Pay Me - Now!
At least once a year, as I've no doubt mentioned before, my former co-hosts and I from the old Point 'n' Click Show (Cable 13) get together to do a presentation for the P. C. Users' Group of CNY. I'm the lucky one, because I typically reprise my role of "dumb blonde" moderator, asking all the questions the more tech-savvy are too embarrassed to ask. One of them always is, "What is your prediction for the Next Big Thing in the year to come?"
While I'm not generally forced to answer this question with anything that sounds even moderately wise, I do have a suggestion for Right This Minute: I think the "NBT" for the Internet will be: "Show me the money."
Thus far, the Internet, other than IPOs (alas, no more), and outliers like Amazon.com, has proven to be a relatively big bust when it comes to making people rich "over the Internet."
Why?
My opinion is that it's because we're still trying to model a "car" on a "buggy." That is to say, we've not yet broken out into a new paradigm for programming payback. We're still trying to "make" the Internet fit into the old broadcast model - and I do mean old broadcast (as in, pre-cable days) model.
Needless to say, if we'd had a little more prescience, we've have noticed that TV and radio aren't making broadcasters money the way they once did - hence so many small town/city stations going under, or combing forces when it comes to the most expensive item on their production list - local production. (Sound familiar, Syracuse?) And so many radio stations opting for canned programming (isn't it just borrrring to drive into a new region of the country, and instead of hearing, say, Bible Belt broadcasting as you would have 20 years ago heading south, you just pick up the same old stuff you could hear if you stayed in Boston?) rather than paying for talent, booths, and all the other paraphernalia that goes along with program origination. Cable, and satellite radio, along with iPods and iPhones and assorted other digital gadgets for personalized listening, have dug a huge hole in broadcast advertising dollars, and it's not going to suddenly go the other way.
Why would we ever have imagined that one of a gazillion websites were going to make a ton of money just from advertising?
But we did. Yes, some sites figured they were simply going to sell product in an easier and more streamlined, even possibly cheaper way (Amazon), making products and even services available to people everywhere, as long as they had an internet connection.
And some sites figured they were going to simply be SO COOL that people would flock to them in sufficient numbers to make advertising on them desirable and make it pay (YouTube - though even this giant is considering tiered - as in, some of it for pay - service). Most of these sites were flashes in the proverbial pan, and wore out their cool sooner than the initial investment could be paid back. And now, of course, there are so many sites, that the only ones truly making money off of advertising are a) search engines for services like Google ad words; and b) agencies producing said advertising (and even that is coming in a distant second as it becomes easier and easier for companies to figure out their own ad word buys, and create their own catchy, but short-lived ad campaigns.
So my question of the day is: how's it all going to pay?
I had a boss, many years ago, when I worked at PBS, who used to say, when cable first began to show its latent power, that we would eventually be paying to have TV in our houses - not just paying a pledge to "member-supported public television," but in essence paying for TV period. And he predicted we'd pay roughly $100 a month for the privilege. How I wish he were around today to know how accurate his prediction was. People argued that nobody would ever pay for something they were getting free now (just as we're doing today, saying that since we've had the Internet "free" all these years, we're going to react with a lot of anger if we're suddenly expected to pay for the sites we like to visit.
Well, if you simply look at it that way, that is true - and has proven to be true. People desert most site in droves that ask visitors to sign up for "premium" content. But think about it: cable had the magic of volume. For $8 a month, you could have 50 stations! Wow!! Amazing! Now it's more like $80 a month for 1500. But seriously, 1500 stations? And for another $20 or so, you can throw in a "premium" channel or two, and DVR, so you can record your favorite shows and watch them when you want (or simply go to On Demand and really take control of your viewing). When the folks bringing the Internet into our homes get some sort of grip on how to parcel out content in packages (or maybe it's something more like the old telephone charges, you pay by the minutes used and more if you call long distance), they'll have the formula for charging you for something that - admit it, now - you would be hard-put to live without any more.
While I'm not generally forced to answer this question with anything that sounds even moderately wise, I do have a suggestion for Right This Minute: I think the "NBT" for the Internet will be: "Show me the money."
Thus far, the Internet, other than IPOs (alas, no more), and outliers like Amazon.com, has proven to be a relatively big bust when it comes to making people rich "over the Internet."
Why?
My opinion is that it's because we're still trying to model a "car" on a "buggy." That is to say, we've not yet broken out into a new paradigm for programming payback. We're still trying to "make" the Internet fit into the old broadcast model - and I do mean old broadcast (as in, pre-cable days) model.
Needless to say, if we'd had a little more prescience, we've have noticed that TV and radio aren't making broadcasters money the way they once did - hence so many small town/city stations going under, or combing forces when it comes to the most expensive item on their production list - local production. (Sound familiar, Syracuse?) And so many radio stations opting for canned programming (isn't it just borrrring to drive into a new region of the country, and instead of hearing, say, Bible Belt broadcasting as you would have 20 years ago heading south, you just pick up the same old stuff you could hear if you stayed in Boston?) rather than paying for talent, booths, and all the other paraphernalia that goes along with program origination. Cable, and satellite radio, along with iPods and iPhones and assorted other digital gadgets for personalized listening, have dug a huge hole in broadcast advertising dollars, and it's not going to suddenly go the other way.
Why would we ever have imagined that one of a gazillion websites were going to make a ton of money just from advertising?
But we did. Yes, some sites figured they were simply going to sell product in an easier and more streamlined, even possibly cheaper way (Amazon), making products and even services available to people everywhere, as long as they had an internet connection.
And some sites figured they were going to simply be SO COOL that people would flock to them in sufficient numbers to make advertising on them desirable and make it pay (YouTube - though even this giant is considering tiered - as in, some of it for pay - service). Most of these sites were flashes in the proverbial pan, and wore out their cool sooner than the initial investment could be paid back. And now, of course, there are so many sites, that the only ones truly making money off of advertising are a) search engines for services like Google ad words; and b) agencies producing said advertising (and even that is coming in a distant second as it becomes easier and easier for companies to figure out their own ad word buys, and create their own catchy, but short-lived ad campaigns.
So my question of the day is: how's it all going to pay?
I had a boss, many years ago, when I worked at PBS, who used to say, when cable first began to show its latent power, that we would eventually be paying to have TV in our houses - not just paying a pledge to "member-supported public television," but in essence paying for TV period. And he predicted we'd pay roughly $100 a month for the privilege. How I wish he were around today to know how accurate his prediction was. People argued that nobody would ever pay for something they were getting free now (just as we're doing today, saying that since we've had the Internet "free" all these years, we're going to react with a lot of anger if we're suddenly expected to pay for the sites we like to visit.
Well, if you simply look at it that way, that is true - and has proven to be true. People desert most site in droves that ask visitors to sign up for "premium" content. But think about it: cable had the magic of volume. For $8 a month, you could have 50 stations! Wow!! Amazing! Now it's more like $80 a month for 1500. But seriously, 1500 stations? And for another $20 or so, you can throw in a "premium" channel or two, and DVR, so you can record your favorite shows and watch them when you want (or simply go to On Demand and really take control of your viewing). When the folks bringing the Internet into our homes get some sort of grip on how to parcel out content in packages (or maybe it's something more like the old telephone charges, you pay by the minutes used and more if you call long distance), they'll have the formula for charging you for something that - admit it, now - you would be hard-put to live without any more.
Comments