Content Ever be Profitable?

THE CURRENT WORRIES1. Content SuppliersTheCorruption and inefficiency are intuitively
Ethos of Free ContentContent Suppliers is theassociated with the public sector ("Other People's
underprivileged sector of the Internet. They allMoney" - OPM). This, together with the ulterior
lose money (even sites which offer basic,motives of members of the ruling political
standardized goods - books, CDs), with theechelons (the infamous American Paranoia), a lack
exception of sites profering sex or tourism. Noof variety and of catering to the tastes and
user seems to be grateful for the effort andinterests of certain audiences and the automatic
resources invested in creating and distributingequation of private enterprise with democracy
content. The recent breakdown of traditional roleslead to a privatization of the young medium.The
(between publisher and author, record companyend result is the same: the private sector takes
and singer, etc.) and the direct access theover the medium from "below" (makes offers to
creative artist is gaining to its paying public maythe owners or operators of the medium that
change this attitude of ingratitude but hithertothey cannot possibly refuse) - or from "above"
there are scarce signs of that. Moreover, it is(successful lobbying in the corridors of power
either quality of presentation (which only aleads to the appropriate legislation and the
publisher can afford) or ownership and (oftenmedium is "privatized"). Every privatization -
shoddy) dissemination of content by the author. Aespecially that of a medium - provokes public
really qualitative, fully commerce enabled siteopposition. There are (usually founded) suspicions
costs up to 5,000,000 USD, excluding sitethat the interests of the public are compromised
maintenance and customer and visitor services.and sacrificed on the altar of commercialization
Despite these heavy outlays, site designers areand rating. Fears of monopolization and
constantly criticized for lack of creativity or forcartelization of the medium are evoked - and
too much creativity. More and more is asked ofproven correct in due course. Otherwise, there is
content purveyors and creators. They arefear of the concentration of control of the
exploited by intermediaries, hitch hiker sand othermedium in a few hands. All these things do
parasites. This is all an off-shoot of the ethos ofhappen - but the pace is so slow that the initial
the Internet as a free content area.Most of thefears are forgotten and public attention reverts
users like to surf (browse, visit sites) the netto fresher issues.A new Communications Act was
without reason or goal in mind. This makes itenacted in the USA in 1934. It was meant to
difficult to apply to the web traditional marketingtransform radio frequencies into a national
techniques.What is the meaning of "targetedresource to be sold to the private sector which
audiences" or "market shares" in this context? Ifwas supposed to use it to transmit radio signals
a surfer visits sites which deal with aberrant sexto receivers. In other words: the radio was
and nuclear physics in the same session - what topassed on to private and commercial hands. Public
make of it?Moreover, the public and legislativeradio was doomed to be marginalized.The
backlash against the gathering of surfer's data byAmerican administration withdrew from its last
Internet ad agencies and other web sites - hasmajor involvement in the Internet in April 1995,
led to growing ignorance regarding the profile ofwhen the NSF ceased to finance some of the
Internet users, their demography, habits,networks and, thus, privatized its hitherto heavy
preferences and dislikes."Free" is a key word oninvolvement in the net.A new Communications
the Internet: it used to belong to the USAct was legislated in 1996. It permitted "organized
Government and to a bunch of universities. Usersanarchy". It allowed media operators to invade
like information, with emphasis on news and dataeach other's territories. Phone companies were
about new products. But they do not like to shopallowed to transmit video and cable companies
on the net - yet. Only 38% of all surfers made awere allowed to transmit telephony, for instance.
purchase during 1998.It would seem that users willThis was all phased over a long period of time -
not pay for content unless it is unavailablestill, it was a revolution whose magnitude is
elsewhere or qualitatively rare or made rare. Onedifficult to gauge and whose consequences defy
way to "rarefy" content is to review and rate it.2.imagination. It carries an equally momentous price
Quality-Rated ContentThere is a long term trendtag - official censorship. "Voluntary censorship", to
of clutter-breaking website-rating and critique. Itbe sure, somewhat toothless standardization and
may have a limited influence on the consumptionenforcement authorities, to be sure - still, a
decisions of some users and on their willingness tocensorship with its own institutions to boot. The
pay for content. Browsers already sport "What'sprivate sector reacted by threatening litigation -
New" and "What's Hot" buttons. Most Searchbut, beneath the surface it is caving in to
Engines and directories recommend specific sites.pressure and temptation, constructing its own
But users are still cautious. Studies discovered thatcensorship codes both in the cable and in the
nouser, no matter how heavy, has consistentlyinternet media.InstitutionalizationThis phase is the
re-visited more than 200 sites, a minusculenext in the Internet's history, though, it seems,
number. Some recommendation services oftenfew realize it.It is characterized by enhanced
produce random - at times, wrong - selections foractivities of legislation. Legislators, on all levels,
their users. There are also concerns regardingdiscover the medium and lurch at it passionately.
privacy issues. The backlash against Amazon'sResources which were considered "free", suddenly
"readers circles" is an example. Web Critics, whoare transformed to "national treasures not to be
work today mainly for the printed press, publishdispensed with cheaply, casually and with
their wares on the net and collaborate withfrivolity".It is conceivable that certain parts of the
intelligent software which hyperlinks to web sites,Internet will be "nationalized" (for instance, in the
recommends them and refers users to them.form of a licensing requirement) and tendered to
Some web critics (guides) became identified withthe private sector. Legislation will be enacted
specific applications - really, expert systemswhich will deal with permitted and disallowed
-which incorporate their knowledge andcontent (obscenity ? incitement ? racial or gender
experience. Most volunteer-based directories (suchbias ?) No medium in the USA (not to mention
as the "Open Directory" and the late "Go"the wide world) has eschewed such legislation.
directory) work this way.The flip side of the coinThere are sure to be demands to allocate time
of content consumption is investment in content(or space, or software, or content, or hardware)
creation, marketing, distribution and maintenance.3.to "minorities", to "public affairs", to "community
The MoneyWhere is the capital needed to financebusiness". This is a tax that the business sector
content likely to come from?Again, there are twowill have to pay to fend off the eager legislator
schools:According to the first, sites will be financedand his nuisance value.All this is bound to lead to a
through advertising - and so will search enginesmonopolization of hosts and servers. The
and other applications accessed by users.Certainimportant broadcast channels will diminish in
ASPs (Application Service Providers which rentnumber and be subjected to severe content
out access to application software which residesrestrictions. Sites which will refuse to succumb to
on their servers) are considering this model.Thethese requirements - will be deleted or neutralized.
recent collapse in online advertising rates andContent guidelines (euphemism for censorship)
click-through rates raised serious doubts regardingexist, even as we write, in all major content
the validity and viability of this model. Marketingproviders (CompuServe, AOL, Yahoo!-Geocities,
gurus, such as Seth Godin went as far asTripod, Prodigy).The BloodbathThis is the phase of
declaring "interruption marketing" (=ads andconsolidation. The number of players is severely
banners) dead.The second approach is simpler andreduced. The number of browser types will settle
allows for the existence of non-commercialon 2-3 (Netscape, Microsoft and Opera?).
content.It proposes to collect negligible sumsNetworks will merge to form privately owned
(cents or fractions of cents) from every user formega-networks. Servers will merge to form
every visit ("micro-payments"). Thesehyper-servers run on supercomputers in "server
accumulated cents will enable the site-owners tofarms". The number of ISPs will be considerably
update and to maintain them and encouragecut. 50 companies ruled the greater part of the
entrepreneurs to develop new content and investmedia markets in the USA in 1983. The number in
in it. Certain content aggregators (especially of1995 was 18. At the end of the century they will
digital textbooks) have adopted this modelnumber 6.This is the stage when companies -
(Questia, Fathom).The adherents of the firstfighting for financial survival - strive to acquire as
school point to the 5 million USD invested inmany users/listeners/viewers as possible. The
advertising during 1995 and to the 60 million or soprogramming is shall owed to the lowest (and
invested during 1996.Its opponents point exactlywidest) common denominator. Shallow
at the same numbers: ridiculously small whenprogramming dominates as long as the bloodbath
contrasted with more conventional advertisingproceeds.From Rags to RichesTough competition
modes. The potential of advertising on the net isproduces four processes:1. A Major Drop in
limited to 1.5 billion USD annually in 1998, thunderedHardware PricesThis happens in every medium
the pessimists. The actual figure was double thebut it doubly applies to a computer-dependent
prediction but still woefully small and inadequate tomedium, such as the Internet.Computer
support the internet's content development.technology seems to abide by "Moore's Law"
Compare these figures to the sale of Internetwhich says that the number of transistors which
software (4 billion), Internet hardware (3 billion),can be put on a chip doubles every 18 months.
Internet access provision (4.2 billion in 1995As a result of this miniaturization, computing
alone!).Even if online advertising were to bepower quadruples every 18 months and an
restored to its erstwhile glory days, otherexponential series ensues. Organic-biological-DNA
bottlenecks remain. Advertising encourages thecomputers, quantum computers, chaos
consumer to interact and to initiate the deliverycomputers - prompted by vast profits and
of a product to him. This - the delivery phase - isspawned by inventive genius will ensure the
a slow and enervating epilogue to the excitingcontinued applicability of Moore's Law.The Internet
affair of ordering online. Too many consumers stillis also subject to "Metcalf's Law".It says that
complain of late delivery of the wrong orwhen we connect N computers to a network -
defective products.The solution may lie in thewe get an increase of N to the second power in
integration of advertising and content. The lateits computing processing power. And these N
Pointcast, for instance, integrated advertising intocomputers are more powerful every year,
its news broadcasts, continuously streamed toaccording to Moore's Law. The growth of
the user's screen, even when inactive (it had ancomputing powers in networks is a multiple of the
active screen saver and ticker in a "pusheffects of the two laws. More and more
technology"). Downloading of digital music, videocomputers with ever increasing computing power
and text (e-books) leads to the immediateget connected and create an exponential 16 times
gratification of consumers and increases thegrowth in the network's computing power every
efficacy of advertising.Whatever the case may18 months.2. Content Related FeesThis was
be, a uniform, agreed upon system of rating as aprevalent in the Net until recently. Even potentially
basis for charging advertisers, is sorely needed.commercial software can still be downloaded for
There is also the question of what does thefree. In many countries television viewers still pay
advertiser pay for? The rates of manyfor television broadcasts - but in the USA and
advertisers (Procter and Gamble, for instance) aremany other countries in the West, the basic
based not on the number of hits or impressionspackage of television channels comes free of
(=entries, visits to a site). - but on the number ofcharge.As users / consumers form a habit of
the times that their advertisement was hit (pageusing (or consuming) the software - it is
views), or clicked through.Finally, there is the paidcommercialized and begins to carry a price tag.
subscription model - a flop to judge by theThis is what happened with the advent of cable
experience of the meagre number of sites oftelevision: contents are sold for subscription or per
venerable and leading newspapers that are on ausage (Pay Per View - PPV) fees.Gradually, this is
subscription basis. Dow Jones (Wall Street Journal)what will happen to most of the sites and
and The Economist. Only two.All this is not verysoftware on the Net. Those which survive will
promising. But one should never forget that thebegin to collect usage fees, access fees,
Internet is probably the closest thing we have tosubscription fees, downloading fees and other,
an efficient market. As consumers refuse to payappropriately named, fees. These fees are bound
for content, investment will dry up and contentto be low - but it is the principle that counts. Even
will become scarce (through closures of weba few cents per transaction may accumulate to
sites). As scarcity sets in, consumer mayhefty sums with the traffic which characterizes
reconsider.Your article deals with the future of thesome web sites on the Net (or, at least its more
Internet as a medium. Will it be able to support itspopular locales).3. Increased User FriendlinessAs
content creation and distribution operationslong as the computer is less user friendly and less
economically?If the Internet is a budding medium -reliable (predictable) than television - less of a
then we should derive great benefit from a studyblack box - its potential (and its future) is limited.
of the history of its predecessors.The FutureTelevision attracts 3.5 billion users daily. The
History of the Internet as a MediumThe internetInternet stands to attract - under the most
is simply the latest in a series of networks whichexuberant scenario - less than one tenth of this
revolutionized our lives. A century before thenumber of people. The only reasons for this
internet, the telegraph, the railways, the radio anddisparity are (the lack of) user friendliness and
the telephone have been similarly heralded asreliability. Even browsers, among the most user
"global" and transforming. Every medium offriendly applications ever -are not sufficiently so.
communications goes through the sameThe user still needs to know how to use a
evolutionary cycle:AnarchyThe Public PhaseAt thiskeyboard and must possess some basic
stage, the medium and the resources attached toacquaintance with the operating system. The
it are very cheap, accessible, under no regulatorymore mature the medium, the more friendly it
constraints. The public sector steps in : higherbecomes. Finally, it will be operated using speech
education institutions, religious institutions,or common language. There will be room left for
government, not for profit organizations, nonuser "hunches" and built in flexible responses.4.
governmental organizations (NGOs), trade unions,Social TaxesSooner or later, the business sector
etc. Be deviled by limited financial resources, theyhas to mollify the God of public opinion with
regard the new medium as a cost effective wayofferings of political and social nature. The Internet
of disseminating their messages.The Internet wasis an affluent, educated, yuppie medium. It
not exempt from this phase which ended only arequires literacy and numeracy, live interest in
few years ago. It started with a completeinformation and its various uses (scientific,
computer anarchy manifested in ad hoccommercial, other), a lot of resources (free time,
networks, local networks, networks ofmoney to invest in hardware, software and
organizations (mainly universities and organs ofconnect time). It empowers - and thus deepens
the government such as DARPA, a part of thethe divide between the haves and have-nots, the
defence establishment, in the USA). Nondeveloped and the developing world, the knowing
commercial entities jumped on the bandwagonand the ignorant, the computer illiterate.In short:
and started sewing these networks together (anthe Internet is an elitist medium. Publicly, this is an
activity fully subsidized by government funds).unhealthy posture. "Internetophobia" is already
The result was a globe encompassing network ofdiscernible. People (and politicians) talk about how
academic institutions. The American Pentagonunsafe the Internet is and about its possible uses
established the network of all networks, thefor racial, sexist and pornographic purposes. The
ARPANET. Other government departments joinedwider public is in a state of awe.So, site builders
the fray, headed by the National Scienceand owners will do well to begin to improve their
Foundation (NSF) which withdrew only lately fromimage: provide free access to schools and
the Internet.The Internet (with a different name)community centres, bankroll internet literacy
became semi-public property - with accessclasses, freely distribute contents and software to
granted to the chosen few.Radio took preciselyeducational institutions, collaborate with
this course. Radio transmissions started in theresearchers and social scientists and engineers. In
USA in 1920. Those were anarchic broadcastsshort: encourage the view that the Internet is a
with no discernible regularity. Non commercialmedium catering to the needs of the community
organizations and not for profit organizationsand the underprivileged, a mostly altruist
began their own broadcasts and even createdendeavour. This also happens to make good
radio broadcasting infrastructure (albeit of thebusiness sense by educating and conditioning a
cheap and local kind) dedicated to their audiences.future generation of users. He who visited a site
Trade unions, certain educational institution sandwhen a student, free of charge - will pay to do
religious groups commenced "public radio"so when made an executive. Such a user will also
broadcasts.The Commercial PhaseWhen the userspass on the information within and without his
(e.g., listeners in the case of the radio, or ownersorganization. This is called media exposure. The
of PCs and modems in the case of the Internet)future will, no doubt, will be witness to public
reach a critical mass - the business sector isInternet terminals, subsidized ISP accounts, free
alerted. In the name of capitalist ideology (anotherInternet classes and an alternative
religion, really) it demands "privatization" of the"non-commercial, public" approach to the Net. This
medium. This harps on very sensitive strings inmay prove to be one more source of revenue to
every Western soul: the efficient allocation ofcontent creator sand distributors.
resources which is the result of competition.