Media Bands

For most of media history, the creation of a full media package has had to involve many professional people. Whether it was a book (or other forms of printed content), a recording (or other forms of audio content) or a movie (or other forms of video content), the production of media goods have traditionally involved multiple people, starting with the basic creator, continuing with his or her editors, and ending with the packagers who put finishing ancillary touches to the product.

Over the years, many such structures crystallized, providing gainful employment to all those involved in the content creation chain. This portion of media creation was then followed by a supply chain surrounding the complete packaging, marketing, sales, and distribution (and not always in that order) of media pieces.

In the early 1990s, with the rise of the Internet and development of web based media, many outfits started emulating the traditional models surrounding media creation, focusing only on the fact that distribution costs were lower than they were for traditional media. So people talked about online magazines, online TV shows, etc… attempting to replicate the old business templates on this new world.

In each case, an interesting phenomenon developed: the packaged output became the brands that were known, with the vast majority of the people who created that media brand being largely unknown. For example, a publication like Time magazine or Business Week would be recognized as a popular media brand but few of the people who wrote, edited, and generally packaged it were as well known. With the rise of television and movies, some sub-brands started emerging, with actors and directors getting more recognized and becoming more important as brands that the studios or channels that were carrying their latest offerings. As such, individual talent started getting some level of recognition, and it became possible to build brands around an an individual.

With the rise of the web and the lowering in the cost of media production and distribution, whether it is for printed media (blogs), video (YouTube), or audio (MySpace, LastFM, Pandora), it became possible to establish virtual teams that quickly banded for an individual effort and disbanded once that effort was completed. So individuals started getting more noticed, with certain blogs being single-man or single-woman operations and building new brands around that person (in this context, TNL.net qualifies as my own personal brand but could be considered as a sub-brand of Tristan Louis, which is spread across a wider audience).

Media Brands

Meanwhile, certain forms of media brands emerged organically because of the input of thousands or millions of individuals who contributed their effort for free. Think, for example, of the mostly anonymous contributors that wrote and edited most of wikipedia. I would call this category of people bands. The name on top (Wikipedia) can continue to exist with or without the current contributors as new contributors can come in to replace the ones who have left.

In a way, the people who have not established themselves as individual brands run the risk of being forced in an out from under other brands. A writer for Bloomberg today can easily be a writer for Business Week or Fortune tomorrow (this is precisely why Bloomberg became a content creation powerhouse by surprise as no one paid attention to who was creating the content).

Challenges

Depending on the side you are on, new issues are about to arise. On the media band side, the contest for supply and demand is going to get worth. Non-internet media brands are generally packed with tens or hundreds of people producing a very glossy, very professional package most of the time. By contrast, internet media is produced in an unfinished form, updating stories as they go along with feedback from other sources as well as from the people who read or view the content. In the battle between individual contributors, an equilibrium eventually arises, sorting the truth out thanks to the balance of input from different parties. This means that the process of editing is no longer in the hands of editors but it becomes a collaborative effort from everyone touching the media product at hand.

On the other side of the spectrum, the media brands now have to compete with a larger set of brands. As distribution costs move close to zero and the established structure of media creation can be replaced by a participatory model where the brand is mainly involved in the business of curating input from its consumer/producer, the rise of individual curators as individual brands is reshaping the competitive landscape. When a single individual can reach hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis merely by writing and sharing in public, the economics of brand stardom start falling apart.

With content creation and content curation now getting so close to each other that they will soon embrace and form a new model of media, created in a much cheaper fashion, in partnership between the media initiator and his/her audience-communicators, traditional media organizations will have to get focused on creating media that is not only to be consumed but that cannot exist without active participation from its consumers/creators.

Shows like “America’s Idol” or “Britain’s Got Talent” are starting to present this media band approach, while wikipedia has already demonstrated it works in new gathering and efforts around user-generated content in journalism, whether it is of an entertainment nature (eg. Gawker) or investigative one (eg. the undoing of George Allen or the Walter Reade Hospital scandals being covered by bloggers until mainstream kicked in).

And now, I will turn it to you, my media band, to help me build on this scaffolding of a concept.

The many faces of subsidized media

Do you buy the media you consume or is the media you consume subsidized in some way?

For the most part, one could argue that, in the United States, media is subsidized. When mentioning that word, most people will think of government subsidies but, while such subsidies exist in countries like the UK (eg. the BBC) or France (eg. France 24), the subsidies tend to come from more commercial sources.

We will look into that type of subsidies a bit later but let’s first look at one form that people seldom consider as a subsidy: advertising.

In the USA, such subsidies come in the form of advertising, which often represents the largest part of the revenue pie for newspapers, magazines, television, radio, or web media. The cost of a particular item is generally lower than one could find in Europe and consumer behavior treats such media accordingly, as a potentially disposable consumer good to which little value is given. This creates a particularly tricky situation for most media outlet as they are seeing their advertising margin erode, the result of greater efficiencies and return on investment presented by web media.

Genesis of low ad rates

In a way, such wound is self-inflicted. Once upon a time, in the early days of the commercial web (a bit over a decade ago), traditional media looked down on the new media. They treated it as something of little value and many of the larger media outlets decided to toss their online space as a freebie in exchange for richer ad buys in traditional media. Of course, they continued to apply the same ROI metrics to this emergent form of media, forcing many of the online components of larger corporations to figure out way to make their cost structure more efficient while presenting advertisers with a better value than their offline brethens.

I remember finding myself in several meetings, when working either as a full-time employee or consultant to media outlets small and large, in meetings where traditional media salespeople would “toss in online for free.” Eventually, advertisers started demanding online media and continued asking for lower costs on it, creating a prisoner’s dilemma scenario for most media organization as they all knew that the ads could go to their competitors if they didn’t acquiesce to the deal. Online media was now seen as inexpensive and, save for a few publishers who argued based on the merit of delivering a narrow but highly targeted audience, cost remained low while inventory continued to be very high.

Then came Google, which not only showed that online media could stay cheap but could also be offered on a performance basis, leaving advertisers with close to a dollar’s worth of value for every dollar they spend, something that just wasn’t true in the offline space. It was then only natural that the price pressures that had driven online media down be applied to all media.

This is slowly sending media organization into a death spiral as low ad costs force a reduction in costs associated with producing media content, which results in a lowered interest in that content from consumers. Those consumer have eyeballs which the media companies are trying to sell to advertisers and when those go away, it puts even further pressure on media cost. I call this the ad rate death spiral:

Why ad rates keep going down

And that’s the first problem with the current crop of ad-subsidized media: the model is just not sustainable because the cost of production for most media can never go to zero.

So where does that leave most media organization?

Advocacy Media

One option is to go with a different subsidy source. For example, some organizations could get rid of the pretense of impartiality and look to get subsidized to advocate a particular viewpoint or philosophy. In Europe, for example, many publications receive substantial parts of their funding from political parties. They are propaganda tools of those parties used to further the party’s agenda. While they are not fully subsidized by those parties, they are known to present a viewpoint that’s in line with the party’s ideals.

While many would argue that this could not work in the United States, there are substantial precedent to highlight that this, in fact, is an avenue that more media organizations could explore. The federalist papers, for example, were largely embracing a set of ideals from a limited constituency and were largely funded by those who espoused the ideals presented. In fact, one could argue that most newspapers have, at one time or other, been tools of certain political forces. To carry such alliances on their sleeve might actually result in a more diverse and balanced set of stories.

Non-Core Media

A different solution is to look at media as an non-core adjunct to a corporation, there to give the corporation a sheen as a corporate citizen that does good. Where it not for its pre-existing history as media company, one could argue that the Washington Post is now such a corporation, as it derives better margins from the services it offers through its Kaplan test preparation organization than it does from its news and media operation. The issue one could find with such balance is that it works as long as the shareholders are happy with the idea of a non-financially optimal media operation. This situation does not seem like a sustainable model in the long run because it could expose such corporation to the chances of a take-over or change in ownership control through acquisition. No family, no matter how much of the corporation stock they control, is so virtuous that it might not break at a certain price point, as was witnessed with the takeover of Dow Jones.

Paid Media

Another route would be to change the public they serve completely by embracing their consumer as the people they sell to.

The reason I create that distinction is that currently, most media is not looking at their consumers as the customers they are serving. In advertising, the actual customers of media companies are the ad agencies and ad buyers, with the media consumer being the goods sold and the content being there solely as a way to deliver more eyeballs to the advertisers. By moving to consumer-focused media, organizations could radically redefine the relationship they have with the people who consume their content, treating them as customers instead of products.

Of course, the model may not work for everyone as it requires a change in the way the media product is marketed. When shifting to “paid media” where the consumers pays a fair value for the media they consume, the product position has to be one of value to the consumer. Bloomberg can deliver such value to the people who pay thousands of dollars yearly for access to their product because the content is of value to those consumers. NPR tries to position its programming as being a lifestyle choice by its consumers, asking them in pledge drives to join the NPR tribe by paying for some of the programming (but let’s not fool ourselves, NPR is more of a hybrid model as its “supporters” can include large corporations that contribute to show their “social responsibility”).

Consumer Reports is another example of such “paid media” as are smaller publications like Lapham’s Quarterly, for example.

What are the challenges?

The challenge presented by the paid media model is one of how much? How much can one charge and how much can one cover. And this comes back to the question of content value to the consumer. Certain tribes can exist but how does one cover the “important” stories? Is that something that can only be done via advocacy type media? Or is there a different model that mixes parts of subsidies with higher paid models?

How it started

When I first started classifying media as entertainment vs. information, I was looking for a basic answer as to how to resolve the contradiction of having organizations like CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews, classified in the same category as Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal, or the Financial Times. Each seemed to appeal to a certain audience and each of the audiences seem to be very distinct and thus interested in very different things.

For example, the sexual behavior of many politicians may serve as great meat for the 24-hour-newscycle of cable TV channels but financial newspapers would pay scant attention to them. On the other hand, in-depth analysis of the decision making process around changes of 5 basis point in an interest rate might garner an audience in the financial world but may only merit a 15 second mention on some cable news channels. That disconnect seemed to only get sharper over the last year, as the world economy teetered on the brink of total financial collapse but most of the TV channels seemed more interested in attacking or praising a particular political point of view.

Why this axis?

Answering a question about where on the entertainment vs. information axis a particular media organization can fall gives us insights into some of their potential business strategy.

The production or discovery of facts or information is generally a more time-consuming and/or costly production than the production of opinion or entertainment. For a simple measure, think of the cost of a reporter doing an investigate piece either in a war theater or about a financial institution; Having thought of that reporter, now think of a different reporter interviewing a TV or movie star who is promoting the latest vehicle he/she is in. Because the motivations are different and the amount of work to feed those motivations is different, the business model needs to be different.

Entertainment

As I mentioned earlier, I consider organizations like Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN to be more deeply ingrained in the entertainment side of the house.

This, by the way, is no accident: Rupert Murdoch is a savvy media man first and a politician second. He was the first in his industry to realize that it would be cheaper to put opinion on the air and focused on delivering such opinions to what was then an under-served customer  niche: people who are of more conservative leanings. This is why Fox News can exist under the same roof as the definitely racier and more left of center fares delivered on the Fox TV network. The network appeals to a different audience but, by serving both, a near-full coverage is achieved in terms of advertising reach.

The recent success of MSNBC in reproducing the FoxNews model but for the more liberal audience seems to validate the model: Keith Olbermann is the Bill O’Reilly of the left.

But one must realize that the value of entertainment as a business model is driven by the idea of maximum return on investment: the production costs are cheap, the consumers are aplenty and while they may not be willing to pay, someone is generally ready to subsidize the lower costs in exchange for access to that audience. For example, book publisher love giving their authors away for free interviews if they can get them because it helps promote their books; movie and TV producers push their stars to give interviews for free too so the movies and TV shows they are in get an audience (a form of virtuous circle of entertainment); and political parties or organizations pushing a particular political agenda are happy to deliver “research” and “experts” that can be used to produce news-like segment.

Because most media organizations in the United States are profit-driven corporations, the appeal of those lower production cost is hard to resist.

The challenge to that segment of the axis is that entertainment is based on the available mind share one can capture. Every time an audience member is moved from one TV channel to another, or from an internet site to another, the place where he/she was loses some value. And, in recent year, the mind share and attention share traditional media used to get has been diminishing because new form of entertainment have arisen. The sheer volume of videos posted on YouTube alone means that, even if 99% of them are awful, 1% will find an audience and drive it away for whatever period of time the end consumer is engaged with that one percent.

So the margins on entertainment media are bound to become a little tighter in the future which will push that end of the media spectrum to move further and further into the sensational and traffic-generating space. This, in turn, could mean more of a focus on formulaic type of content that is known to appeal to a broad segment and hoped to appeal to a wider one.

Information

But information driven media is different. Information tends to be something that is actionable and therefore something that is more valuable. When people speak of information media, they generally focus on the business-focused content category. But why do so?

A lot of information is usable to someone. For example, I am sure that politicians enjoy sentiment-related information (poll numbers, data on how the population feels about an issue); gamblers find use for sports-related information; medical professionals and other scientists keep up with research in their field to come up with more breakthroughs; companies, of course, need industry-specific information to better position themselves.

But professionally created and vetted information is expensive to produce. In the past, such information was produced and vetted by a cadre of professionals with deep knowledge and some level of recognition within the arena they would cover. On the more extreme end, the producers were the subject of the news themselves (for example, most of the scientific journals are written by the scientists who have done the research in the first place).

And the other interesting thing about information is that it can have some stickiness.

But the tricky part is that most information is of no interest to most people. And some information may be of value in terms of public good but not necessarily of actionable value for most people. That, unfortunately, is the case for most of what is presented as “news” in newspapers. Town councils, officials corruption, issues surrounding policy making are things that need to be covered in order to create a proper functioning democracy but have little value outside of having a properly functioning democracy. And few people are willing to pay to keep democracy working.

Enter two new phenomenons: the wisdom of crowds, and the self-correction of personal interest. Let’s assume for a moment that crowds can actually be led one way or another. But, as we all know, for every action, there is an equivalent reaction. So we could extend on the idea that any system is bound to eventually become self-adjusting when all interests start fighting for its own share of whatever is at stake. On most policy issue, there will be two sides, with each side arguing passionately that its position is the correct one.

So one could assume that the self-interest of individual sides could lead to the rise of advocacy media or at least politically-aligned media. In such a model, “information” may be gathered and presented by self-interested parties. The consumer is then left to evaluate the pieces of information aimed at him/her and see if it confirms his/her own biases or is or isn’t more factual. This, by the way, is a model that exists in a lot of democracies around the world (France, where I originally lived, still has newspapers that are clearly aligned with political parties) and I would argue that the penny press was probably more akin to this model than what we know today as newspapers.

This brings another qualifier on the information slide, which would allow us to analyze the level of bias in a piece of information. Some may argue that doing so would be abandoning the concept of objective reporting but I would argue that such concept has been largely a chimera: whenever a reporter chooses one quote over another, or frames a questions in a particular way, he/she imbues the reporting with some form of bias.

What’s the take-away?

Entertainment and Information are important dividers in assessing media property. Understanding that divide can help us better under the potential risks or reward associated with such. Entertainment media is cheap to produce but does not necessarily create real value; Information media (which may have differential level of biases) is not only valuable in both short and potentially longer run but could be dependent on a self-interest effect.

In the next entry, I will examine how the media is paid for and what that may mean for some segments of the industry.

Media as a Mode of Delivery

In most of the conversations about media, the discussions centers on modes of delivery. People talk about television, radio, newspapers, magazines, or the Internet as media. Under that definition, the way a piece of content is transported appears to define what that piece of content is. It’s an odd approach that seems to put more emphasis on the how than on the what, that really believes that the envelope is more important that the message it carries and this offering seems like a flawed assumption in many ways.

It would seem foolish to consider the telephone a media form so why do we treat the television or paper as components? They are channels and nothing more and the hand-wringing around delivery to those channels seems based on the flawed assumption that the mode of transport is more important than what is transported.

There is an inherent danger in that flawed assumption as previous industries which failed to recognize the business they were in found themselves displaced and ultimately delivering value into the hands of a single player that concentrated its power by offering itself as the primary toll-gate on another form of distribution. The music industry circa 2001, for example, believed that it was in the business of moving plastic goods known as CDs and let Apple take what was written on those plastic goods, the music that is ultimately the value created, and delivered it over the internet. To this day, many in the music industry still believe that CDs are how music ought to be distributed, leading to such high performance act as Danger Mouse’s decision to just release a blank CD-R when the labels wouldn’t let him release the CD otherwise.

Today, newspapers are focused on finding better ways to move paper; magazines are focused on increasing profit margins against physical goods; TV channels are still arguing over number of viewers in a single sitting and radio is partly organized around two competing models: one where people and corporations pay in a coop form to get some form of programming created and distributed and another where advertisers count numbers of earlobes they are reaching. Even on the internet, some people still believe that the passage of masses by a web site has some level of importance.

In each case, the players are focused on the distribution and not the product and yet, the distribution medium is only one end of a relationship that needs too.

In the Middle

Because if you look at the core definition of a medium, it’s something that’s in the middle.

But in the middle of what? Trying to assess this becomes a little more difficult. Obviously, a good is produced and it is consumed. Focusing on that equation may get us closer to establishing the right model for media in the future because it forces us to admit that what we know today as media is not a single thing but a variety of things:

• On one dimension, it could be listed as going from entertaining to informative
• On another, it could go from being considered as purchased or subsidized
• On a third axis, it could be treated as mass generated or professionalized

In three simple dimension, we can break down most of the known media industry.

For example, take newspapers: They strive to be middle of the road between entertaining and informative, with a bias towards the front section of the newspaper being informative and the back section being entertaining; They also range from the completely subsidized approach (free advertising sponsored newspaper) to the heavily subsidized model (most newspapers). And most tend to be more professionalized, with professional editors and reporters building most of the content.

Magazines run the gamut, but largely focus on entertainment (the delivery of information is generally left to a much narrower portion of the market knows as newsletters); they are, for the most part heavily subsidized goods and mostly professionalized.

In the TV space, the news channels tend to be moving further and further into the entertainment arena (I would group opinion as a form of entertainment); They are 90+ percent subsidized as their main goal is to serve the advertisers and only a portion of their revenue is coming directly from consumers through some of the cable system carriage fees.

In radio, NPR is balancing between entertaining and informative; the interesting thing is that it is the closest thing to a purchased good as the group tends to attempt to get its consumers to ante up for their consumption; and it mixes mostly professionalized goods with mass-generated content (call-in shows, for example). Other “news” station tend to focus on the entertainment part of the equation (talk radio is focused on keeping its audience as engaged as possible) and fully subsidized (advertising based) and mostly mass generated (talk show host merely serve as the forum administrator ensure that like minds confirm their own bias or vent to each other).

On the Internet, diverse sites can run from pure forms of entertainment (celebrity or gossip blogs, for example) to heavy information delivery (generally more niche focused publication); they are also all over the place in terms of models, ranging from the fully subsidized model to the fully purchased one; and one could argue that they tend to also run the gamut in terms of mass-generated vs. professional production.

While I have given you a short preview of each of the dimensions, I would like to focus the discussion around particulars so I will delve further into each of the three dimensions in the next few entries.

Understanding iTunes LP and iTunes Extras

For the near future, Apple’s dominance in the mobile entertainment market will remain uncontested. Entering its 8th year, the iPod has successfully morphed from an interesting new player in a small category into an all-purpose platform spanning the breadth of the audio consumer electronic landscape, portions of the mobile phone business, and while its AppleTV business is still lagging, the introduction of iTunes LP can easily be seen as part of a revamp for that platform.

The company talked a fair amount about the ability to add extra content to music tracks, forming an experience that is much more akin to that of a music LP. But let’s stop for a second and think of what a stereotypical Apple customer might look like? Somehow, the immediate image that pops in my mind is not someone who was born prior to the late 70s.

Sure, now that the iPod line has established itself as the dominant line in the portable entertainment consumer electronics world, one can see a lot of people over 40 sporting the devices but truth be told, most of Apple customers are probably younger and, to them, LPs are either something that belongs in a museum or falls in the category of music snobs. The sit-back experience and add-ons that came with most LPs is not how they have ever experienced music and it is highly probable that they will not change their behavior because Apple believes that retro is cool.

The music experience is more of an ambient one, where the track itself is the thing and where even music videos have mostly fallen by the wayside (YouTube killed the video star?) In today’s short attention span world, extra attachments to media exists in two places: on DVD and on BluRay disks, technologies best experienced when dealing with a TV screen.

In fact, when delving into the details of the iTunes LP specification,developer Jay Robinson discovered the following:

The LP frame seems to have a width and height of 1280×720. This is nice, but means I get ugly scrollbars all over my 13″ MacBook screen.

The resolution seemed interesting as I remembered it from somewhere but had to think about it for a few minutes (I’ll get into that in a the next paragraph) but it was fascinating to me that one would experience ugly scrollbars on a MacBook. Say what you want about Apple products, ugly is not something that generally comes to mind. In find, the fact that things were ugly on a computer monitor immediately gives us clues into where Apple may be going next. Since we can safely assume that Apple would not push something ugly out the door, we can also assume that the 1280×720 resolution is no fluke. And since it looks ugly on a MacBook, we may think of where else this type of media can be consumed.

720p?

1280 x 720 is the kind of 16:9 ratio that is found in a 720p high definition video mode. That mode has become more or less the default low end mode for high definition and is how most television broadcasts in the US and Western Europe are handled. It is also a format that most plasma or LCD TV can handle. But also of note is that it is the highest resolution format offered in terms of movies and TV shows sold through the iTunes store, and the highest resolution HD video resolution now supported by AppleTV players.

So we now have a clear sign that the iTunes LP content seems specifically formatted to be best experienced on a TV screen and it seems that Apple’s recommendation would be to use an AppleTV to do so.

And then, this week, Apple retired its low-end AppleTV and dropped the price of its mid-range (now entry level) offering by one third. Such a move is not just based on the idea of moving units but appears to represent a potential need for disk space and anyone who looked at the size of a DVD or Blu-Ray disk can attest to the fact that such video offerings can chew up space relatively quickly. And extras tend to add a fair amount too, which seems to increase the need for space if you are intent on renting or selling DVD or Blu-Ray like content via the Internet.

Add to this the general reluctance Apple has had to supporting Blu-Ray in their computer hardware platform (the main advantage of Blu-Ray, according to its advocates, is the ability to display video at a higher resolution format than 720p) and it seems Apple is gearing up for an assault on that category (especially since the problem of extras is now solved by iTunes Extras).

720p Recording

Meanwhile, on the Mac, the new operating system came out with a version of Quicktime that removed ability to support plugins for extensibility. While Apple is already a strong player in the video editing world, offering both professional (Final Cut Pro) and consumer (iMovie) tools, it is also interesting to note that they are starting to introduce light editing video capabilities directly into the operating system.

We already know that the iPhone 3G S can record video, a key feature of the offering, and we’ve just witnessed the introduction of video recording capabilities within the iPod Nano (and we can assume that it’s only a matter of time before the iPod Touch gets its own video recording capabilities) but here’s where it gets interesting: the iPhone 3G S could theoretically shoot 720p video as all the hardware to do so is there.

The rise of YouTube and the success of Flip cameras have shown Apple that a portion of the consumer market is interested in recording and viewing video. While the YouTube offerings tend to be generally of a lower video quality, the introduction of 720p as a default recording chipset in Apple’s offerings appears consistent with the company’s attempt to cater to a higher end whatever market it enters.

So it would seem to be a normal progression for Apple to eventually move its product lines to producing 720p content that can then be redistributed.

Today, that exporting can happen via synchronizing one’s iPhone’s GS or exporting content to iTunes, YouTube, or MobileMe from Quicktime X. MobileMe and YouTube appeared to make sense but why export to iTunes?

A user generated marketplace

The success of the iPhone as a development platform has surprised many, myself included. In the short span of a few years, Apple has created a marketplace that is rumored to be selling US$200 million a month’s worth of application software in increments of about a dollar. If you’re making 30 percent of that revenue by hosting the apps and handling the distribution, you might notice.

I would venture that there are now a number of discussions around Apple as to how to reproduce this phenomenon across other categories. With the rise of YouTube, Last.fm, MySpace, and other, Apple is now also witnessing the rise of the independent and while the company has had some success in bringing video content to the iTunes store, it has not been able to get the rich margins it is getting from the music industry (something the music industry now appears to regret) and from iPhone developers (who, for the most part, are not large companies) from TV and movie producers.

True, the company now offers rentals and sales of video content but what if it could open up a marketplace where every independent content creator could distribute content? What if independent movie-makers or musicians could sell directly through the iTunes store and provide content on all the apple platforms (TV, iPod, phone, computer) with a single click. I suspect that many would be willing to give up 30 percent of their revenue in order to get to that public.

The components all seem to be there and it seems to me that it won’t be long before Apple starts pushing the idea that we are all content producers (an old idea at Apple, which was at the source of their creating the iLife suite) and we can all make some money at producing that content. Having done so, Apple would not only have control of the music industry but could also assert itself in the TV and movie space.

The Kindle Incident

For readers who may not know this, Amazon unveiled an interesting electronic reader called the Kindle, allowing people who bought it to legally purchase electronic copies of books. Along the way, Amazon also opened up a program allowing small publishers to publish books directly into their marketplace.

However, it appears that Amazon’s own quality control seemed to fail when it came to establishing ownership of the intellectual property uploaded to its site when two titles by George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four and Animal Farm, were uploaded and sold by a rogue bookaneer.

Subsequently discovering that it had sold e-books for which the publisher did not have rights, Amazon issued refunds to its customers and removed the books from the user’s device. Where it gets a little gray in terms of what they did is that, along with the removal of the books, they also removed any annotation users already had made, thus erasing content that was created ON the device if not FOR the device. The New York Times story on the deletion listed the following:

Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old from the Detroit area, was reading “1984” on his Kindle for a summer assignment and lost all his notes and annotations when the file vanished. “They didn’t just take a book back, they stole my work,” he said.

Beyond the irony of Amazon throwing a book like Nineteen Eighty Four down the memory hole (a large incinerator in that book), Amazon’s action raise troubling questions as to the ability of online providers to remove content they have not created. I leave it to legal scholar to assess whether Amazon could actually be considered to have infringed on the intellectual property rights of people whose annotations were removed along with the books.

Amazon was justified in protecting the copyright holders for the infringing books but where it went wrong is when it over-reached by deleting content that was created by its customers. In that particular case, one could argue that Amazon was responsible for censorship. The company will need to change its systems and policies to ensure that it does not impede the customer’s experience. While it currently has only removed a couple of titles along with annotations, the company should ensure that it keep annotations separate so that any further title removal does not destroy user generated content. An extra nice move would be if the company were to replace the titles with their legal equivalent. The common should also be a lot more thorough in verifying intellectual property claims before offering titles, especially since they control every piece of the delivery chain from the intellectual property holder to the reader.

AT&T and 4chan.org

In a somewhat related incident, AT&T had a recent run-in with one of the most influential (and that does not necessarily mean good) entity on the internet: the 4chan.org community. 4chan is primarily and image and discussion board and word started to spread that AT&T customers had lost accesses to its images over the weekend. After a substantial amount of noise in several online forums, AT&T claimed that it had blocked the site because it was suffering from a denial of service attack from it.

What is interesting here is that AT&T acted without prior notice and blocked a site without providing any information upfront as to the reason for blocking the site. While AT&T stopped blocking the site as the result of a concerted effort by its fans, the founder of 4chan hit the nail on the head when he said (emphasis is mine):

In the end, this wasn’t a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T’s part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn’t anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so. We’re glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorship—two very important issues that don’t get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.

Net Neutrality is the basic idea that any broadband provider should offer access to the internet without any limitations as to what kind of content can be accessed and here we have an example of an ISP selectively blocking a site. While the AT&T example is only the most recent one to come to light, it appears that this is a phenomenon that could become more common as internet service providers decide what kind of content takes too much bandwidth or for other reasons.

In the past, such censorship would have meant that a provider censoring access were to be considered as a publisher. In 1995, with Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy, the supreme court of the United States held that online services which were removing content from their online forums could be considered as publishers and therefore held liable for any content they gave users access to. Since then, Lobbyists in the telecom industry have ensured that such decision would no longer be applicable by getting the US Congress to amend the US code and reverse the Supreme Court decision.

The Urge to kill(switch)

About a year ago, a storm arose around rumors that Apple’s iPhone devices were sporting code that could disable applications running on them. The existence of such code, also known as a kill switch, was later confirmed by Steve Jobs:

Jobs confirmed that iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory, trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.

He told the paper that Apple needed the capability in case it inadvertently allowed a malicious program to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store.

Once again, we see here a company with the best of intentions (protecting people from malicious programs) with its finger on a button that could be very scary if misuse. It is worth noting that Apple is not uniquely in this position as Google fessed up to having similar code embedded in Android-based phones:

Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement … in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion

And while one may think that such devices are limited to high end cell phones catering to a limited community, it appears that such devices are now becoming more common in children computers, cheap laptops, and even cars. And while many will claim that the solution to this is to open up source code, the Mozilla foundation itself has admitted to the appearance of such kill switch in the popular Firefox browser.

So kill switches are there for the best of intentions but how does one define those?

Apple and the App Store

The same kind of issue arises out of the treatment of applications to enter the Apple Application Store. A month doesn’t seem to pass by without another example of a developer seeing Apple remove his/her programs from their store.

The latest example is that of a developer who apparently committed the crime of offering an application that allowed iPhone users to use Google Voice, a Voice over IP program. And apparently, similar applications were subsequently removed from the Apple App Store.

While no official word has been given as to whether the fact that application were potentially representing a threat to the business model of Apple’s exclusive partners in the telecom industry, it doesn’t seem to be too much of a stretch to think so.

Can such intention be considered in the best interest of the end user? or in the best interest of the device manufacturer? And can such intention be changed retroactively, leveraging the presence of an existing kill switch?

Questions about the future?

In a previous entry, I’ve argued that we were moving to an economy where goods tended to be rented rather than bought. Embedded in what I was trying to communicate there was the question around what ownership actually means.

If an external party can control when or how you can use a device or decide on what you can or cannot see, or select what programs you can install on it, are you still owning it?

And while today’s corporate interventions are based on the best of intentions, what about tomorrow’s? or the next day’s? Will those intentions still sync up with yours?

Traditionally, the model or rent vs. own has been one that most consumers and companies have mostly considered when it came to real estate (and traditionally, people have looked at renting real estate as more normal than owning, with the possible exception of the last couple of decades, during which real estate ownership appeared more attractive). But today, that concept seems to be increasingly extending to other arenas.

Netflix

For example, Netflix has build a very solid model around renting movies over the Internet. True enough, many people will mention that rental of media dates back to the early days of the video store and were a substantial component in the rise of companies like Blockbuster (born Blockbuster Video). True also that said companies have been falling on hard times lately. But the substantial difference between what Netflix offers and the traditional rental model is focused on convenience: one could argue that Netflix’s original business model was largely centered around the distribution of physical media (the DVDs themselves) but I would argue that the true success of Netflix will be due largely to its digital distribution model, allowing for instant distribution of movies and TV shows with the click of a few buttons. The instant (and the emphasis here needs to be put on instant) access to a large media collection can easily call into question the concept of owning similar content in a physical form: What is the advantage of having a physical copy of a movie sitting on your shelf, collecting dust most of the time, when the same movie is available at the touch of a remote control button from the Internet?

However, the challenge in such concept is that once someone stops paying Netflix, the access to said collection disappears. An owned movie is paid for upfront and can be watched time and time again by a consumer but a rented one can only be watched as long as one keeps paying the owner renting party.

Apple

With Apple’s recent move to sell music tracks without any digital rights management features on it, one could safely assume that Apple is not in the rental business. Apple’s move was largely a response to Amazon’s own marketing around selling DRM-Free music but it is interesting to note that, while the restrictions on music went away, the same was not true of similar restrictions around music videos, movies, and TV shows. The lock-in that appears here is similar to that which exist with Netflix in that if you decide to end your relationship with Apple, the media you bought will stop working. Under such restricted mode, can one really assume that he/she owns the media he/she purchased?

Similarly, Apple is renting out, in partnership with telecommunication vendors like AT&T, an ingenious device called the iPhone. The reason I would call it a rental model is that use of the device is limited by the partners to people who have paid the initial fee and continue to pay a fee to the telecommunication provider on a regular basis. It is a model that exists for most phone providers, as devices tend to be tied to a specific vendor. Once again, people will highlight that it is possible to get rid of that lock-in with software but I will counter that doing so is a violation of the contract terms of the device, voiding warranty and your agreement with Apple. To claim otherwise would be similar to saying that everyone has access to as much money as they want, as long as they are willing to rob banks. (In the interest of disclosure, I should highlight here that I own an iPhone which is not connected to the “authorized provider”.)

Going a little further, Apple gets to lock-in who can and cannot play on an iPhone, only allowing developers who submit themselves to Apple’s whim and offering what is sometimes only temporary access to the userbase as release of every update to a product still has to go through Apple’s review. In other words, Apple gives developers temporary access to the iPhone user base, an access it can choose to revoke at any time.

The Amazon Kindle

All this conversation bring us to Amazon and a couple of its products, starting with the Kindle, which serves as the incentive for writing this lenghthy post. The Kindle, much like the iPhone is a pretty impressive device, bringing several technologies (always on device, e-ink) out of the labs and into more mainstream consumption. And like the iPhone, it has both fans and detractors. And once again, the Kindle offers an interesting kind of lock-in, allowing you to read titles purchased on the kindle (or through the iPhone kindle software) but allowing you access for only as long as you keep a relationship with Amazon. Where the model moves to rental is around magazines and newspapers: you may purchase subscriptions but, should your Kindle be completely full as a result of your subscription, you may loose access to the back issues you “own”.

But Amazon’s move to a rental model is not just around the kindle device. On the consumer end, Amazon now play in the same spaces as Apple and Netflix, renting out or selling digital versions of movies, TV shows, and music.

Renting at the Enterprise Level

In other example of the evolving trend moving from the consumer to the enterprise space, Amazon is now renting itself, or rather portions of its own operating capacity, to anyone willing to pay a fee. Its infrastructure (storage, computing, and databases ) are all available to organizations who are willing to put their application on top of Amazon’s own servers. Amazon offers similar solutions for payment services, and goes as far as providing space in their warehouses along with complete pick, pack and ship capabilities.

The infrastructure component is part of a trend in which enterprise vendors are now providing data center capabilities on a per data transaction costing model. For many Chief Technical or Chief Information Officer, it changes the basic questions around data center from a “Build vs. Buy” to “Build vs. Buy vs. Rent”.

In the process, it also changes the dynamics of how a business can be built as a substantial portion of a company’s activities can now be outsourced to outside players (I’ll go into more details around the enterprise related issues in my next post)

Is it all bad?

If you read this far, you might assume that, by this point, I’m going to claim that this is all about the over-reach of DRM and that it is all a horrible thing.

I’m not.

What I am trying to highlight here is that the experience around internet driven goods is changing. As connectivity speeds increase, the ability to access any movie/TV show/video/ music clip/ books / magazines / etc is going to have a substantial impact on our relationship to said goods (in a fashion similar to the type of relationship kids now have to music, assuming that music on the Internet ought to be free of restrictions, while at the same time assuming that mobile phone ringtones are something one ought to pay for).

The change in our relationship to media forces us to reassess the value of the physical good. In the case of our household, we have made a leap of faith, assuming that the content of certain DVDs will always be available online from one rental provider or another. The reason for that approach is that the experience of watching such thing on our TV using an internet connected video player is not diminished by the lack of a physical medium. Living in a more constrained space (in Manhattan, space is always at a premium), the physicality of a DVD box is actually an impediment to the experience of the medium. As a result, the internet connectivity, and the rental model, appears to make much more sense than the physical ownership of DVD boxes.

In the same way, the value of a CD collection is in what’s on the CD rather than the plastic container it’s in. Much of the value of the physical container of music has decreased: in the past, LPs were designed and the wraping of the LP was almost has important to the experience as the music itself. However, as CDs reduced the size of the cases, and music production companies spend less time on designing custom boxes, physical CDs became more of a commodity, with the music on them being the only thing that truly distinguished one CD from another.

But what about books, magazines, and newspapers?

To a large extent, I would venture that the relationship we have with magazines or newspapers is different from that of a book. When I first saw the Kindle, I was not attracted to it because I could read books on it but rather because I might be able to subscribe to newspapers or magazines. The clear line falls in the arena of experience: with a few exceptions, magazines and newspapers are read and then discarded. The ephemeral nature of that experience archetype seems to make such relationship a prime candidate for digitization: Once again, the convenience of something like a Kindle seems to trump the experience of having to fold a newspaper in a crowded subway or the guilt associated with recycling large amount of newsprint or magazines on a regular basis: because the intrisic value of newspapers or magazines is as conveyors of temporal information that now appears to be archivable and retrieveable online, the need for ownership of that data appears to be lowered.

Books, on the other hand, are a different issue. Reference books may lend themselves to a good digitizable model (O’Reilly, for example, has had success with its Safari offering, as have encyclopedias like Brittanica and the OED) but fiction books may be in a different class. The book as object may be falling into the same class as those ancient LPs, being designed as a full object rather than just its content and rental of such good (though people will mention that books have been something you can borrow from a library for a long time) may take longer to break through as the advantage of reading such a book on a Kindle is not necessarily higher than that of a physical good. I may be romantic in my thinking, attaching to books not only the content and the packaging but its experience in a greater space, as each book I own has, in itself, a number of memories attached, in the form of sand from a beach where it was read, or wrinkles from being carried on a trip or fold marking and writings from a particular era. In those rare cases, the books serve as containers for more than the stories they held when first presented on a bookshelf or through the online presentation they had: they are containers of a full experience and that, at this point, is not yet something that any digital device (whether it is a kindle or other) has yet been able to reproduce.

Media: Advertising

The advertising industry is probably going to be one of the most affected industry this year, hit by the double wammy of a slower economy and a push to digitization.

The economic slowdown will result in a substantial drop in advertising expenditures for traditional media: Newspapers and magazines are already feeling the pinch and I suspect it is not too much longer before television, radio, and display advertising go through the same changes.

Direct media will continue to do OK, however, as it is result oriented and this fully measurable.

Online advertising will continue moving towards performance-type models with CPMs dropping substantially and CPCs and CPAs becoming the de-facto standard.

Social Media will see a sharp reduction in investments unless it can prove that it can perform better than other forms of advertising, as companies will be less interested in experimenting this year. This will put pressure on pricing models relating to social media. One potential way to fight back is to highlight targeting and demonstrate as such targeting benefits ad buyers.

The net-net of all this is that advertising agencies and their holding companies are going to feel pretty squeezed this year, unless they start developing marketplaces than can help their customers purchase bundles in a more efficient and more cost effective fashion. Because ad agencies have generally been slow at reacting to changes in their industry (we’re over 10 years into web-based advertising becoming mainstream and some ad agencies buyers are still questioning its impact), I’m not very hopeful for their short term outlook and positively worried about their long term one.

Media: Print

Print media is about to have one of the worst years of its existence. Newspapers will continue to fail and at least one major newspaper will close by year end (by major, I mean one of the top 100 newspapers in the country).

Most magazines will see substantial drop in their advertising base and many will move to web-based only productions, transforming themselves from print publications into web-based ones. In the process, many of them will have to shed staff as the economic model for web-based publications tends to be much more thinly staffed than that for prinit publications.

Other magazines, like The Economist, The Atlantic, Harper’s, and The New Yorker, will continue to thrive as print continues to be a better place for long form writing than the web. As other publications depart for the web, those long-form, more reader-oriented (and by reader, I mean people who READ instead of scan articles), will continue to thrive, with their advertising base increasing in value.

Media: TV and Movies

The movie industry will, at best, remain flat, and probably see a small decrease in revenue.

TV, on the other hand, is in for a major shake-up. Just as newspapers are starting to feel the pinch of the Internet, IP-based video is going to have a substantial impact this year, eroding audiences as they increasingly choose the place and time for the shows they want to see and, in some cases, may even demand the way in which the media offerings are offered to them.

Just think of the current offerings: today, you can watch a show on television, you can buy it from iTunes or Amazon, you can stream it (or at least stream older episodes) on Netflix as part of you rental plan, or you can watch in in an advertising supported mode on either hulu.com or the station’s own site. On hulu.com, you may have a choice of advertising either watching a two-minute commercial before the show and watch the show uninterrupted or you can watch the show with some limited interuptions as you would on regular TV.

However, today, most of that experience is based on the assumption that you would be using your computer to do so. A new class of devices is starting to appear that are offering access to some of those services directly from your TV: Apple started with their AppleTV device and companies like Roku, LG, Samsung, and others also now have offerings on the market. This will become more common and continue to erase the mark of what TV networks are about. The focus will continue to shift to shows, giving more power to creatives who can deliver the goods to an audience and lowering the usefulness of aggregating middlemen, which is essentially the role TV networks currently play.

In turn, advertisers will want to pay less for TV as they can measure those audiences less than they can those online and see decreasing return on investments for their TV-based advertising expenditures as compared to their digital ones.

So the bottom line is that traditional TV will suffer as more an more of video production is moving to an IP stack.

In the next entry, I will look at general technology related trends that may emerge over the next 12 months.

Recently, though, TechMeme has gotten me thinking about the tech blogosphere conversations as a whole and their longer term relevance. To the small “web 2.0″ community, TechMeme serves as a bit of a paper of record; The subhead even claims that it represents the “Tech Web, page A1″, claiming to bring us the important stories. But how do those stories fare over time? Is today’s hot topic a step in understanding a longer term trend or is it just a temporary distraction that will be forgotten a month/3 months/6 months/a year from now.

Fortunately, Gabe Rivera, the founder of TechMeme must have anticipated such a question and provided a way to look at TechMeme as it was a particular point in its short history. Using the simple interface, it’s easy to see the page as it existed at a precise point in time. So I decided to start looking at the site at the same time in single month spaces. The middle of the night and middle of the day position ought to be good time stamps so I decided to look at the site at 12am and 12pm on the selected date. I also had to discount the fact that April 1st is April fool’s day so I could not use the first of the month as this fact could skew the data. Here are the dates and times I ended up with:

• Today: June 2nd 2008 at 12am and 12pm
• A week ago: May 26, 2008 at 12am and 12pm
• Two weeks ago: May 19, 2008 at 12am and 12pm
• One month ago: May 2, 2008 at 12am and 12pm
• Two months ago: April 2, 2008 at 12am and 12pm
• Three months ago: March 2, 2008 at 12am and 12pm
• Six months ago: December 2, 2007 at 12am and 12pm
• Nine months ago: September 2, 2007 at 12am and 12pm
• One Year ago: June 2 2007 at 12am and 12pm
• Two years ago: June 2, 2006 at 12am and 12pm

With 20 data points, here’s what I discovered.

Today

Based on today’s news at noon, it looks like the important subjects at noon in the blogosphere are Adobe’s latest move, combining Flash and Acrobat with their entry in the already crowded (Google, Microsoft, Zoho, etc..) web-based office suite market. At midnight, things were a little less exciting, with discussion around the privacy issues Google Maps is raising with their StreetView offering.

Of course, it’s still too early to tell whether those stories will have a long term impact so let’s roll the tape back a little.

One Week Ago: May 26, 2008

At noon, a week ago, the top story was about a new type of SSD, developed by Samsung. Since it’s hardware, I assume that the impact of this news can’t be felt initially but there could be longer term repercussions. Also of note on that page is a small item lower on the page about Paypal outages. An interesting trend in my research on this is that this story is slowly developing over a period of weeks and months and the noise level appears to be increasing on it.

At midnight, the discussion was around Google’s power and the needed for another organization to work as a counter balance to that powerful force in the search engine space. Coupled with the discussions last night about privacy issues relating to Google maps, it seems we are seeing an emerging pattern here.

Two Weeks Ago: May 19, 2008

Two weeks ago, at noontime, the claim that Microsoft would eventually buy Facebook and keep it close was dominating TechMeme. At this point, no announcement has been made so this is largely conjecture and, while an interesting opinion, it’s not really news. This editorial was largely in response to the news item that dominated the previous 12 hour cycle about Microsoft’s statements regarding pursuing a possible deals other than a full acquisition with Yahoo!

One Month Ago: May 2, 2008

On May 2, 2008 at noon, the big news was… that the Google RSS reader is now available for the iphone. I’m sure many people consider this event as a major turning point when… well, hmm… a big big deal. Amusingly, Adobe was also in the news that day, with news that its flash plugin would escape computers and appear in set top boxes and mobile phones.

Another big subject was Steve Ballmer’s mention that Microsoft could go it alone without Yahoo, a discussion that dominated the midnight page on that day. The Yahoo/Microsoft chat has been kind of the soap opera of our industry and this latest installment was remembered as a turning point (or not) by many.

A possibly interesting trend piece, around midnight, was also intriguing: Will Grand Theft Auto IV hurt Iron Man opening weekend sales. I haven’t seen a follow up on that piece yet, which could tell us whether video games are displacing movies as the primary form of entertainment but my guess is that the answer is no.

Two Months Ago: April 2, 2008

On April 2, 2008 at noon, the top story on techmeme was about Intel’s plan for chips that would power up more mobile devices. Interestingly, this story was largely driven by mainstream media as the lead was taken by john Markoff of the New York Times, followed by comments from Forbes magazine, and Infoworld. The other related story was the press release itself, which can be seen as bloggers pointing straight to the source of the news. I suspect that this story will probably have more legs moving forward. A cursory glance provides glances at developing stories ranging from the rumor stage (that all important Google/Skype partnership or acquisition… which didn’t happen) to the focus on process (like the approval of Office Open XML as an ISO standard).

The departure of Google’s CIO dominated the prior night’s news cycle and word of Apple’s 3G iphone started to filter through.

Three Months Ago: March 2, 2008

March 2, 2008 at noon provides us perspective on today’s news, thanks to Microsoft’s announcement of ITS entry into the web-based office suite market. When put side by side with today’s announcement by Adobe, it seems to start pointing to more of a trend. Beyond that, little news that seems to be of note from a memorable standpoint.

The interesting thing here is that the same subject was leading the previous night’s news cycle. This seems to establish a first rule for techmeme: subjects that survive on the front page more than 12 hours may be worth paying attention to.

Six Month Ago: December 2, 2007

There’s an all saying in journalism that 3 items make for a trend. In the case of this study, it looks like Web-based office suite are definitely the hottest trend around, as the top news on December 2, 2007 at noon was information about the future of Google’s offering in that space (either that or there is an unwritten rule in the technology field that information about web-based office suites MUST be introduced on the second day of the month or wait until the following month).

The subject was starting to climb the chart 12 hours earlier, even thought the discussion at the time was dominated by a Facebook misstep (remember Facebook Beacons? Well, that was around that time). From an interface standpoint, it also brings up something that I’d like to recommend to Gabe: could you add and up or down arrow to highlight if a subject is getting more play or not. On something like this, it would be nice to get an idea of the stickiness of a topic. It appears many topic appear low on the page and move up over time, the quicker and faster they move up seems to indicate the importance of the story and it would be a nice addition to have that info on the screen.

Nine Month Ago: September 2, 2007

September 2, 2007 was a quiet news day. I guess everyone was mourning the death of the newspaper, which was forced by Google on that day, according to the noon-time headlines. There doesn’t seem to have been any other major news around midnight either. This, however, could be an artifact in the data as September 2, 2007 was a Sunday, which is generally a pretty quiet news day as most people don’t work on Sunday.

Interestingly, a story that is just now starting to get more notice is the continuing brushfires around Paypal’s outages. Not that sexy a subject but one that started to be raised around that time. At the time, discussion of Google’s entry in the mobile market centered around the idea they would deliver a device instead of a platform.

Last Year and Two Years Ago

A year ago, at noon, the Techmeme conversation was around porn. During the night, though, the conversation was centering around the acquisition of Feedburner by Google. This is probably remembered by people in the industry as an important milestone and here, techmeme shines at organizing a package with the appropriate conversations.

Things do not improve much if you go further back: 2 years ago, at noon, and midnight, gives us little to mull over.

Conclusion

The data seems to point that the front page of TechMeme largely represents what’s hot right now but does not necessarily highlight stories which have a longer term type of impact. In that sense, it may also be highlighting that discussions in the tech blogosphere are largely centered on insider-type minutia while failing to put things in a larger context. This appears to present a myopic view of the tech world that leaves us with lots of data but preciously little information. So while TechMeme provides a useful tool in terms of getting an idea of the pulse of the conversation “right now,” it does little in providing data that would allow someone to understand the larger trends that are affecting our world as a result of the internet (and web 2.0 revolution).

I would argue that the answer to the question I posed in the title for that post is a resounding yes. Because it deals largely with the trivial and assess little value to longer type impact, TechMeme creates a self-imposed myopia on its readers and participants. A possible exception is when a story manages to survives through multiple 12-hour instances, providing many angles to the same events. But those events are few and far between.

Whether the lack of headlines with a major impact is a phenomenon that is unique to TechMeme or to the tech world in general is a question I’d like to leave to readers and I’d appreciate comments as to your thinking around this.

But all this comes down to a simple fact: if you’ve missed what happened on TechMeme in the last XX hours, days or weeks, you may not necessarily have missed much. so kick back, relax, step away from the computer and, if you need to catch up, you can always pick up a mainstream publication that may cover a distilled version of what happened if it’s of any particular significance.

I was recently describing my update process to David Strom, after he had posted an entry on his blog about how poor the contact management system in Gmail was, and I hit upon a realization: A lot of the work that goes into keeping all that information up to date seems to be something that ought to be more suited to some level of automation. Why is it that there is no real linkage between my address book, different email systems, social networks, IM systems, Skype (and other voice over IP solutions) and my mobile phone? Each of those appears to live in a silo, unable to offer me a full view of the people I know.

While Plaxo does a good job of synchronizing metadata about people (What I would consider as rank, name, and serial number ie. the basics like physical address, IM address, phone, and email), it has yet to evolve into a solution that would give me a full view of the relationships I have.

I also played with a number of CRM packages like SugarCRM but ultimately, they fail because their view is completely sales-centric, with the idea of people being largely seen as members of a company and sales prospects to be closed. I am not much of a salesperson (unless you consider pushing new ideas on people a type of sale, which arguably it is) but my view of the world is much richer than that. I don’t want to think of people as buyers.

However, the concepts of grouping information in CRMs is somewhat attractive. What I want is a view of my relationship with people that would group:

• The basic type of address book information available in my address book and/or on my PDA and/or phone.
• The rich email discussions I have had with said people
• The similarly rich IM discussions I have had.
• SMS or MMS discussions synched from my phone.
• Social Networks interactions
• Feeds for the person (to things like their blog, their last.fm account, etc…)
• Trackbacks and other blog related discussions.

The interesting thing is that each of this information is available in a digitized fashion but there is no centralized point that allows me to see said information about Joe Smith.

Why is that?

So I’d like to suggest the creation of a new class of software called the “Personal Relationship Manager” or PRM. The purpose of a PRM would be to help you manage your life instead of trying to manage sales.

Basic Personal Relationship Manager

Of course, people are going to say that this product or that product solves my existing problem. In order to get those people to think before they push their solution, let me describe in details what I want:

Contact Information

• Integration of my address book across different email services: the contact part of this is largely completed by Plaxo as they have managed to integrate and aggregate the address book from a number of services. They need to provide an interface to integrate others but they seem closer than anyone else on this.
• Integration of my address book across different IM services: top line, the following would be needed from day one: AIM, MSN IM, Yahoo IM, Google IM, ICQ, and Jabber. I should not have to reenter information for each.
• Integration of my address book across different social networks: this is getting trickier as most of the popular social networks look to that type of data as owned by them. However, an ideal PRM would integrate and aggregate the information my friends give on a social network into a single view.
• Integration of my address book and mobile and VOIP solutions: Caller ID on my VoIP solutions like Skype, Vonage, etc… and on my mobile phone should be integrated into a contact view. Today, my Treo asks me if I want to create a new contact or add a number to a contact if it’s not in my address book already. I want that type of feature across all voice communication solution.

Conversations and Status

• Integration of Email conversations across all email services I use: At minimum, this should allow to bring IMAP and POP into my PRM.
• Integration of IM conversations across all IM services I use: Most IM services now have an archival feature. That should be presented as part of a user view.
• Integration of Social Network Status and related messages across all socially-aware applications: From social network status to Last.FM music, from WeSabe to Twitter, my friends are updating information in a variety of services. I should have a dedicated news feed for each individual view.
• Integration of SMS/MMS history: SMS and MMS sent to my mobile phone should be integrated into the overview of people.
• Possible Integration of Voicemail and audio messages: At a later time, integrating those into the package would be a nice to have.

Input

• The PRM should manage relationships across social network: This ought not be aggressive but the system should check when people I know join a particular network I’m on. If it finds a match, it ought to tell me that it did and, based on my settings, either ask for a linkage automatically, or ask me to approve/deny asking for such linkage.
• The PRM could (not should) become a single point of entry for broadcast messages. For example, if I change jobs (as I did recently), I would update that system with the job change status in a single location and it would update that information across all the touch points where I have entered that information.
• The PRM could (not should) be a single entry point for status broadcast. At the very least, it should allow me to set which system ought to be integrated via simple rules similar to filtering (for example, I could say “If I update Service X, also update Service Y and Service Z.”

Programming Bits

• Low change footprint: A new application should not force me to change everything I already use. Instead, it should work with the applications I already use. This is probably the hardest thing in developing the application I’m highlighting as it will have to integrate with other services/software via some kind of service oriented architecture but not take over their basic features.
• Fully addressable via API: The PRM, if built successfully, would become central to managing relationships. As a result, it could become the source of data that applications could be built on. Because much of the data is personal, a strong set of security and access controls would need to be in place in order to ensure that only the data people in my PRM want to distribute is distributable. On the other hand, the data should be formatted in such a consistent way that developers could build applications that integrate with the PRM.
• Online/Offline addressable: Knock me off the network and I should still be able to have access to some of the data. Put me back on the network and I should be able to resync it all with the most up to date information.
• Decentralized: People tend to prefer having their contact info in the hands of more than one providers as they feel that type of information is largely personal. A PRM solution would thus have to be in a mode that can be federated so no single entity is in full control of the data.

So the purpose of the system, once built, would be to give me a view of my friends/contacts/etc… that is consolidated. It would probably provide me with a high level contact overview (listing all the ways to get in touch with someone), and then allow me to drill on the different conversations I’ve had with the person across a variety of systems (Email, IM, phone, social nets) as well as give me an overview of what they’ve been up to thanks to a status message and socially aware apps screen. And it would have to do all that without me changing any of the systems I’m currently using. It’s a tall order but it’s one that, if satisfied, could easily become the central way for people to manage their relationship.

If your product does indeed satisfy all those requirements, you may have made a sale. And if you have an interest in developing a PRM, I’ll be happy to be an alpha tester.