Extracting value for shareholders vs. Creating value for stakeholders

The question of how to reinvent business in the post credit crunch and digital age has been a hot topic recently. Both Umair Haque’s fantastic The New Capitalist Manifesto and Kramer and Porter’s fantastic evolution of their thinking on CSR in this recent HBR article, Creating Shared Value are required reading on the subject.

The basic challenge is overcoming the temptation for businesses to extract value from the market place for the benefit of their shareholders instead of trying to create value for the benefit of all their stakeholders. There have been a couple of examples recently of brands falling foul of this temptation. It is particularly surprising to see, given both brands are not the usual monolithic 20th Century style businesses you associate with growth and profit focused capitalism.

First up, Twitter, who recently announced a massive scale back in the freedom with which developers can use their API. Clearly they need to figure out how to monetise the massive success that Twitter has become. But it is a shame they feel that they need to tightly restrict the user experience to do so and can’t have developers running around doing innovating for them. As is argued in this article on The Guardian’s blog they run the risk of destroying the very thing that made Twitter so successful – the fact that its core communications service was available to users in multiple forms that suited their myriad needs thanks to an open API and committed developers. It is a shame that they have resorted to such old economy methods to find a way of monetising the platform.

Secondly, and much more alarmingly as a UK taxpayer and hopeful Olympics spectator, LOCOG, who started selling tickets for the London 2012 Olympic Games this week. In an act of true corporate arrogance it is only possible to pay for tickets online using a Visa card or by collecting a form from a branch of Lloyds TSB. Surely there were some people advising these brands how to effectively activate and leverage their substantial sponsorship investments who had some conception that the general public might object to this facile and one dimensional restriction of their ability to get tickets Olympics. Do Visa and Lloyds TSB really want brand exposure at any cost to brand reputation? I really hope that there are some plans to use these sponsorship relationships to create something of value to Olympics goers in the near future and that this aspect is a just a small ill-thought through side effect of doing massive complex deals. Lord Coe explained away the decision to make these restrictions by saying:

“In fairness we wouldn’t have had a game without sponsors. This is not unusual. At major sporting events credit card companies do sponsor events…..the staging of the games is paid for by the private purse. it is not paid for by the national lottery or taxpayers money.”

I’m sure that no one is fooled by this financial sleight of hand given the £9billion bill to build the venues and infrastructure that makes it possible for the private purse to stage the games for a profit. And I hope that the overall impact of the games and their massive investment is the creation of value that is lasting and of benefit to the 7 million Londoners who are the games stakeholders.

Advertisements

Elegance in creative ideas

Working in a creative industry we often talk about how we should judge ideas. In “Made to Stick” Chip and Dan Heath came up with a great framework for understanding which ideas are most likely to be memorable. They identified 6 criteria :

• Simple — find the core of any idea
• Unexpected — grab people’s attention by surprising them
• Concrete — make sure an idea can be grasped and remembered later
• Credible — give an idea believability
• Emotional — help people see the importance of an idea
• Stories — empower people to use an idea through narrative


I think this is a pretty damm good list. And I often think I should use it more in reviews and when discussing the merits of one idea over another.

But I think there is one crucial thing that the best ideas have that is missing from this list. And that is elegance.

Of course I don’t mean elegance like a Roland Mouret dress is elegant. I mean elegant like Mathematics can be elegant as described by Bertrand Russell means elegant in The Study of Mathematics:

“Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry.”

Elegance can take other forms too.

Hogarth developed the notion of the line of beauty in art. The elegant Ogee s- shape that enlived art and drew the attention of the viewer….

….The golden ratio has long been admired in Geometry and architecture as fundamental form of elegance….

When we look at conceptual ideas we are looking for something similar. An elegance that is instantly appealing, that you want to revisit again and again and share with others. The sort of elegant idea that when you stumble upon one a sense of calm fear falls upon you.

Calm because your gut tells you intuitively it is fresh, exciting and has a simple beauty.

But accompanied by a fear that it is an idea without precedent and that maybe others won’t see the idea’s elegance the way you do.

By now you are thinking, come off it Will, we are trying to advertise insurance, or motor oil or beer. Elegance has nothing to do with it.

Well obviously I am not talking about the content of the idea but it’s innate structure. And advertising idea for a humble a Lager Beer, has one of the most elegant structures. Stella Artois’ Reassuringly Expensive.


It is a beautifully simple and economical phrase, the idea is immediate and accessible, it has a levity and wit it says so little but tells you so much. It is an idea that is born out of a truth.

“‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’ — that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know“
Ode to a Grecian Urn. John Keats.

It’s an elegant idea and I can’t wait to find the next one……

Debtris – making the invisible, unmissable

The power of creativity, digital and data visualisation to make the abstract and invisible urgent and unmissable. It is hard to watch this and not despair for way our civilisation prioritises use of its financial resources and the absurd inequality of the system.

Towards technological humanism- lifestreams and the empathic civilisation


Video – The Empathic Civilisation – Jeremy Rifkin – RSA Animate

Another weekend just gone and another article in the papers about a supposed backlash against Social Networking, this time from The Observer.

Which is strange given the continued rise in numbers of people using things like Facebook and Twitter. But anyway that aside it seems to me that the mainstream public discourse around new technologies and in particular social networking is asking the wrong question. The question we should be asking isn’t “are these new technologies good or bad?” Rather we should be asking ourselves how do we make sure technology is used to express and enable the good in human nature rather than the bad?

We have to constantly question what parts of human nature we want to celebrate and what parts to challenge and refine. There is no need to allow the direction we first set off in influence the rest of the journey like a bullet leaving a gun. Rather we need to shape iteratively the technology we are creating and how it serves us.

One of the most exciting questions I think we have to answer is – How are we going to manage all the data we have flooding towards us in a way that elevates our humanity rather than smothers it?

Right now we are in the position where the amount of information available to us is rapidly moving beyond what we can reasonably stay on top of but we still think we can. The addictive nature of this phenomenon is wonderfully described here by Jim Stodgill . Soon it will far exceed what we can stay on top of and then people will actually probably be able to relax. David Gelernter talks brilliantly about this future scenario and the technology that will emerge to allow us to experience information in “lifestreams” that we dip into as suits us.

This is exactly the type of thing we should be thinking about- recognising the positive benefits and thinking about how to improve the negatives of technology rather than naively positioning our choices as yes or no to social technologies that are here to stay.

We are learning a lot about human nature as research allows us to understand more and more about the Primate brain. We are discovering that the fundamental wiring of the brain isn’t as self-centered as we first thought and is actually highly empathetic and social in nature. It’s incredibly excitingly described by Jeremy Rifkin of the Foundation on Economic Trends in the video above from the fantastic RSA Animate series. Rifkin concludes by discussing the role of technology in empowering our underlying empathetic nature to create what he calls the empathic civilisation.

Take a look at the video, it certainly inspired me with the opportunity we have to create a future around a new idea of human nature.

From sponsorship to partnership

In the job I have just left in Nokia’s global marketing team, I spent a lot of time thinking about sponsorship. Sponsorship is a traditional marketing discipline, but with some re invention it is one that can help brands tackle the challenges they face today. What follows is an edited transcript of a speech I gave to an industry meeting on this subject. The first half is pretty standard stuff about the state of marketing that sets the context for the stuff about sponsorship in the second half..…

Presentation to the inaugural meeting of the International Guild of Sponsors.

“….

We are a society of editors

I don’t need to preach to the converted today about the fragmentation of media and the explosion of commercial messages that surround us. We are all consumers, and we experience that on a day to day basis.

The fragmentation of media also means consumers can select the content they want from many sources and simply try to avoid commercial messages and edit them out of their lives.

These days that editing is just as much about turning over a full page ad to read the article you are really interested in, or looking at what your fellow train passengers are wearing and not the billboards going by, as it is about not listening to commercial radio and playing a game on your Ipod. Or Nokia N97!

And of course consumers are more digitally empowered than ever before, more able to physically edit out and ignore the explosion of commercial messages. Enabled by digital tools that let you to skip ads using Tivo or Sky + or simply clicking close on an annoying pop up.

Our accelerated culture means that consumers are expert at editing their environment – we have evolved into a society of editors.

This has had an enormous impact on the marketing industry and examples of that impact are familiar to anyone working in marketing today.

And it means that brands must play a valuable role when present in the context of the things consumers care about – including through sponsorship activities- if you don’t get it right consumers will edit it out.

The paradox of choice

Consumer’s ability to edit out commercial messages is increasing at a time when they have more choice available to them than ever before.

Choice is often seen as the ultimate achievement of our civilization, the pinnacle of an ascent through a hierarchy of needs.

“It is choice with equity we are advancing. Choice and consumer power as the route to greater social justice not social division”

Tony Blair
2003

“We have always wanted to be authors of our own lives”

Will Hutton
The Observer

If you can choose your home, your kid’s schools, your healthcare, your car, your job, and the things that you buy, well that is the ultimate in self-actualization.

However even though being able to choose may be satisfying, it doesn’t follow that the more choice there is the better.

In fact Barry Schwartz talks about the Paradox of Choice.

“All of this choice has two negatives effects on people. One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis rather than liberation. With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all……”

Most of us have busy lives and are time poor and attention poor. So set in that context it is possible to feel that you can have too much choice. Choice can be paralyzing and distressing. What do I choose? If if have so much choice how can I possibility have chosen the right option? Choice turns out to be the consumer problem of our age.

Role of brands and marketing in a world of choice

It would be quite easy to get depressed working in marketing given these two trends. Consumers can ignore your marketing at will by editing it out, and marketing can exacerbate their choice overload, cluttering up the environment with things they don’t need and advertising encouraging them to think they do.

I was struck recently by this definition of marketing by evolutionary psychologist, Geoffrey Miller.

“ At its heart consumerist capitalism is not ‘materialistic’ but ‘semiotic’.
Marketers understand they are selling the sizzle not the steak, because a premium brand of sizzle yields a higher margin of profit, whereas a steak is just a low-margin commodity that any butcher could sell.”
Geoffrey Miller
“Spent”

As a marketer it is easy to see the value of brands to companies.

But that intangible, “semiotic” nature of brands creates value for consumers too.

So it is possible for marketing to be useful as it builds brands, despite the challenges proffered by the trends we have just been looking at.

Brands help you navigate choice. Brands help you feel better about what you have chosen. Brands always have and always will. Consumers love brands. Brands help them answer that question “What do I choose?”

And Marketing plays an important role in building brands and creating that intangible value

Like a bird building a nest, consumers gather facts, images, experiences, perceptions and feelings together to create a brand in their mind.

Marketing communications can add a twig or two to that nest, and so help address the issue of choice overload by helping consumers edit out brands that have low intangible value and select the brands they love.

But marketing can only play that role if it creates a twig that is picked up by the consumer

The role of experiences in engaging consumers

Distributing the twigs – raising awareness – is the easy part. Few brands suffer a lack of prompted awareness, certainly few of the brands that we all work for. But engagement is an issue for many brands.

One way we can try to ensure that twig is picked up is by creating fantastic experiences that entertain and reward.

In their book, The Experience Economy, Pine and Gilmore, talk about the power of experiences to engage consumer attention and provide a new unit of economic value-experiences.

In their view consumers seek out authentic experiences from brands. Their definition of authenticity means being true to ones self, so Disneyland is authentic because it is what it claims to be – a make-believe magical kingdom.

Consumers are incredibly savvy. Whilst they will edit out anything that doesn’t engage, they are happy to engage with brands that provide them with enriched experiences of the things that matter to them, experiences where the brand is playing a valuable role in their passion.

So that is the context. In an effort to engage with a society of editors, brands can try to create experiences that engage consumers

Sponsorship’s limitations

The trouble with sponsorship viewed as a traditional discipline is that it evolved as a tool to distribute the twigs – to increase reach and raise awareness or maybe influence brand associations and not as a tool for creating engagement.

Like broadcast TV which was dominated by a few terrestrial channels with a monopoly on an audience and serving thousands of advertisers, the sponsorship marketplace has had far more demand than supply.

This has led to a buyer/seller relationship between advertisers and rights owners. The lucky advertiser would have the chance to buy the right to associate with the property and reach its audience.

And if we have learnt one lesson from the last 10 years, it is – what is the use of delivering reach, even if it represents fantastic media value, if that doesn’t engage consumers?

A new role for sponsorship

The lessons we are learning about digital can be applied to sponsorship. As all the media that surrounds us is infused with digital connectivity – and we move from digital as internet advertising to digital as social media, interactive TV, digital billboards, and mobile etc, it no longer makes sense to think of digital as a channel.

Similarly as reach and association become blunt tools in the era of engagement we need to stop viewing sponsorship as a channel.

If we are trying to engage consumers by enriching their experience of their passions then we should consider sponsorship as a means to deliver the subject matter, the content, the hook or the stories that infuse our communications.
The discipline of sponsorship can cut across all of our channels. Sponsorship activation shouldn’t be restricted to standalone activities that extract value from the sponsorship assets. Sponsorship activation should be the task of the whole marketing department.

So how do you make sure that the whole marketing department wants to activate the sponsorship? Well I am not going to pretend that is easy.

But I think that the core of this approach is to do deals on the basis of common interests, and around a shared activity,

A collaboration around an idea.

However, the buyer/seller relationships that typify many sponsorship conversations are based on preconceived notions and prejudices. And the negotiation that follows, where each side takes positions makes it impossible to have a creative, developmental conversation.

It is not a new concept to instead base negotiations on the common interests of both parties and Fisher and Ury’s thinking Getting to Yes from 1981 still seems fresh today. But it is still hard to put into practice.

And It can be seductive to see this as a simple question of establishing brand fit. A comparison of brand steering wheels or brand onions. But too often this is an exercise in post rationalization. A reconciliation of vague and generic concepts.

True brand fit has to manifest itself in action, playing a valuable role in the lives of consumers, and that comes from creative, developmental conversations around mutually beneficial ideas

It can help to take a consumer centric view not and industry centric view. Rather than viewing the relationship as Advertisers VS rights holders. We should think about Brand PLUS Brand.

After all that is how consumers see things – as lots of different brands. Ones they care more about and ones they care less about

With the consumer in mind it is easier to focus on working together in order to engage them.

So what is needed is advertiser and property developing an idea together for how they will create a collaborative activity that adds to the consumer experience and creates engagement.

This should build on the equity that exists between the property and consumer,
and perhaps create a transaction between the consumer and the advertiser.
The end result should be that value is created for all parties– a win/win/win.

Value Based Partnerships

Collaborating around an idea also means doing the deal to support it.

It puts the emphasis on an exchange of value, and in fact we talk about trying to create “value based partnerships”. In a value based partnership the value of the totality of what each partner is bringing to the table is taken into consideration when doing the deal.. Not just what is being bought by one party and sold by the other. This includes brand equity, consumer bases, marketing, digital and retail platforms, skills and expertise. In reality this of course doesn’t mean no cash will change hands, but probably, well hopefully, it does mean less cash will change hands!

It also means there is less of a distinction between the budget for creating the sponsorship and the budget for activation. In the ideal world the majority of the budget would be invested in the joint activity. This means we can rely less on the usual evaluation metric where we look at media value delivered, and rather we need to look at specific metrics to do with engagement.

Conclusion

So I will conclude by saying that whilst the principles of collaboration I have described have been inspired by working for a technology brand like Nokia, I hope you will agree that in fact they are relevant to brands from any sector who are able to work together to create a win/win/win.

What can we jointly do together?

What is our idea?

From those questions a partnership can spring, where doing a deal is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Thanks a lot for your attention. …..”

The internet doesn’t cause depression. A rejection of technological determinism.

Have you ever noticed that the mainstream press loves a good “technology is evil” story? This BBC story this morning reports that there is “a strong link between heavy internet use and depression”. The implied cause and effect sounds bad huh? Using the internet is going to make you depressed. But look a little closer. The research found simply that 18 people or 1.2% of the total sample were depressed and that they were also heavy internet users, with the researchers being at pains to point out that there was no evidence of cause and effect. So it could equally be that if you are depressed you might just like to use the internet a lot to cheer yourself up. So why didn’t the BBC report “that there is a link between depression and heavy internet use”? Perhaps it is because they are Technological Determinists.

Thomas L. Friedman, who’s excellent “The World is Flat” I have just finished reading, openly admits he is a Technological determinist. He sums it up….

“I believe that capabilities create intentions. If we create an Internet where people can open an online store and have global suppliers, global customers, and global competitors, they will open that online store or bank or bookshop…if we creat cell phones with cameras in them, people will use them of all sorts of tasks, from cheating on tests to calling Grandma in her nursing home on her ninetieth birthday…But while I am a technological determinist, I am not a historical determinist. There is absolutely no guarantee that everyone will use these new technologies, or the triple convergence, for the benefit of themselves, their countries or humanity. These are just technologies.”

In a nutshell the determinist view is that if a technology is created, then the behaviour that is enabled by that technology is also created. And this process is an immutable feature of any technological innovation. It is kind of a seductive line of thinking. Just think about the impact of different technology, when a technology is created behaviour follows that you can’t control. Gutenberg invented the printing press, then people started reading. Henry Ford invented the Model T, then people started driving. Zuckerberg invented Facebook, then people started Poking each other. Kalshnikov invented the AK-47, then people started shooting each other…you see, dangerous thing technology isn’t it?

You often you hear reactionary types who aren’t happy about change moan about the “dangers” we are facing from a determinist position. In this recent article in The Observer , Dr Aleks Krotoski apparently worries about the web having become “intrusive and threatening” and it being “democratic, but dangerous too”. Now, neither of those statements come from the body of her article which is actually pretty balanced, so I wonder if really it is the editorial team at The Observer that are the reactionary Technological Determinists and not her. But anyway she does claim that when the internet is used to:

“…radicalise new recruits to fundamentalist causes…or promote propaganda within authoritarian states, the web becomes something to condemn”.

But why condemn the web? The reason the web is singled out is because it is a new technology. We no longer condemn books because of the printing of radical literature. It is human nature that that fuels fundamentalism. We should be condemning the elements of human nature that we despise instead.

I am definitely not a Technological Determinist. For me technology follows human nature. Behaviour is a product of both human nature and the tools we have to express that nature. Technological innovation seeks to satisfy our natures, our innate needs. Technology is an enabler. Technology means I can Poke you, or use an Ak-47. But the thing is I am a social animal so I always wanted to Poke you, it is just that now I have the means. I am also a territorial and tribal animal so I always wanted to kill you, and now I have the means to do so with ease.

I agree with Friedman, that you can’t always predict how people will use a technology in advance, and in a sense technology’s role is neutral without a human agent. But rather than focus on the merits of this or that technology, it is more constructive for us to look beyond the technology to the human nature that technology seeks to satisfy. Let’s not forget that technology is also the enabler that has allowed billions to escape subsistence lifestyles, and will hopefully allow the remaining billions to do the same.

One of society’s key roles should be to debate what elements of human nature we really want to encourage, and which corresponding behaviours are acceptable and which aren’t. Overstating the role of technology as the cause of those unacceptable behaviours confuses the debate. When we ban mobile phones in train carriages, what we should really be banning is loud antisocial conversations. When we bemoan our children’s use of Google to answer questions, we should be encouraging them to see the value in thinking for themselves.

So what to call the counter point to Technological Determinism? I am not sure, but when thinking about technology I think we should start with human nature in mind. Perhaps Technological Humanism? My definition would be – “The belief that technology exists to statisfy the fundamental needs of human nature, by supplementing human abilities, empowering individuals and enabling new behaviours”. I am an optimistic realist, so keeping in mind that technology can be used for ill as well as good, it feels right to me to focus on the tremendous force for good that that exists with the creative and innovative application of technology to the world’s problems.

8 key changes in entertainment

I have been thinking about entertainment recently, including reading Henry Jenkins’ Convergence Culture.

As I discussed in this previous post, in many ways entertainment is the religion of the 21st Century affording us a shared experience that connects us to our fellow man. The blockbuster still reigns supreme as the means to share entertainment at the box office, music store, bookshop or on TV as this recent article in The Economist argues.

However technology is providing new ways for us to share entertainment experiences. If brands can understand that change, they can find ways of playing a meaningful role and collaborating with the entertainment industry to cut through the clutter and better engage consumers.

Here is my summary of the 8 main changes underway.

1. FROM the explosion of content choices TO content on demand

We are surrounded by more choices of entertainment than ever before. And now added to that proliferation of choice, we can demand our favourite entertainment whenever we want it with services like Itunes, Hulu or BBC Iplayer. And although the predictions about On Demand viewing as a share of behaviour seem to be conservative for now this is sure to change rapidly as the technology and service improves.

But true content on demand will happen when the entertainment industry learns from other industries and realizes that it is crazy to deliberately hold onto inventory and wait to sell it later – that just ties up cost that can’t be turned into revenue or profit (e.g Vs. Dell Computers). Luckily the internet provides a near frictionless and instant distribution platform. The challenge of course is how to monetize that content, and more on that later, but a good start is to truly satisfy ever more demanding consumers.

2. FROM Leisure time as a limited, set time TO Leisure time as expansive and intertwined with work time

It used to be that you worked 9-5 (or more) and then had some leisure time in the evenings and at weekends. But in the same way that work time respects boundaries less and less as we are permanently connected to work through laptops, Blackberrys etc, digitally connected consumers are more able to consumer entertainment during traditional working hours.

That means entertainment is not limited to being a set specific leisure activity linked to an appointment to view. There is increasingly the opportunity to infuse peoples lives with entertainment, rather than restricting entertainment to being a discreet activity limited to a particular type of leisure time.

3. FROM convergence of device functions and divergence of media TO Divergence of device usage and convergence of media.

I must confess that this one is a direct lift from Jenkins. We have been through a period of device convergence, my phone is now my music player, camera, email and internet device etc etc. But what we see now is that device usage is diverging. I choose from a diverse range of devices the one that is best suited to the task. So I may well have a 5 megapix camera phone for ad hoc snaps, but I also have a 12 mega pix Digital SLR for when I am in “taking pictures” mode.

Media on the other hand has gone through a period of divergence where new channels emerged to provide specific entertainment e.g Sky Sports. Now we are seeing media convergence where my choice of media is available on any channel I choose. So I can consume my favourite shows on my Sky box at home but also through my Sky account on my computer or mobile.

And that means that all entertainment brands compete with each other. To push the argument to the extreme, imagine you are bored with the goal-less monotony of a live conference football match? – well you can fire up your Iphone and catch up on the latest Top Gear.

4. FROM Passive consumption TO immersive and interactive experiences

Last year the gaming industry made more money than Hollywood. Modern Warfare 2 has just stormed the charts. Yeah sure 20 something blokes have more disposable income than the rest of us and Hollywood still touches larger numbers of people, but these days my Mum knows what a Wii is. Entertainment used to be about sitting back and watching, now it is very often about leaning forward and participating.

Immersive and interactive experiences will become less geeky and niche and more mainstream. Technology improvements make it is easier and easier to interact and so as the barriers come down the audience will broaden.

5. FROM Storytelling in new media TO Transmedia storytelling

Not really going to write too much about this one as “transmedia storytelling” is the buzzword du jour and tonnes has already been done to build on Jenkins’ work. But in short, entertainers have more channels with which to entertain these days, and increasingly are combining those channels to tell stories, where different elements of the story exist in different channels and an engaged consumer can piece it all together to get more rewarding experience than simply just consuming one element.

Marketers have been really fascinated by the concept partly I think because integration across channels has been such a hot topic in recent years, when it come to communications campaigns. The “worlds” created by movie franchises lend themselves to readily to the type of integrated campaigns that brands and their agencies aspire to.

Whether you are talking about an entertainment franchise brand or an FMCG brand, consumers love exploring new worlds and will dive into those worlds through multiple “windows” in whatever way suits them.

6. FROM linear and controlled TO Networked and devolved.

Simple one really, this is about less control for entertainment producers. In the days of broadcast where the entertainment industry controlled both the means of production and the means of distribution, consumers had take whatever was dished out to them. But now the industry no longer has that control. They can’t be certain how or when the entertainment will be consumed.

7. FROM Brands integrating into entertainment TO Brands distributing, hosting and curating entertainment

Brands have always played around the margins of entertainment but too often the brand’s role has been to shout a commercial message in return for funding entertainment creation and distribution. There are more opportunities than ever for brands to have a more central, active and positive role. Brands can facilitate the distribution of entertainment, play host to entertainment and curate the best entertainment, engaging consumers and adding to their experience.

8. FROM Consumers paying for traditional formats TO New business and revenue models

The cost of distributing digital formats is very low, and so consumers are less willing to pay for those formats as the music industry has discovered. We have already seen lots of interesting new approaches to generating revenue from entertainment, a great example is Spotify. Ad revenue is sure to play a role, but revenue can also come from consumers paying for new formats as I discussed in this previous post. Kevin Kelly has come up with a great list of ways to innovate to add value to media so that it is worth paying for.

So that is my list, I am sure there are many more, love to hear about it if there is something I have missed…..