The power of distribution

It seems that the power of distribution and the convenience of the platforms have become grater than content itself.

Reaching audiences and devices seem to be crucial to any content provider. Social Networks are just open templates that support all kind of disposable messages, including hate and vulgarity.

Using the example of the MP3 format, Robert Capps eloquently argues: “we now favor flexibility over high fidelity, convenience over features, quick and dirty over slow and polished”.

Audiences seem to be ready to sacrifice quality and value other characteristics such as convenience and price when consuming products. Although, cultural or intelectual products could have a different dynamic.

Dr. Chyi has also empirically shown how users consider online news an inferior good as they keep finding more value in traditional media content (tangible?) for reasons that could be related to metal processes or behaviors.

A good example of successful low quality content can be found in YouTube. The participation of the audience in the media space has lower the standards of video quality in that social online platform and throughout the Web.

Convenience and the ability to share light content without restrictions appear to be key elements of success here.

However, journalists, writers and producers continue to believe quality is an important component in the production of content because it contributes to improve societies.

Sometime we can see traces of hope. Vimeo, for example, emerges as a platform for professional videographers. Specialized blogs set the agenda in key areas such as health and finances.

When are inferior goods good enough?

The central question is why does the “good enough” theory advanced in the Wired article, as Vicky mentioned, not apply to online news in the sense of competing with traditional print? I think we’ve looked at some of the reasons in class already, but the fact that it’s free is generally one problem and that online advertising returns less than print advertising is another. Also, as Dr. Chyi mentions, it’s not ideal to read it particularly on mobile devices. NAA data also hints at the idea that online news is inferior: print sales start to drop off just ahead of the 2008 financial crisis. But if you’ve gotten your news online for free, can you go back to paying for it?

The music industry provides an interesting comparison to the news industry. Unlike news, the music industry fought getting online, filed lawsuits left and right against piracy, and only after a long fight started to embrace online business models. And now? Streaming services are nearly 40% of its revenue. So even if MP3s are inferior to CDs, they are slowly becoming the norm. The larger historical patterns can be found here. The industry has been actively seeking to monetize these goods. It tightened copyright protection and began dabbling in online business models to offer alternatives to piracy, and capturing some unmet demand. However, its revenue is dropping to pre-1990s levels, and worse if you look at the inflation-adjusted data.

The difference between music and news? People listen to music on their computers and mobile devices, but they do not necessarily read the news, or at least enough to pay for it online. The question is, as the economy recovers do news subscriptions go up? (I think it’s a safe prediction to say that magazine subscriptions will go up because, first of all, their value does not diminish the day after they are published). However, no one will go back to buying CDs because they likely no longer have a CD player. What can newspapers do? For one, look at the Yelp page for the Statesman, which is essentially a sounding board for subscribers complaining about its customer service, canceling their subscriptions. Their message? Online news may be inferior, but at least it gets delivered.