Comments on: Content Revenues: Hits are generating much more, Losers are generating lots less http://spectatorbytes.com/2008/02/26/content-revenues-hits-are-getting-bigger-losers-will-get-smaller/?nucrss=1 Commenting on the Evolution of the Digital Media Business Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:31:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: spectatorbytes http://spectatorbytes.com/2008/02/26/content-revenues-hits-are-getting-bigger-losers-will-get-smaller/comment-page-1/#comment-9 spectatorbytes Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:01:08 +0000 http://spectatorbytes.com/2008/02/26/content-revenues-hits-are-getting-bigger-losers-will-get-smaller/#comment-9 Mid-tail content will thrive on the Web. However, large media companies will not necessarily benefit from that unless they position to participate in the mid-tail. Post focus was more on companies ability on an environment in which they no longer can package hit and non-hit products together. Mid-tail content will thrive on the Web. However, large media companies will not necessarily benefit from that unless they position to participate in the mid-tail. Post focus was more on companies ability on an environment in which they no longer can package hit and non-hit products together.

]]> By: JOT http://spectatorbytes.com/2008/02/26/content-revenues-hits-are-getting-bigger-losers-will-get-smaller/comment-page-1/#comment-8 JOT Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:51:54 +0000 http://spectatorbytes.com/2008/02/26/content-revenues-hits-are-getting-bigger-losers-will-get-smaller/#comment-8 Curious... perhaps another way to characterize this phenomenon is that the Web acts as a new outlet for media/content, much as new media innovations like the VCR/DVD, TV syndication, etc. Throughout the history of media companies, most technological innovations have had an additive impact on the value created by the industry. The Web, as this would suggest, is no different. Yet, content owners have approached this new medium with trepidation - yet again. Some of the inefficiencies in media and its 'hit driven' nature stem from limited "shelf space" -- e.g., promotional space in retail outlets, prime time TV slot, Top Box Office lists, etc. With the Web, those inefficiencies are presumed to enable more content to surface outside of the "top hits". However, if we are to believe that this is not the case at this point in time, then does it suggest that there are "virtual shelf spaces" on the Web as well. Some of the obvious ones include the top search results slots of a Google Web search result page, the top or most viewed lists on YouTube, the top applications list on Facebook, etc. In essence, I would posit that people who don't know what they want gravitate towards what is popular. Hence, the Web makes the "hit driven" nature of the content business more pronounced because it makes it even easier for users and marketers to drive distribution, i.e., "spread the word" (e.g. Digg, YouTube ratings, Facebook news, email blasts, etc.). Does this mean that there is no "fat belly" (or "mid-tail")? Is it a world of either "hits" or "duds" (i.e. long-tail)? Tech news bloggers like Om Malik and Michael Arrington may disagree. I would argue that as long as popularity continues to be a primary criteria for people to engage with content, then the Web would seem to enhance the "hit driven" nature of the content business. This topic is certainly worth further exploration - there are certainly more angles to approach this but I'll stop here. Curious… perhaps another way to characterize this phenomenon is that the Web acts as a new outlet for media/content, much as new media innovations like the VCR/DVD, TV syndication, etc. Throughout the history of media companies, most technological innovations have had an additive impact on the value created by the industry. The Web, as this would suggest, is no different. Yet, content owners have approached this new medium with trepidation - yet again.

Some of the inefficiencies in media and its ‘hit driven’ nature stem from limited “shelf space” — e.g., promotional space in retail outlets, prime time TV slot, Top Box Office lists, etc. With the Web, those inefficiencies are presumed to enable more content to surface outside of the “top hits”. However, if we are to believe that this is not the case at this point in time, then does it suggest that there are “virtual shelf spaces” on the Web as well. Some of the obvious ones include the top search results slots of a Google Web search result page, the top or most viewed lists on YouTube, the top applications list on Facebook, etc. In essence, I would posit that people who don’t know what they want gravitate towards what is popular. Hence, the Web makes the “hit driven” nature of the content business more pronounced because it makes it even easier for users and marketers to drive distribution, i.e., “spread the word” (e.g. Digg, YouTube ratings, Facebook news, email blasts, etc.).

Does this mean that there is no “fat belly” (or “mid-tail”)? Is it a world of either “hits” or “duds” (i.e. long-tail)? Tech news bloggers like Om Malik and Michael Arrington may disagree. I would argue that as long as popularity continues to be a primary criteria for people to engage with content, then the Web would seem to enhance the “hit driven” nature of the content business. This topic is certainly worth further exploration - there are certainly more angles to approach this but I’ll stop here.

]]>