Paradigm Shift
AdVoice, Singapore, May 2003 issue
Lovely expression, Paradigm Shift. Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science, invented it. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge, but instead "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions".
Unfortunately, the term has become inextricably linked to dotcom visionaries that preferred shifting paradigms to generating revenues, and subsequently had to leave the scene in disgrace, covered with tar and feathers by disgruntled creditors. That’s unfortunate, because in this era of rapid technological developments, every sensible marketer should take a critical look at his business model from time to time. Take for instance the entertainment industry.
It all started out very simple. Someone climbed on a podium, sang a song or performed an act, and the audience paid him some money. But with the advent of gramophones and film projectors, the world changed drastically. Now copies could be made, and reproduced and sold to as many people as you wished.
The young entertainment industry adapted itself and became rich. But changes keep happening and in the 1970s a new development arrived. Now, oh horror, consumers could make their own copies. Apparently the industry meanwhile had shed its flexibility because this time, the slogan was not ‘adapt and profit’ but ‘resist and prohibit’. Copying equipment had to be outlawed. Legendary is the 1982 US Congress testimony by Jack Valenti, then President of the Motion Picture Association of America: “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”
Fortunately, Congress did not heed Valenti’s stupid advice. Technological progress was given free reign, and the entertainment industry became even richer from selling royalties on sales and rental of MCs and videotapes. And Jack Valenti is still Holloywood’s top lobbyist. This is not a good sign.
And indeed, history repeats itself. Again, new media, new ways to use and new usage moments are enriching our lives. Music and films are downloadable from the Internet and can be enjoyed without loss of quality on PCs, DVD- and MP3-players. But do you think the industry is eager to serve us with new products, new services, and new ways for them to earn money? Forget it!
During the last few decades the entertainment industry has not brought forth one single innovation, not even an attempt. Worse, innovation attempts by industry outsiders have been resisted with every possible means, and with success. Napster and Gnutella are dead and gone, Kazaa is still alive thanks to winning a preliminary court judgment but the jury’s still out on that one.
To some degree I can understand why people try to defend their existing position. But when this culminates in destructive behaviour solely aimed at halting progress, it’s unpalatable.
The entertainment industry has to take a fresh new look at its business paradigm: how to market audio and video content in today’s digital media world, from home audio to MP3, from mobile phone to DVD. Technology will not pose any obstacle: any solution, once accepted, can be built. The only thing for decent content marketers to do is spend some thought on a) what exactly the consumer wants; b) how much they are willing to pay for it; and c) how to fulfil the consumer needs after building in a payment moment.
What do consumers want? Very simple: they want unlimited enjoyment of music or film, either for a limited amount of time (rental) or forever (sales). Do they want to pay for it? Yes, says a recent study by Jupiter Research. Respondents were given the choice between paying US$18 for content without any copying restriction, and US$10 for content with restrictions. An overwhelming majority chose the first option, despite the higher price tag. The same study reports that people familiar with file sharing show more willingness to pay for downloaded content than those who aren’t.
File sharing’s widespread acceptation shows what is technically possible and what consumers want. Studies like Jupiter’s show that they are willing to pay for it. Where are the entertainment marketers that do rather than sue? Is it about time that the industry turns its ear to doers rather than dinosaurs.
Is Jack Valenti for the music lover what Jack the Ripper was for the woman alone? Apparently, the Internet spawns a new breed of serial killers.
Lovely expression, Paradigm Shift. Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science, invented it. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge, but instead "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions".
Unfortunately, the term has become inextricably linked to dotcom visionaries that preferred shifting paradigms to generating revenues, and subsequently had to leave the scene in disgrace, covered with tar and feathers by disgruntled creditors. That’s unfortunate, because in this era of rapid technological developments, every sensible marketer should take a critical look at his business model from time to time. Take for instance the entertainment industry.
It all started out very simple. Someone climbed on a podium, sang a song or performed an act, and the audience paid him some money. But with the advent of gramophones and film projectors, the world changed drastically. Now copies could be made, and reproduced and sold to as many people as you wished.
The young entertainment industry adapted itself and became rich. But changes keep happening and in the 1970s a new development arrived. Now, oh horror, consumers could make their own copies. Apparently the industry meanwhile had shed its flexibility because this time, the slogan was not ‘adapt and profit’ but ‘resist and prohibit’. Copying equipment had to be outlawed. Legendary is the 1982 US Congress testimony by Jack Valenti, then President of the Motion Picture Association of America: “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”
Fortunately, Congress did not heed Valenti’s stupid advice. Technological progress was given free reign, and the entertainment industry became even richer from selling royalties on sales and rental of MCs and videotapes. And Jack Valenti is still Holloywood’s top lobbyist. This is not a good sign.
And indeed, history repeats itself. Again, new media, new ways to use and new usage moments are enriching our lives. Music and films are downloadable from the Internet and can be enjoyed without loss of quality on PCs, DVD- and MP3-players. But do you think the industry is eager to serve us with new products, new services, and new ways for them to earn money? Forget it!
During the last few decades the entertainment industry has not brought forth one single innovation, not even an attempt. Worse, innovation attempts by industry outsiders have been resisted with every possible means, and with success. Napster and Gnutella are dead and gone, Kazaa is still alive thanks to winning a preliminary court judgment but the jury’s still out on that one.
To some degree I can understand why people try to defend their existing position. But when this culminates in destructive behaviour solely aimed at halting progress, it’s unpalatable.
The entertainment industry has to take a fresh new look at its business paradigm: how to market audio and video content in today’s digital media world, from home audio to MP3, from mobile phone to DVD. Technology will not pose any obstacle: any solution, once accepted, can be built. The only thing for decent content marketers to do is spend some thought on a) what exactly the consumer wants; b) how much they are willing to pay for it; and c) how to fulfil the consumer needs after building in a payment moment.
What do consumers want? Very simple: they want unlimited enjoyment of music or film, either for a limited amount of time (rental) or forever (sales). Do they want to pay for it? Yes, says a recent study by Jupiter Research. Respondents were given the choice between paying US$18 for content without any copying restriction, and US$10 for content with restrictions. An overwhelming majority chose the first option, despite the higher price tag. The same study reports that people familiar with file sharing show more willingness to pay for downloaded content than those who aren’t.
File sharing’s widespread acceptation shows what is technically possible and what consumers want. Studies like Jupiter’s show that they are willing to pay for it. Where are the entertainment marketers that do rather than sue? Is it about time that the industry turns its ear to doers rather than dinosaurs.
Is Jack Valenti for the music lover what Jack the Ripper was for the woman alone? Apparently, the Internet spawns a new breed of serial killers.
posted by Jos. at Thursday, May 01, 2003
0 comments
