Showing posts with label business model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business model. Show all posts

This Is Madness! ...Madness? This... is... Music!

Friday, January 25, 2008

Yet another Masnick article written... this time about Lance Ulanoff and his opinion of the how DRM-Free music will not free music and how we are on the verge of Economic Collapse (insert 1970's pyscho music). Ulanoff and his dirty tongued opinions really piss me off. It's one thing to state your opinion on PC Mag about music but its completely different when you start slinging minor insults at others who think we're heading in the right direction. It's misguided people like him who are suppose to have a degree in some kind of journalism or the basic common sense to research behind things before you post. This coming from the Editor-in-Chief of PC Mag. Go back to Starbucks, you yuppie.

But, I digress. Naturally, he takes a stab at the Radiohead deal stating not everyone can do it that we're not all Hannah Montana which is true (though I wish I was, oh yes). Psst, you know what's another true thing? There's not just one business model for this digital future of ours. And why is he asking how many bands are touring these days? Over 6000 official concerts appear on TicketMaster in the U.S alone at any given time within a 45 day span. That is only one website and not including local junctions. Not to mention, 2007 was the best year ever (thanks Louis Hau!) in terms of concert revenue... it was up to a record $3.9 billion, up 8% over 2006, and it's been on increasing path for nine consecutive years. Oh wait, what happened 9 years ago? Interesting.

The worst part of Ulanoff's article is dramatic conclusion that I will pull from TechDirt's article (because Lance's grammar):

"giving away content free of charge... [flies] in the face of everything we know about a functioning economy. People will become dissatisfied. Artists will stop making content because they're not getting paid. When there is no content, people will stop buying gadgets to consume that content. In short order, one part of our digital economy will collapse, and it could be followed by countless others."
No. Just flat no. This is a wild accusation! Now, my narrative turns direct. First off, you started this article making the consumers feel like the bad guy (or girl). Then, you blame the industry for causing the economic downfall of the digital society...? I'm confused here but nonetheless, I'm fairly sure you get paid sir via some sort of business model based upon using infinite goods (articles) that are free. Obviously, this "free" model works digitally otherwise you wouldn't have a job and the world might have been better if you weren't edited good articles. What you are wanting to do is hold on to traditional (obsolete) business models that (so-call) protect its investors or contributors solely by a plastic coaster and pretty printing. The digital age has changed that and like your online magazine (subscription based in paper format, free with ads in digital) has had to make changes to its business model as well. Scarce goods like a magazine are chargeable. When it becomes digital, it will also become an infinite good and usually in our competitive market it will push that cost to zero.

People are being paid for music more now than ever. Promotions from social sites like MySpace or (even better) Pandora Radio allow people to discover new music (without fear of a bad purchase or the liability of sharing it) and actually fill a void where old business models left empty: the ability to tour as a new band and make money earlier. Not to mention, the cost of production for music has become very minimal at best because most modern computers can process and digitize music with cheaper hardware and save in the end. This digitization of music has revolutionized the way the world listens. FM Radio Station's may soon see their end as well because of the common placement of LCD navigators in cars. With the use of MP3 players and the 700 MHz spectrum, we may see Internet Radio usage grow even more with software in cars that allow you to tune into these streams. But that's just my 'bogus' prediction.

Lance, your view is askew and you need to do a bit more research. In the months to follow, music will become more and more apart of our lives even more so than it already is. Economic collapse? I beg to differ. I see prosperity and musicians actually getting their money's worth for their art. Oh, and I see happy consumers. Enjoy your face.

Posted by KarnEdge at 11:04 AM 1 comments  

I'm Naive, and News Doesn't Matter

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

So over the weekend, events have occurred and more and more people are stepping closer to insanity. I for one invite this inevitability; this provides an escape for reality. I sift through life with a waffle iron and destroy a path in which I can walk. Oh and I make waffles. What doesn't make sense are people who think that value and price are the same thing. If my grandma gave me a prized vase she loved very dearly but was worth a dollar, I would consider it valuable but financially useless.

David Simon, the executive producer of HBO's The Wire, and ... a former newspaper reporter, had his opinion on the Washington Post, and oh how I love the Washington Post, saying:

"Isn't the news itself still valuable to anyone? In any format, through any medium -- isn't an understanding of the events of the day still a salable commodity? Or were we kidding ourselves? Was a newspaper a viable entity only so long as it had classifieds, comics and the latest sports scores?"

I know this seems like a repost, but the paragraph cries for a retort. Mike, from Techdirt, seemed a bit soft on Simon. He cries about newspapers not being salable and the fact they are not trying moving on to newer, even better business models, and then he has the gall to pronounce that newsprint is anachronical. This article has all the passion of a pair of tit mice. He contradicts himself sorta, naturally newsprint is anachronical (it's made of paper... damn paper); some are even saying that TV is becoming anachronical. HBO is moving forward, Netflix is making it easier, etc.; these are all part of the trend towards a digital age that's been ignored for the last decade. Whether its because of patent hoarding trollers, industry giants creating fictional gates or the launching of theWar on Piratism (does that work?), the internet and its digital innovation have been held back but people are finally looking to the greener pasture over yonder. Maybe I'm naive but I believe Simon wants to hold his last firm hand on what could possibly end an era. Begin anew? Yes! Newspapers all around the world are striving to keep up but even portals like Yahoo or social trending sites (I might have made that up) like Digg are ahead. Techdirt has numerous articles on business models

that newspapers could use to levy themselves in this age.
Something that annoyed me however was that all of the links throughout the article point to keywords in the Washington Post website like they are Wikiwords and irrelevantly give me information not even associated with the topic at hand. Maybe that's not his fault and he didn't link anything (webmaster Jim Bob thought it be nice to spruce it up), but the fact is they are irrelevant. I thought I was going to find evidence of this so called "decline in advertising". Little did I know, he was also wrong. Again, I may have this words mixed but it seems to me someone isn't doing their research. And what the hell does "department-store consolidation and the decline in advertising" mean being together? Why do I keep seeing this? Someone fill me in here.

But I digress..

So I am being a bit naive, but Simon's whole argument seems a bit contradictory when he rolls into showing how the automotive industry had the same problem from horse-and-buggy to motorised vehicles. At the same time, horse-and-buggy may not be a capitol income for getting somewhere but is still useful in the sense of weddings, romantic strolls through the city, etc. The point is even if products/information become obsolete in whatever they were mainly used, there is usually a new way to use them. Often times like in the case of the horse-and-buggy go from a transportation standard to recreation option. I'm not saying this is where newspapers are leading but its not like this isn't a remote possibility.

So, Simon continues on and it's almost as if he realizes his own folly to the title of his post: "...high-end journalism doesn't take the form of consistent and sophisticated coverage of issues, but of special projects and five-part series on selected topics -- a distraction designed not to convince readers that a newspaper aggressively brings the world to them each day, but to convince a prize committee that someone, somewhere, deserves a plaque." Is he crying about this change on newspaper usage? Or, is this a plea that newspapers should listen to and work its way into the digital world?

I am at a loss here, what are we suppose to think? I'm probably missing a lot of points here, but I believe that newspapers need to adapt to the changing world and find a way to capitalise on it. With an increasing number of business models embracing the freedom of the internet, it shouldn't be a problem. Then again, maybe I'm being naive.