Archive for the Digital news Category

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

Posted in collaboration, Community, Digital business, digital collaboration, Digital media, Digital news, innovation, IT and communication, Web 2.0 on April 5, 2013 by Geir Stene

Painting_Liberty Leading the PeopleIt’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!


Beyond advertisement?

Posted in 1, Digital business, Digital media, Digital news on October 1, 2012 by Geir Stene

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?

Posted in Digital business, Digital media, Digital news, Publishing, Web 2.0 on August 26, 2012 by Geir Stene

 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 or, 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?

Posted in Digital business, Digital media, Digital news on August 22, 2012 by Geir Stene

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.

Social responsibility in business

Posted in collaboration, Community, Digital business, Digital news, innovation, Web 2.0 on August 21, 2012 by Geir Stene

Social responsibility has become a “hot topic” over the last years. I’ll present some viewpoints to the subject, but first three examples from my network:







Ferd (@FerdCEO)
Why is it that a “hard core” industrial-and financial company like Ferd spends 20 mill NOK a year on supporting Social entrepreneurship?

In order to learn more I visited Ferd before the summer and had a long talk with Øyvind Sandvold (@oyvind_sandvold ) about the work Ferd is doing. What they support and what is outside their scope. You can read more about it HERE

I think the short answer is because they can! They have the assets and also valuable knowledge to share. Of course the element of charity is there.

But to my surprise Øyvind told me about another aspect: That there is a great “return of investment” for the Ferd company and the employees. Every project they support includes that one of the investments consultants (from the other investment funds) take part in the project as a board member, consult the Social entrepreneur and ensure that strategy, business plans and company start up secure the social business and its objective, and also has a growth plan. Øyvind tells me that these projects have become some of the most attractive assignment the employees can get involved in. They learn a lot, make great friends with people in the projects and experience that it’s very meaningful to provide their knowledge and to support social change. The most important part however is that Ferd as a company gets valuable knowledge in return.

Interesting enough: The Ferd social entrepreneurs has yet not received one application for a digital project!

Kavli (@KavliFoundation)
Most people in Norway know of the company Kavli. The Kavli Group is one of Norway’s largest and most international food groups, with some 800 employees creating a turnover of about NOK 2 billion. The companies produce goods for more than 20 countries. Maybe fewer people are aware of the fact that the profit from all Kavli products is channeled back to society, via the the Kavli Trust? They mainly donate money and focus on advanced science research, cultural activities and humanitarian work both in Norway and international.

Kavli has supported a great range of projects since 1962 and it’s interesting to note this project:  (Kids and Media). The organization has acquired a global reach with backing from the Kavli Trust. It is now a big operation with various web-based activities in the USA, the UK, Australia and Denmark as well as in Norway.

Bien Bank (@BienSparebank)
Bien bank is a small bank and the only local bank in Oslo. It used to be a savings bank owned by the customers, and is now owned by a trust. In the same manner as Kavli, Bien banks profit is channeled back to the population of Oslo by supporting informational and educational activities towards children and youth, art and cultural projects and community initiatives.
Bien tells me that they are looking into digital projects as we speak.

In addition to these few examples, we all know of the wide range of classical charity organizations, aid organizations and government’s engagements of all sorts.

As we see social responsibility is not at all a new idea. Our western democracies are built upon such ideas. What I believe we will se in the coming years (and why I write about it) is new and innovative initiatives, more and more of them will be digital. And more and more of them will have elements of what Ferd has implemented: In short – funding and expert help towards Self supported and sustainable social entrepreneurs.  

We will se “niche” projects from groups that want to take part in changing a business, like that says this about themselves: “Spot.Us is an open source project to pioneer community powered reporting.”… ( red) “provides a new opportunity to expand the impact of public media journalism by making it more responsive and responsible to the public, while deploying new ways to support freelance reporters and the newsrooms that depend on them.”

As a warning: We will also see fraud! Solutions created only to enrich criminals, like the warning states in this article in e24 concerning the risk of scandals and fraud in crowdfunding

But should we let the risk of criminal acts from a few, stop the actions from millions of people and thousands of companies around the world that genuinely want  to help and improve the world we live in?

Slik kan aviser ta betalt for innhold og kommersielle produkter

Posted in Digital business, Digital media, Digital news on February 19, 2012 by Geir Stene


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 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?

Tradisjonelle medieinstitusjoner er de “lost” ?

Posted in Digital business, Digital media, Digital news, innovation on September 19, 2011 by Geir Stene

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.