have some distance to go before the necessary technological elements are in place

There must be a sharp distinction between content on the one hand, and the products and services on the other. This is the only way to profit by what structured data provides in the way of opportunities. There is no other way to take advantages of the semantic options in the triangle of editorial content, profile and participant’s content and commercial content.  A key point is to “Produce once- and deliver it on as many surfaces and channels possible”. This will be eReading lists, mobile devices, web, PC desktop applications, etc. It includes the ability to integrate content of various formats merged into a total user experience of text, sound, image and video.

Some tips concerning the mix of business models we would be able to help establish:

•           Behavioral & profile targeted advertising
•           Contextual marketing
•           Product/ service and contextual advertisement
•           Classified/ Community/ social media advertisement
•           Demographic, Geo – demographic, Techno graphic
•           Subscriptions mobile/ desktop/ ’apps’ prod and services
•           Traditional DM activities, banner ads, campaigns, branding
•           Multichannel & SCRM  action
•           SEO & SEM, Conversion rates

In combination with the knowledge of these business models the media industry needs to keep a strong focus on where they come from, and what is valuable in today’s experience. They need new sets of competence in new areas, such as change processes, digital value chains and multi-channel strategy.

By Geir Stene, Bjørn Hole
This article is written on our own initiative.