Back in 2001, Apple released the iPod. Pundits responded with distain and scorn: why does the world need another mp3 player? But as we all know now, the iPod wasn’t “just” another mp3 player; it changed how consumers viewed technology and related to each other once it morphed into the iPhone.
Apple didn’t do market research or consumer testing for the iPod. With their design-driven culture, they instinctively knew what the world needed then created and marketed the right product for the time. Looking through the lens of hindsight, arguably some of the biggest lessons Apple learned included: how to be an retailer of products and services as well as how to manage content rights and the distribution of intellectual capital.
Before the iPod was launched, MP3 players had been around for a while and a plethora of less user-friendly, more analog devices before MP3 players going back to the Sony Walkman. But Apple achieved notoriety because the music industry refused to change the concept of what business it was in and narrowly defined itself instead of widening its reach through perception. Apple used this preconception to its advantage when it launched iTunes offering an additional revenue stream to Napster-battered music companies: it would pay music companies a sizable percentage per download and keep the content under tighter distribution than the ‘free’ model of peer-to-peer file sharing.
Nearly a decade later and Apple is launching the iPad with the publishing industry in its crosshairs. Some folks, like NPR, opine that this is a good thing. Hoping to replicate the successful evolution of the music industry with the iPod and iTunes, the iPad is a tool that could offer publishers the opportunity to limit the firehose of online published content.
What is disconcerting is that even though the publishing industry has sustained heavy casualties in recent years, many publishers still cling to their conservative ways and refuse to embrace change. As exemplified in the seminal Harvard Business Review Article, Marketing Myopia, back in 1975 the railroad industry faced a similarly unpleasant, rapidly changing environment against which they failed to adapt and broaden their thinking from being in the railroad business to the transportation industry. Movies almost made this fatal mistake when tv came along, although most of the major studios broadened their definition to “entertainment” and promptly diversified their offerings.
The good news is that there are a handful of publishers who have widened their corporate lens to recognize that they are in the content production and distribution business. For example, the Guardian, a UK-based newspaper developed a subscription model for readers-on-the-go and served up bite-sized daily content as an iphone app, which has already netted them more than $400k in revenue and could be a multi-million dollar business for them.
Content is the gateway to broader community aspects. However, the locked content model that the iPad offers may hinder the best intentions of Apple and the publishing community with a user base already accustomed to sharing content in much the same way an older generation used to tear a sheet or article out from a magazine and mail it.
At the end of the day, one of the biggest unknowns is culture: can publishers transform themselves not just to take advantage of what the ipad could offer them in terms of content exclusivity, but also the very real likelihood that many talented content authors will be competing against them in the same virtual newsstand.
Though battle-weary after a decade-long war with technology, if publishers can rouse themselves from their marketing mypia to overcome dead business models towards being a content juggernaut, the iPad could signal a decisive strategic victory for publishers at long last.
Back in 2001, Apple released the iPod. Pundits responded with distain and scorn: why does the world need another mp3 player? But as we all know now, the iPod wasn’t “just” another mp3 player; it changed how consumers viewed technology and related to each other once it morphed into the iPhone.Apple didn’t do market research or consumer testing for the iPod. With their design-driven culture, they instinctively knew what the world needed then created and marketed the right product for the time. Looking through the lens of hindsight, arguably some of the biggest lessons Apple learned included: how to be an retailer of products and services as well as how to manage content rights and the distribution of intellectual capital.Before the iPod was launched, MP3 players had been around for a while and a plethora of less user-friendly, more analog devices before MP3 players going back to the Sony Walkman. But Apple achieved notoriety because the music industry refused to change the concept of what business it was in and narrowly defined itself instead of widening its reach through perception. Apple used this preconception to its advantage when it launched iTunes offering an additional revenue stream to Napster-battered music companies: it would pay music companies a sizable percentage per download and keep the content under tighter distribution than the ‘free’ model of peer-to-peer file sharing.Nearly a decade later and Apple is launching the iPad with the publishing industry in its crosshairs. Some folks, like NPR, opine that this is a good thing. Hoping to replicate the successful evolution of the music industry with the iPod and iTunes, the iPad is a tool that could offer publishers the opportunity to limit the firehose of online published content.What is disconcerting is that even though the publishing industry has sustained heavy casualties in recent years, many publishers still cling to their conservative ways and refuse to embrace change. As exemplified in the seminal Harvard Business Review Article, Marketing Myopia, back in 1975 the railroad industry faced a similarly unpleasant, rapidly changing environment against which they failed to adapt and broaden their thinking from being in the railroad business to the transportation industry. Movies almost made this fatal mistake when tv came along, although most of the major studios broadened their definition to “entertainment” and promptly diversified their offerings.The good news is that there are a handful of publishers who have widened their corporate lens to recognize that they are in the content production and distribution business. For example, the Guardian, a UK-based newspaper developed a subscription model for readers-on-the-go and served up bite-sized daily content as an iphone app, which has already netted them more than $400k in revenue and could be a multi-million dollar business for them.Content is the gateway to broader community aspects. However, the locked content model that the iPad offers may hinder the best intentions of Apple and the publishing community with a user base already accustomed to sharing content in much the same way an older generation used to tear a sheet or article out from a magazine and mail it.At the end of the day, one of the biggest unknowns is culture: can publishers transform themselves not just to take advantage of what the ipad could offer them in terms of content exclusivity, but also the very real likelihood that many talented content authors will be competing against them in the same virtual newsstand.Though battle-weary after a decade-long war with technology, if publishers can rouse themselves from their marketing mypia to overcome dead business models towards being a content juggernaut, the iPad could signal a decisive strategic victory for publishers at long last.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..