I’m sure the following scenarios would be familiar to most people… If you look carefully at what is being said or written in the Media (Television / Newspapers)… news on “My Name is Khan” – the movie, about Shah Rukh Khan’s comments and many other related titbits. Few months back it was Sashi Tharoor and about what he said (the cattle class comments), and what he was saying thereof. Another regular feature in the news channels happens to be what the latest tweets are on specific topics or current events… suddenly you see that Twitter is also about content…
The idea of Twitter was to provide a simple platform for the online users to update their status; and for their friends and followers to see and respond. The idea of keeping it under 140 characters was to make the integration with existing SMS platforms easier…. The idea has been very successful, and people have started taking on to Twitter a big way… The stats say that almost 40-45% of Twitter traffic is from Mobile platforms and the remaining from the web. The whole idea of Twitter was on ease of connecting and getting connected…. I’m sure using Twitter for content creation would have been last thing in the minds of the creators of Twitter.
The media (new or traditional) survives on content. The fresher and exclusive the content the better it is. Traditionally, media companies’ generated content mostly from internal sources (Editors, journalists, reporters etc); External (Freelancers, writers,) and Syndicated content (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, PTI, etc)… and there was a cost attached to these sources of content. With the advent of the web and specifically the web 2.0, a free source of content was discovered – User Generated Content. And when the user is a celebrity, with some media sell-able value attached…the content becomes golden; Imagine if a newspaper or TV carries free content sourced from tweets, they could easily fill up columns or minutes of prime-time news…which otherwise they would need to have filled with paid content….
The way things are shaping up – Twitter would soon become a content generator for media companies and might even be supplying most of the content… Maybe, just maybe – some sort of content syndication (or content generator) could the elusive business model that Twitter can look forward to make money ;)
It is a marriage of convenience. Content starved media feeds of the tweets; and in return Twitter gets free publicity…which would translate into more people joining the twitter platform, and more tweets being generated…thus more content being published for the media to consume…
This looks like a story that will ‘live happily ever after’ :)
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Media Companies. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Media Companies. Tampilkan semua postingan
Minggu, 21 Februari 2010
Twitter: Connection Generator or Content Generator
I’m sure the following scenarios would be familiar to most people… If you look carefully at what is being said or written in the Media (Television / Newspapers)… news on “My Name is Khan” – the movie, about Shah Rukh Khan’s comments and many other related titbits. Few months back it was Sashi Tharoor and about what he said (the cattle class comments), and what he was saying thereof. Another regular feature in the news channels happens to be what the latest tweets are on specific topics or current events… suddenly you see that Twitter is also about content…
The idea of Twitter was to provide a simple platform for the online users to update their status; and for their friends and followers to see and respond. The idea of keeping it under 140 characters was to make the integration with existing SMS platforms easier…. The idea has been very successful, and people have started taking on to Twitter a big way… The stats say that almost 40-45% of Twitter traffic is from Mobile platforms and the remaining from the web. The whole idea of Twitter was on ease of connecting and getting connected…. I’m sure using Twitter for content creation would have been last thing in the minds of the creators of Twitter.
The media (new or traditional) survives on content. The fresher and exclusive the content the better it is. Traditionally, media companies’ generated content mostly from internal sources (Editors, journalists, reporters etc); External (Freelancers, writers,) and Syndicated content (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, PTI, etc)… and there was a cost attached to these sources of content. With the advent of the web and specifically the web 2.0, a free source of content was discovered – User Generated Content. And when the user is a celebrity, with some media sell-able value attached…the content becomes golden; Imagine if a newspaper or TV carries free content sourced from tweets, they could easily fill up columns or minutes of prime-time news…which otherwise they would need to have filled with paid content….
The way things are shaping up – Twitter would soon become a content generator for media companies and might even be supplying most of the content… Maybe, just maybe – some sort of content syndication (or content generator) could the elusive business model that Twitter can look forward to make money ;)
It is a marriage of convenience. Content starved media feeds of the tweets; and in return Twitter gets free publicity…which would translate into more people joining the twitter platform, and more tweets being generated…thus more content being published for the media to consume…
This looks like a story that will ‘live happily ever after’ :)
The idea of Twitter was to provide a simple platform for the online users to update their status; and for their friends and followers to see and respond. The idea of keeping it under 140 characters was to make the integration with existing SMS platforms easier…. The idea has been very successful, and people have started taking on to Twitter a big way… The stats say that almost 40-45% of Twitter traffic is from Mobile platforms and the remaining from the web. The whole idea of Twitter was on ease of connecting and getting connected…. I’m sure using Twitter for content creation would have been last thing in the minds of the creators of Twitter.
The media (new or traditional) survives on content. The fresher and exclusive the content the better it is. Traditionally, media companies’ generated content mostly from internal sources (Editors, journalists, reporters etc); External (Freelancers, writers,) and Syndicated content (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, PTI, etc)… and there was a cost attached to these sources of content. With the advent of the web and specifically the web 2.0, a free source of content was discovered – User Generated Content. And when the user is a celebrity, with some media sell-able value attached…the content becomes golden; Imagine if a newspaper or TV carries free content sourced from tweets, they could easily fill up columns or minutes of prime-time news…which otherwise they would need to have filled with paid content….
The way things are shaping up – Twitter would soon become a content generator for media companies and might even be supplying most of the content… Maybe, just maybe – some sort of content syndication (or content generator) could the elusive business model that Twitter can look forward to make money ;)
It is a marriage of convenience. Content starved media feeds of the tweets; and in return Twitter gets free publicity…which would translate into more people joining the twitter platform, and more tweets being generated…thus more content being published for the media to consume…
This looks like a story that will ‘live happily ever after’ :)
Twitter: Connection Generator or Content Generator
I’m sure the following scenarios would be familiar to most people… If you look carefully at what is being said or written in the Media (Television / Newspapers)… news on “My Name is Khan” – the movie, about Shah Rukh Khan’s comments and many other related titbits. Few months back it was Sashi Tharoor and about what he said (the cattle class comments), and what he was saying thereof. Another regular feature in the news channels happens to be what the latest tweets are on specific topics or current events… suddenly you see that Twitter is also about content…
The idea of Twitter was to provide a simple platform for the online users to update their status; and for their friends and followers to see and respond. The idea of keeping it under 140 characters was to make the integration with existing SMS platforms easier…. The idea has been very successful, and people have started taking on to Twitter a big way… The stats say that almost 40-45% of Twitter traffic is from Mobile platforms and the remaining from the web. The whole idea of Twitter was on ease of connecting and getting connected…. I’m sure using Twitter for content creation would have been last thing in the minds of the creators of Twitter.
The media (new or traditional) survives on content. The fresher and exclusive the content the better it is. Traditionally, media companies’ generated content mostly from internal sources (Editors, journalists, reporters etc); External (Freelancers, writers,) and Syndicated content (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, PTI, etc)… and there was a cost attached to these sources of content. With the advent of the web and specifically the web 2.0, a free source of content was discovered – User Generated Content. And when the user is a celebrity, with some media sell-able value attached…the content becomes golden; Imagine if a newspaper or TV carries free content sourced from tweets, they could easily fill up columns or minutes of prime-time news…which otherwise they would need to have filled with paid content….
The way things are shaping up – Twitter would soon become a content generator for media companies and might even be supplying most of the content… Maybe, just maybe – some sort of content syndication (or content generator) could the elusive business model that Twitter can look forward to make money ;)
It is a marriage of convenience. Content starved media feeds of the tweets; and in return Twitter gets free publicity…which would translate into more people joining the twitter platform, and more tweets being generated…thus more content being published for the media to consume…
This looks like a story that will ‘live happily ever after’ :)
The idea of Twitter was to provide a simple platform for the online users to update their status; and for their friends and followers to see and respond. The idea of keeping it under 140 characters was to make the integration with existing SMS platforms easier…. The idea has been very successful, and people have started taking on to Twitter a big way… The stats say that almost 40-45% of Twitter traffic is from Mobile platforms and the remaining from the web. The whole idea of Twitter was on ease of connecting and getting connected…. I’m sure using Twitter for content creation would have been last thing in the minds of the creators of Twitter.
The media (new or traditional) survives on content. The fresher and exclusive the content the better it is. Traditionally, media companies’ generated content mostly from internal sources (Editors, journalists, reporters etc); External (Freelancers, writers,) and Syndicated content (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, PTI, etc)… and there was a cost attached to these sources of content. With the advent of the web and specifically the web 2.0, a free source of content was discovered – User Generated Content. And when the user is a celebrity, with some media sell-able value attached…the content becomes golden; Imagine if a newspaper or TV carries free content sourced from tweets, they could easily fill up columns or minutes of prime-time news…which otherwise they would need to have filled with paid content….
The way things are shaping up – Twitter would soon become a content generator for media companies and might even be supplying most of the content… Maybe, just maybe – some sort of content syndication (or content generator) could the elusive business model that Twitter can look forward to make money ;)
It is a marriage of convenience. Content starved media feeds of the tweets; and in return Twitter gets free publicity…which would translate into more people joining the twitter platform, and more tweets being generated…thus more content being published for the media to consume…
This looks like a story that will ‘live happily ever after’ :)
Minggu, 11 Oktober 2009
The (Media) Empire to strike back
Are we at a cusp of media upheaval? Are we soon going to see a war betting the old (traditional) media vs. new (Online) media??
Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, was mentioning that Search Engines and other content aggregators need to pay for any news reports or articles they currently take for free
He said “The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content”. A Media Mogul whose company owns newspapers, other publications and TV channels across the globe, his view comes as ominous. He was particularly harsh on Search Engine like Google, Yahoo! And other websites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook
While Mr. Murdoch and other media companies are right that there is a price for the content they create. As content owners they need to be compensated for exploitation of the original content for commercial purpose.
Having started my career with a media company, I have been taught and now know that there is nothing called Free in ‘Media’ business :)
While the new media companies had focussed and invested on technology and interactive features, they had left out information. Information was already available in the offline world, and since the ‘paid’ business model of online information business (News) has not been successful, the information was not available for free for one and all.
The idea of charging the Search Engines, and other website (content aggregators) is justified, it would have a domino effect on the way Internet would function. Broadly, the following are ways a media company would charge –
1) Flat fee for content basis time period
2) Cost per content basis
This would mean that the websites who are not breaking even now (I’m not talking about Google here:)) – will have to shell out more, and get deeper into red. The only option then left for them would be: -
- Tie up with fewer media companies, or
- Fewer content on their sites
Also from advertising revenue perspective the following would happen – Online companies would start charging more for advertisements (to offset the extra cost incurred for content), the number of ad impressions served would decrease (as the content pages decrease, and the user visits to webpages decrease) which means lower ad inventory.
But another truth is that most of the online media company websites get their traffic from the very sites the plan to charge for content. Search Engines like Google / Yahoo!, websites like Wiki, YouTube, and Facebook are the ‘gateways’ who are generating and driving traffic.
If the idea of charging for content fructifies, then there would be drastic changes in the online business models and way the most of the Internet businesses function
I feel while this would take time to happen, and if it does happen it would be with trade-off from both sides. What the trade-offs could be?? Mail me, I’ll let you know :)
Cheers
Santosh
Article reference taken from news.bbc.co.uk
Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, was mentioning that Search Engines and other content aggregators need to pay for any news reports or articles they currently take for free
He said “The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content”. A Media Mogul whose company owns newspapers, other publications and TV channels across the globe, his view comes as ominous. He was particularly harsh on Search Engine like Google, Yahoo! And other websites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook
While Mr. Murdoch and other media companies are right that there is a price for the content they create. As content owners they need to be compensated for exploitation of the original content for commercial purpose.
Having started my career with a media company, I have been taught and now know that there is nothing called Free in ‘Media’ business :)
While the new media companies had focussed and invested on technology and interactive features, they had left out information. Information was already available in the offline world, and since the ‘paid’ business model of online information business (News) has not been successful, the information was not available for free for one and all.
The idea of charging the Search Engines, and other website (content aggregators) is justified, it would have a domino effect on the way Internet would function. Broadly, the following are ways a media company would charge –
1) Flat fee for content basis time period
2) Cost per content basis
This would mean that the websites who are not breaking even now (I’m not talking about Google here:)) – will have to shell out more, and get deeper into red. The only option then left for them would be: -
- Tie up with fewer media companies, or
- Fewer content on their sites
Also from advertising revenue perspective the following would happen – Online companies would start charging more for advertisements (to offset the extra cost incurred for content), the number of ad impressions served would decrease (as the content pages decrease, and the user visits to webpages decrease) which means lower ad inventory.
But another truth is that most of the online media company websites get their traffic from the very sites the plan to charge for content. Search Engines like Google / Yahoo!, websites like Wiki, YouTube, and Facebook are the ‘gateways’ who are generating and driving traffic.
If the idea of charging for content fructifies, then there would be drastic changes in the online business models and way the most of the Internet businesses function
I feel while this would take time to happen, and if it does happen it would be with trade-off from both sides. What the trade-offs could be?? Mail me, I’ll let you know :)
Cheers
Santosh
Article reference taken from news.bbc.co.uk
The (Media) Empire to strike back
Are we at a cusp of media upheaval? Are we soon going to see a war betting the old (traditional) media vs. new (Online) media??
Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, was mentioning that Search Engines and other content aggregators need to pay for any news reports or articles they currently take for free
He said “The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content”. A Media Mogul whose company owns newspapers, other publications and TV channels across the globe, his view comes as ominous. He was particularly harsh on Search Engine like Google, Yahoo! And other websites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook
While Mr. Murdoch and other media companies are right that there is a price for the content they create. As content owners they need to be compensated for exploitation of the original content for commercial purpose.
Having started my career with a media company, I have been taught and now know that there is nothing called Free in ‘Media’ business :)
While the new media companies had focussed and invested on technology and interactive features, they had left out information. Information was already available in the offline world, and since the ‘paid’ business model of online information business (News) has not been successful, the information was not available for free for one and all.
The idea of charging the Search Engines, and other website (content aggregators) is justified, it would have a domino effect on the way Internet would function. Broadly, the following are ways a media company would charge –
1) Flat fee for content basis time period
2) Cost per content basis
This would mean that the websites who are not breaking even now (I’m not talking about Google here:)) – will have to shell out more, and get deeper into red. The only option then left for them would be: -
- Tie up with fewer media companies, or
- Fewer content on their sites
Also from advertising revenue perspective the following would happen – Online companies would start charging more for advertisements (to offset the extra cost incurred for content), the number of ad impressions served would decrease (as the content pages decrease, and the user visits to webpages decrease) which means lower ad inventory.
But another truth is that most of the online media company websites get their traffic from the very sites the plan to charge for content. Search Engines like Google / Yahoo!, websites like Wiki, YouTube, and Facebook are the ‘gateways’ who are generating and driving traffic.
If the idea of charging for content fructifies, then there would be drastic changes in the online business models and way the most of the Internet businesses function
I feel while this would take time to happen, and if it does happen it would be with trade-off from both sides. What the trade-offs could be?? Mail me, I’ll let you know :)
Cheers
Santosh
Article reference taken from news.bbc.co.uk
Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, was mentioning that Search Engines and other content aggregators need to pay for any news reports or articles they currently take for free
He said “The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content”. A Media Mogul whose company owns newspapers, other publications and TV channels across the globe, his view comes as ominous. He was particularly harsh on Search Engine like Google, Yahoo! And other websites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook
While Mr. Murdoch and other media companies are right that there is a price for the content they create. As content owners they need to be compensated for exploitation of the original content for commercial purpose.
Having started my career with a media company, I have been taught and now know that there is nothing called Free in ‘Media’ business :)
While the new media companies had focussed and invested on technology and interactive features, they had left out information. Information was already available in the offline world, and since the ‘paid’ business model of online information business (News) has not been successful, the information was not available for free for one and all.
The idea of charging the Search Engines, and other website (content aggregators) is justified, it would have a domino effect on the way Internet would function. Broadly, the following are ways a media company would charge –
1) Flat fee for content basis time period
2) Cost per content basis
This would mean that the websites who are not breaking even now (I’m not talking about Google here:)) – will have to shell out more, and get deeper into red. The only option then left for them would be: -
- Tie up with fewer media companies, or
- Fewer content on their sites
Also from advertising revenue perspective the following would happen – Online companies would start charging more for advertisements (to offset the extra cost incurred for content), the number of ad impressions served would decrease (as the content pages decrease, and the user visits to webpages decrease) which means lower ad inventory.
But another truth is that most of the online media company websites get their traffic from the very sites the plan to charge for content. Search Engines like Google / Yahoo!, websites like Wiki, YouTube, and Facebook are the ‘gateways’ who are generating and driving traffic.
If the idea of charging for content fructifies, then there would be drastic changes in the online business models and way the most of the Internet businesses function
I feel while this would take time to happen, and if it does happen it would be with trade-off from both sides. What the trade-offs could be?? Mail me, I’ll let you know :)
Cheers
Santosh
Article reference taken from news.bbc.co.uk
The (Media) Empire to strike back
Are we at a cusp of media upheaval? Are we soon going to see a war betting the old (traditional) media vs. new (Online) media??
Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, was mentioning that Search Engines and other content aggregators need to pay for any news reports or articles they currently take for free
He said “The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content”. A Media Mogul whose company owns newspapers, other publications and TV channels across the globe, his view comes as ominous. He was particularly harsh on Search Engine like Google, Yahoo! And other websites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook
While Mr. Murdoch and other media companies are right that there is a price for the content they create. As content owners they need to be compensated for exploitation of the original content for commercial purpose.
Having started my career with a media company, I have been taught and now know that there is nothing called Free in ‘Media’ business :)
While the new media companies had focussed and invested on technology and interactive features, they had left out information. Information was already available in the offline world, and since the ‘paid’ business model of online information business (News) has not been successful, the information was not available for free for one and all.
The idea of charging the Search Engines, and other website (content aggregators) is justified, it would have a domino effect on the way Internet would function. Broadly, the following are ways a media company would charge –
1) Flat fee for content basis time period
2) Cost per content basis
This would mean that the websites who are not breaking even now (I’m not talking about Google here:)) – will have to shell out more, and get deeper into red. The only option then left for them would be: -
- Tie up with fewer media companies, or
- Fewer content on their sites
Also from advertising revenue perspective the following would happen – Online companies would start charging more for advertisements (to offset the extra cost incurred for content), the number of ad impressions served would decrease (as the content pages decrease, and the user visits to webpages decrease) which means lower ad inventory.
But another truth is that most of the online media company websites get their traffic from the very sites the plan to charge for content. Search Engines like Google / Yahoo!, websites like Wiki, YouTube, and Facebook are the ‘gateways’ who are generating and driving traffic.
If the idea of charging for content fructifies, then there would be drastic changes in the online business models and way the most of the Internet businesses function
I feel while this would take time to happen, and if it does happen it would be with trade-off from both sides. What the trade-offs could be?? Mail me, I’ll let you know :)
Cheers
Santosh
Article reference taken from news.bbc.co.uk
Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the World Media Summit in Beijing, was mentioning that Search Engines and other content aggregators need to pay for any news reports or articles they currently take for free
He said “The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content”. A Media Mogul whose company owns newspapers, other publications and TV channels across the globe, his view comes as ominous. He was particularly harsh on Search Engine like Google, Yahoo! And other websites like Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook
While Mr. Murdoch and other media companies are right that there is a price for the content they create. As content owners they need to be compensated for exploitation of the original content for commercial purpose.
Having started my career with a media company, I have been taught and now know that there is nothing called Free in ‘Media’ business :)
While the new media companies had focussed and invested on technology and interactive features, they had left out information. Information was already available in the offline world, and since the ‘paid’ business model of online information business (News) has not been successful, the information was not available for free for one and all.
The idea of charging the Search Engines, and other website (content aggregators) is justified, it would have a domino effect on the way Internet would function. Broadly, the following are ways a media company would charge –
1) Flat fee for content basis time period
2) Cost per content basis
This would mean that the websites who are not breaking even now (I’m not talking about Google here:)) – will have to shell out more, and get deeper into red. The only option then left for them would be: -
- Tie up with fewer media companies, or
- Fewer content on their sites
Also from advertising revenue perspective the following would happen – Online companies would start charging more for advertisements (to offset the extra cost incurred for content), the number of ad impressions served would decrease (as the content pages decrease, and the user visits to webpages decrease) which means lower ad inventory.
But another truth is that most of the online media company websites get their traffic from the very sites the plan to charge for content. Search Engines like Google / Yahoo!, websites like Wiki, YouTube, and Facebook are the ‘gateways’ who are generating and driving traffic.
If the idea of charging for content fructifies, then there would be drastic changes in the online business models and way the most of the Internet businesses function
I feel while this would take time to happen, and if it does happen it would be with trade-off from both sides. What the trade-offs could be?? Mail me, I’ll let you know :)
Cheers
Santosh
Article reference taken from news.bbc.co.uk
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)