I made a very short video on the same topic last week (90 secs) and a lot of people have pinged me to make a longer version - so here it is, in 2 parts (thanks to Youtube's really annoying 10 minute limit).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=55079769-6513-4344-8a4f-24c4682515e1)
I was delighted to be invited to make a contribution to the RSA Journal's July 2009 edition, the printed version of which was just send out I believe, and the online edition that just went up on their website.
The complete title of my piece is: "The price of freedom - reinventing the online economy: Gerd Leonhard explains why ‘free’ content can still pay in the long term" and I really enjoyed writing this for them.
Following my last presentation at the RSA, in April 2009, on 'The Future of Content and Creativity' I have had many good conversations about this topic. The audio track from this event is here, btw; and the video is embedded again, below. Enjoy. And RT;)
I definitely recommend that you check out the other great features in the Juy 09 RSA journal, as well, there's some great gems in there.
You can read the entire thing on the RSA page, so here is just an excerpt:
"Free information, free music, free content and free media have been
the promises of the internet (r)evolution since the humble beginnings
of the World Wide Web and the Netscape IPO on 9 August 1995. What
started out as the cumbersome sharing of simple text, grainy images and
seriously compressed MP3s via online bulletin boards has now spread out
to every single segment of the content industry – and even into
‘meatspace’ (real-life) services such as car rentals. Without a doubt,
‘free’ has become the default expectation of the young web-empowered
digital natives and now the older generations are jumping in, too.
On top of the already disruptive force of the good old computer-based Web1.0, we are witnessing a global shift to mobile internet – a WWW that is, finally, so easy to use that even my grandmother can do it. While five years ago, we needed a ‘real’ computer tethered to a bunch of wires to port ourselves to this other place called ‘online’ and partake in global content swapping, now we just need a simple smart phone and a basic data connection. With a single click of a button, we’re in business – or rather, in freeloading mode.
As users, we love ‘free’; as creators, many of us have come to hate the very thought. When access is de facto ownership, how can we still sell copies of our creations? Will we be stuck playing gigs while our music circles the globe on social networks, or blogging (now: tweeting) our heart out without even a hint of real money coming our way?
Daunting as it may seem, we can no longer stick with the pillars of Content1.0, such as the so-called fixed mechanical rate that US music publishers are currently getting ‘per copy’ of a song ($0.091). Nobody knows what really defines a copy any longer when the web’s equivalent of a copy (the on-demand play of that song on digital networks) may be occurring hundreds of millions of times per day. No advertiser, no ISP and not even Google has this kind of money to pay the composer (or rather, the publisher), at least not until the advertisers start bringing at least 30–50 per cent of their global US$1 trillion marketing and advertising budgets to the table.
Traditional
expectations and pre-internet licensing agreements are exactly what are
holding up YouTube’s deals with the music rights organisations such as
PRS and GEMA: this is what the rights organisations used to get paid
for the music that is being copied, and this is what they want to get
paid now. This impasse is causing significant friction in our media
industries worldwide. Yet, below the top-line issue of money, there
lurks an even more significant paradigm shift: the excruciating switch
from a centralised system of domination and control to a new ecosystem
based on open and collaborative models. This is the shift from
monopolies and cartels to interconnected platforms where partnership
and revenue sharing are standard procedures. In most countries,
copyright law gives creators complete and unfettered control to say yes
or no to the use of their work. Rights-holders have been able to rule
the ecosystem and, accordingly, ‘my way or the highway’ has been the
quintessential operating paradigm of most large content companies for
the past 50 years.
Enter the internet: now the highway has become the road of choice for 95 per cent of the population, the attitude of increasing the price by playing hard to get is rendered utterly fruitless. Like it or not, a refusal to give permission for our content to be legally used because we just don’t like the terms (or the entity asking for a licence) will just be treated as ‘damage’ on the digital networks, and the traffic will simply route around it. The internet and its millions of clever ‘prosumers’, inventors and armies of collaborators will find a way to use our creations, anyway. Yes, we can sue Napster, Kazaa or The PirateBay and we can whack ever more moles as we go along. We can pay hundreds of millions of dollars to our lawyers and industry lobbyists – but none of this will help us to monetise what we create. The solution is not a clever legal move, and it’s not a technical trick (witness the disastrous use and now total demise of Digital Rights Management in digital music). The solution is in the creation of new business models and the adoption of a new economic logic that works for everyone; a logic that is based on collaboration, on co-engagement and on, dare we mention it, mutual trust – an ecosystem not an egosystem. Once we accept this, we can start to discover the tremendous possibilities that a networked content economy can bring to us.
Free, feels-like-free and freemium
Much has been written on the persistent trend towards free content on the net. It is crucial that we distinguish between the different terms so that we can develop new revenue models around all of them. ‘Free’ means nobody gets paid in hard currency – content is given away in return for other considerations, such as a larger audience, viral marketing velocity or increased word of mouth (or mouse). I may be receiving payment in the form of attention, but that isn’t going to be very useful when it’s time to pay my rent or buy dinner for my kids. Free is... well, unpaid, in real-life terms.
‘Feels-like-free’, on the other hand, means that real money is being generated for the creators while their content is being consumed – but the user considers it free. The payment may be made (ie sponsored or facilitated) by a third party (such as Google’s recently launched free music offering in China, Top100.cn); it may be bundled (such as in Nokia’s innovative ‘Comes With Music’ offering, which bundles the music fee into the actual handsets) or the payment may be part of an existing social, technological or cultural infrastructure (such as cable TV or European broadcast licence fees) and therefore absorbed without much further thought. Feels-like-free could therefore be understood as a smart way to re-package what people will pay for, so that the pain of parting with their money is removed or somewhat lessened – everyone pays, somehow, but the consumption itself feels like a good deal...." Read on. PDF: Download RSA - The price of freedom Gerd Leonhard July 2009
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7d8e6328-1d47-418b-bd32-757aa729f7ee)
This is probably a world record: In this short Flickr video, below, I am illustrating my basic Music 2.0 concepts in a snappy 90 seconds. Yes, I know that's way to fast to read much of it while it goes by, so here is the PDF, too: Music 2.0 in 90 seconds gerd leonhard singles (7MB PDF, creative commons licensed)
The entire Music 2.0 book can be downloaded (yes, for free), here, or you can order it from Amazon.com or even better, on-demand-printed by Lulu. You can read it on the iPhone, too, using the cool Instapaper app. And yes, you can download this snazzy video via Drop.io. Music is provided by SlicerXXL via TribeofNoise.com - thanks! Still need more? Check out my Music 2.0 slideshows on Slideshare.com.
And if you really need more than 90 secs - here is the 3-minute version
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=df7b59cd-0b72-4fa1-9802-cac014ee4061)
The Net Generation (some call them the digital natives) is indeed drastically different than the TV Generation - see my bullets below. There is no way anyone can sell or market to them in the same way that still worked (well...somewhat) only 5 years ago. There is no way anyone can still monopolize their attention in the same way that mass media (TV, Radio, Print) did until now (sorry, IFPI and MPAA;). There is no way that anyone can 'own' or 'control the customer' any longer, period. The more you try to control your users, the less you will receive from them.
It's the End of Control and the beginning of Trust. If you want to know more - well, yes, you remember, I did write half a book on this in 2008, and it's still quite accurate, so check out the End of Control chapters (free PDFs, too), here. And please 'pay' for the book by spreading the word - use the sharing tools provided below. Thanks!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=55585310-dca8-4666-9340-1fea08900fa2)
This is part 2 of my presentations at CommunicAsia 2009 in Singapore:
The Future of Mobile Content, TV & Entertainment
The content industries are seriously challenged by the Internet's
disruptive forces - it may have taken longer but is really hitting home
now. Many trusted business models are no longer working, copyright and
value traditions are being challenged, and content consumption is
drastically changing, everywhere. Now that Internet access is becoming
a default part of just about every mobile phone, even more drastic
changes are on the horizon. Who will pay for what kind of content on
mobile phones, when, why, where and how? Will mobile TV and mobile
music finally take off, and what will be the future business models?
Where the opportunities are and where are the minefields and myths that
need to be discarded....
CMMA Future of Mobile Content Singapore Gerd Leonhard Public (PDF 12.7MB)
It feels like things are moving increasingly fast now - the global economic crisis has either really catalyzed people and companies into action, or it has completely paralyzed them; but there is no way to stay neutral. On my end, I am certainly seeing a lot more demand for the development of immediate (2-3 years) future scenarios than ever before - guess that's a good thing!
A new kind of currency is developing, and it's based on how connected, appreciated, vetted & verified and available you are. This can be expressed in a myriad of ways, including via the number of links that you are getting, the amount of followers and retweets you are getting (however superficial that may seem, at this early stage), the number of people that subscribe to your blog feed, and if you run a network, how many companies are building your business on-top of yours (i.e. via the use of APIs). Of course, beyond that rather primitive approach of pure volume and easily trackable stats lurks the much tougher question of real meaning, context, merit and quality, i.e. it is really the quality of every single node in your network is what matters, not just their sheer number.
While this Link Economy (see Jeff Jarvis) is, of course, not new, it is certainly getting a real boost from the likes of Twitter and Friendfeed where it appears that good links do matter a lot, and some Twitter search results now often trump good old Google search results. This "you are what you share" mantra is, of course, just one expression of the Web'whatever.0' principle of "success is the result of adding value not extracting value"; and clearly those that add the most value now get the most mentions i.e. links or retweets etc.
If this feels a bit like some kind of race to you I can definitely sympathise but would venture to say that we will see the normalization of this process within the next 9-12 months, just like we did with SEO which is now a pretty well-established routine and feels less like a constant race.
Another important point has been raised by Umair Hague several times in the last few months (and yes, I have been busy applying the 'Proudly Found Elsewhere' principles to his blog posts;), and that is the fact that we seem to be moving into an Interdependent Ecosystem, and away from what I like call the traditional EGOsystem.
In the Content & Media and TIME sectors it will simply no longer work to focus on driving revenues and profits just for oneself, and based only on one's own assets and capabilities. Instead, in the future, revenue streams will need to be discovered, invented, generated, nurtured and maintained in collaboration with other key players in the Ecosystem. This is a key point for me: we won't have recurring and scalable new generatives in the content business unless we all help to build them, in the first place. There IS no model we can apply, yet, there is no set way to cook this dish, there are no charts to play off - t
here's only improvisation until we have a new song. Stay tuned!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c1347778-5d43-4010-a08f-adaed134b68a)
I did an interview with the On iOn Communication people for a show on Balzac.TV(Barcelona) at last year's 'New Cultural Economy' event at Ars Electronica in Graz, Austria. Today, Balzav.tv published the interviews (which also included Creative Commons CEO and all-around thought leader Joi Ito, ARS CEO Gerfried Stocker, and Ronaldo Remos) online, and if you speak Spanish better than me I recommend that you check it out; the discussions in-between (with Gina Tost) are in Spanish, the Interviews are in English.
More details via From the OniOn blog:
"Hoy se estrena un nuevo capitulo
de Balzac TV, un trabajo realizado en cooperación entre los equipos de
ON i ON comunicación y de Balzac TV, y protagonizado por las
antagonistas “Gina copyleft” y “Gina copyright”. Con esta pieza queremos aportar una serie de reflexiones ajenas y
propias acerca de un problema actual que parece de difícil solución si
lo miramos sólo desde el lado del negocio: las limitaciones de la propiedad intelectual en la era digital.
¿Qué alternativas hay a la estricta interpretación del copyright,
Creative Commons funciona, y bajo qué condiciones, y hay modelos de
negocios viables basado en el copyleft?
A parte de la estupenda Gina Tost y sus alter egos, contamos con las aportaciones de Joi Ito (CEO Creative Commons), Gerfried Stocker (Director Artístico de Ars Electronica), Gerd Leonhard (Media Futurist) y Ronaldo Lemos (Creative Commons, Brazil). Os dejo con las Ginas peleonas…"
Balzac.tv: La belleza del copyleft
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2270932c-cb64-45e6-9db6-ce88a7393900)
I just found this audio stream (below) via a link to Gravity Lab Media; the RSA event on April 8 was great so it's worth blogging on it again. A reminder of the topics that were discussed: "The
internet is fundamentally disrupting the traditional mainstream content
distribution and selling models, starting with music and games,
followed by TV, film, books and print publishing. Soon everyone will be “always on”, mobile and hyper-connected, and
everything will available all the time. How will content be created,
distributed, marketed, consumed, and paid for? Who will do what, for
whom, and how will the traditional players such as broadcasters, record
labels, publishers and distributors adjust to the new landscape? If new
players, starting with telecoms, device makers, advertisers and brands,
indeed move into the content business, what will be their challenges
and opportunities? Given the challenging financial climate, how do we reconcile the
need to reward enterprise and secure sustainable revenue streams, with
the expectations and demands of the “freeconomics” generation..."
Speakers: Gerd Leonhard, media futurist, author and blogger; Richard Titus, Controller of Future Media, Audio, Music & Mobile, BBC; David A. Smith, chief executive of Global Futures and Foresight (GFF).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=03f5a99e-c395-4858-805f-14ea1162f6d2)
As the web becomes ubiquitous, everywhere, and mobile access dwarfs computers, we are seeing a key shift in the way that people use (fka consume) content. While it used to be good enough to present high-quality and professional content (think traditional TV, Radio etc) now people aka USERS want and really value good CONTEXT, too, i.e. links, recommendations, ratings, comments... and the conversation around the content. Social media brings this into sharp focus: all the stuff around content (I like to call this meta-content) is now just as important as the content itself. This has significant impact on every player in the content industries. Download the MP4 file: Download Content to Context shift MP4 (35MB)
More videos on my Youtube channel, iTunes video downloads via Blip.tv
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b66c8e61-829d-4897-a316-cb133ec02463)
Image via Wikipedia
Based on what Wikipedia says I am estimating that iTunes has maybe sold a total of 6.8 Billion songs since April 28, 2003 - i.e. exactly 6 years ago. Now Apple just announced that over 1 Billion iPhone & iPod apps were downloaded around the world (a good list of the top 20 free & paid apps is at Ben Tao's blog), during the past 9 months, already. Why is that? Why is music apparently less popular than software gadgets? Here is my 2 cents:
So, Music Industry, here is my recipe:
Lower Price Points + Freemium + Customizing + Value-Value-Value = Revenue Growth
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=715750dd-108f-4777-bc03-f7695424908f)
As I like to say: The Future of Content starts with Open Platforms, Open Standards and Open Licenses
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d5e1e0e5-c1da-4dd6-8051-45e4dc9dbd5a)
This is the audio version of my speech at the RSA in London, April 8, 2009 (see my previous post, which incl. the PDF download), with an introduction by Ralph Simon.
The MP3 file is here; the RSA information page is here.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=27a4b503-da54-4220-bc4a-3a70dd8a6183)
I think 2009 will be a key year for the content industries, the creators, media companies, platforms, labels, publishers and other middle(wo)men.
In 2009, the value of content - starting with music and news - is being redefined for the Internet age. The gloves are off: the music rights societies want more money for each play, many journalists and writers are fearing a gloomy future as newspapers stop printing and shift to digital publishing around the world, and the book-authors guild is quarreling with Amazon about the Kindle2's robotic voice renditions of their works.
The bottom line is that the core logic and operating mantra that the 'Western' content industries have employed until now is becoming unstable and, economically speaking, increasingly unworkable. The Internet has severely disrupted the traditional value chains, and the promised land of advertising-supported free content has not yet materialized.
Let me outline these shifts and challenges a bit more:
A) Controlling the distribution of content - whether by technical or via legal means - is increasingly becoming an utter 'mission impossible' unless you want to adopt a seriously totalitarian Internet regime (as seems to be proposed in France last week I fear...)
B) Closed systems and walled gardens (yes, those of the telecoms and mobile operators, too) are leaking everywhere. Closed and centralized ecosystems are becoming very expensive and thus hard to maintain, e.g. Microsoft Windows versus the ever-mushrooming Google Web OS (soon to include voice communications), Android and Symbian mobile OS vs Windows Mobile, free streaming vs paid subscriptions such as Rhapsody, open API-based platforms such as Twitter and (now) the Guardian's Open Platform versus proprietary offerings such as iTunes or the WSJ, and so on and on.
C) On the Net, just about every mode of content consumption -aka listening, watching, reading- does in fact create copies, too, so the traditional legal distinction of 'free use/listen/watch but paid copy' is... well, toast, I would say. This creates significant legal uncertainty and pulls out the rug under the value logic of the traditional publishing industries.
I like to refer to this tectonic shift as 'The challenge of 21st Century Content Economics' (see a related swf movie here); riffing off a similar phrase I picked-up at Umair Haque's very inspiring blog.
First, here are some of the most common questions I keep getting about the Future of Content:
Here are some answers that I have been investigating (please bear with me for a few hours while I find the definitive solutions ;):
1) I think content can be both free or cheap, and very expensive. This sounds paradoxical, perhaps, but the reality is that in a system that is no longer based on selling units or copies (i.e. CDs, DVDs, books, single-track downloads, cable slots etc), the value of content is very likely to be constantly re-determined by a multitude of surrounding and incremental factors.
So the correct answer to that key question of 'what's the value of content' should probably be a solid: 'it depends'. As much as that may make the job of getting remuneration so much harder, I think it is also potentially quite liberating that we will no longer need to worry about controlling distribution so that we can sell more copies. Instead, as would be the case with the flat rate for digital music that I have been pushing for for the past 7 years, we could then shift our entire focus to getting and keeping Attention and Trust - 2 factors which now are the very foundation of any commercial success. In fact, I would argue that because of the de-emphasis on copies most content marketing and promotion tasks will get a lot easier (and much less costly) since we can now use the content as a marketing tool, itself.
Image by gleonhard via Flickr
2) So what are those future value-determining factors? Here are a few from a long list that I have been compiling:
3) For the very same reason that content can be simultaneously worth a lot or very little (i.e. because of its disembodiment and the shift from selling copies to providing access), it follows that many rightsholders and their agencies may no longer be able to get fixed fees per copy, or even per use of a piece of content. Simply because if they continue to do that they will make it impossible-by-design to comply with their rules and legally use their content in all but the most highly subsidized cases, because most of the time a fixed fee will not be obtained on the other end (i.e. the users), either.
Youtube simply cannot pay a fixed 1 cent per stream - even with Google's deep pocket behind it - because the Youtube users will not pay 1 cent (or even a fraction thereof, for that matter) per stream, and advertising revenues that would support these kinds of license fees are not within reach yet (because, just like content, the web's advertising and marketing logic needs to be reinvented first, as well !). This new business needs to be build together, from the ground up.
We are seeing this hairy issue creep up everywhere: GEMA (the German copyright organization) reportedly wants up to 12.9 cents per music video that is played on Youtube in Germany; the reason being - and this is my personal guess - that they probably treat each video-play as an on-demand performance which would be charged almost as much as an actual copy (i.e. a download). And of course, the reality is that those digital natives are in fact using Youtube as virtual jukebox - watching my 15-year old son hang out in his room I can certainly attest to that.
So GEMA's (and PRS') point is as correct as it is pointless: these on-demand plays are very much like a download, in terms of how the users are using the content. Access is replacing ownership.
But here is the tough part that cannot be avoided no matter what: it's not the users, or Youtube (or Last.fm or Pandora or Hulu or Miro or Boxee etc) that are at fault here, it's how traditional content industry entities such as GEMA and PRS define the value of music (and other content). For them, a piece of content still has its fixed and minimum value, and if you want it, you'll need to pay up according to those rules.
As I am investigating more alternatives I will keep you posted so... stay tuned!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0b22ac80-5731-4aa7-b49b-23a678f94dfc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1da1d6ef-5087-4b5f-b5b2-76b5e249d9ad)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ea5b10ad-4b44-4364-ac4c-44bbf84e70a3)
