Some months ago, when I was with BCCL, (the publisher of The Times of India and he Economic Times), I had a conversation with CTO of the group Internet company, Times Internet Limited. Who asked me to put down some thoughts on how I see things on the internet shaping up. While I did put down those thoughts, I never actually sent it to him, the file was lying around till I came across it a couple of days back. Here is a rewrite of what I initially penned down (typed up?).
A lot of rambling about nothing in particular.
The positioning of a product or service is more and more targeted to more and more specific audiences? Case in point are the BMW and Mercedes, both are from fine German engineering pedigree, both are premium luxury cars. However the buyers of the two will probably as different as two people can be. The former will be bought by a person who will drive the car himself and the latter probably by someone who has a chauffer (Yes, I know Mercedes also makes sports cars… this is the general perception that I expressed here). Such a huge differentiation in mindset is what branding is all about. This trend is seen in media as well. The rise of niche publications in developed economies such as the US and UK is illustrative of this.
Any media would broadly undergo the distinct phases of consolidation in the growth phase and then fragmentation once the medium matures. The internet is perhaps one medium which fragmented even before it matured. This is perhaps explained by the global reach of the media and the fact that ideas can be easily replicated across geographical & political boundaries; i.e. something that works in America, will almost certainly not work in India, simply because the maturity of the American market is of a different order of magnitude. To illustrate this point further the existence and flourishing of sites like epinions.com (in the American context) and the apparent non-starter of the Indian equivalent mouthshut.com which are sources of information. Or price comparison sites like mySimon.com which as far as I know has no comparable Indian site.
With this brief background, it would be instrumental to see the whole internet game in a different perspective . The internet tends to promote the formation of groups of people with very specific interests. A sort of mother of all niche publications, which you can talk back to and what’s more it talks back to you and allows you to communicate with your peer group.
While the Bennet philosophy has been to be an aggregator of audiences by subsidizing the price the audience pays to retrieve content and then retrieving profit from the purchasing those audiences. This can prove counter productive as far as the Internet goes, as the internet has people who are used to getting content for free and are likely to freeload. On the other hand the audience which does pay to retrieve the content would then be most prized and wanted by an advertiser, if nothing to prove non frivolousness of their transaction with us. The idea would be to convince the mass populace that information is of value. The easiest way to ensure that is to look for focused verticals in the information segment. The first one that comes to mind is economictimes.com or more accurately perhaps the work of ETIG.
The biggest problem that one can make out is how will people pay for it online. Multimodal payment mechansims are already in use by the Indiatimes family of websites. Virtual currency of some kind can perhaps be also created for this purpose.
What about the business we are in?
Content can take several forms, one of the forms could be that of blogs (such as the one you are reading right now). Blogs are the latest rage in America, now spreading to other parts of the world. Blogs are nothing but a personal running commentary on the world in general and sometimes specific to a topic.
Another form could be in the form of reviews. Reviews can be on any topic, from the palces to party & eat out in Delhi to where to find the best shoes in Chandini Chowk. Ineractivity which needs to be the cornerstone of such an offering. Such content may well be in the form of a blog.
Traditional content in the form of newspapers, TV, Radio will definitely migrate in one form or the other to the web. Evolution of devices like the Microsoft Tablet PC or the Handspring Treo are definitely a step in that direction.
In that respect standardisation under one name a la indiatimes.com is probably the biggest single mistake being undertaken by us and many others across the world. This conclusion is based on our initial premise that internet promotes the formation of specific focus groups. By definition these focus groups would be unlikey to turn to a general interest portal to get their kicks so to speak. The creation of multiple brands would be a better branding and strategic idea, having a ghoomnahai.com rather than having something like Indiatimes Travel. This gives an identity to the content and makes it more valued by its consumers.
The above, when seen in the overall context of evolution of media, is a perfectly logical sequence of events. Growing media consolidates, and then fragments. During the growth phase it is perfectly acceptable to have a single brand name, but the moment the medium matures (maybe in the context of the limited audience it gathers in the Indian scenario)
Show me the money!!!
Whether people will pay to read (& someday in the future see) such content is debatable. The likes of Al Ries would have us believe that advertising will never work on the internet (which is something I disagree with strongly). So what will happen? Will the internet become a subversive medium which will undermine modern society as we know it. A sort of a no man’s land where no content will be paid for? products and services being the only ones able to draw any sort of revenue?
“The Truth” as the immortal words form ‘X Files’ go “is out there..”.
My personal suspicion is that heavily prized content a la NYT or WSJ will not only be paid for, but will also attract significant advertising revenues. For the rest, creation of strong niches will allow them to do the same…
PS: Don't hesitate to comment...
A lot of rambling about nothing in particular.
The positioning of a product or service is more and more targeted to more and more specific audiences? Case in point are the BMW and Mercedes, both are from fine German engineering pedigree, both are premium luxury cars. However the buyers of the two will probably as different as two people can be. The former will be bought by a person who will drive the car himself and the latter probably by someone who has a chauffer (Yes, I know Mercedes also makes sports cars… this is the general perception that I expressed here). Such a huge differentiation in mindset is what branding is all about. This trend is seen in media as well. The rise of niche publications in developed economies such as the US and UK is illustrative of this.
Any media would broadly undergo the distinct phases of consolidation in the growth phase and then fragmentation once the medium matures. The internet is perhaps one medium which fragmented even before it matured. This is perhaps explained by the global reach of the media and the fact that ideas can be easily replicated across geographical & political boundaries; i.e. something that works in America, will almost certainly not work in India, simply because the maturity of the American market is of a different order of magnitude. To illustrate this point further the existence and flourishing of sites like epinions.com (in the American context) and the apparent non-starter of the Indian equivalent mouthshut.com which are sources of information. Or price comparison sites like mySimon.com which as far as I know has no comparable Indian site.
With this brief background, it would be instrumental to see the whole internet game in a different perspective . The internet tends to promote the formation of groups of people with very specific interests. A sort of mother of all niche publications, which you can talk back to and what’s more it talks back to you and allows you to communicate with your peer group.
While the Bennet philosophy has been to be an aggregator of audiences by subsidizing the price the audience pays to retrieve content and then retrieving profit from the purchasing those audiences. This can prove counter productive as far as the Internet goes, as the internet has people who are used to getting content for free and are likely to freeload. On the other hand the audience which does pay to retrieve the content would then be most prized and wanted by an advertiser, if nothing to prove non frivolousness of their transaction with us. The idea would be to convince the mass populace that information is of value. The easiest way to ensure that is to look for focused verticals in the information segment. The first one that comes to mind is economictimes.com or more accurately perhaps the work of ETIG.
The biggest problem that one can make out is how will people pay for it online. Multimodal payment mechansims are already in use by the Indiatimes family of websites. Virtual currency of some kind can perhaps be also created for this purpose.
What about the business we are in?
Content can take several forms, one of the forms could be that of blogs (such as the one you are reading right now). Blogs are the latest rage in America, now spreading to other parts of the world. Blogs are nothing but a personal running commentary on the world in general and sometimes specific to a topic.
Another form could be in the form of reviews. Reviews can be on any topic, from the palces to party & eat out in Delhi to where to find the best shoes in Chandini Chowk. Ineractivity which needs to be the cornerstone of such an offering. Such content may well be in the form of a blog.
Traditional content in the form of newspapers, TV, Radio will definitely migrate in one form or the other to the web. Evolution of devices like the Microsoft Tablet PC or the Handspring Treo are definitely a step in that direction.
In that respect standardisation under one name a la indiatimes.com is probably the biggest single mistake being undertaken by us and many others across the world. This conclusion is based on our initial premise that internet promotes the formation of specific focus groups. By definition these focus groups would be unlikey to turn to a general interest portal to get their kicks so to speak. The creation of multiple brands would be a better branding and strategic idea, having a ghoomnahai.com rather than having something like Indiatimes Travel. This gives an identity to the content and makes it more valued by its consumers.
The above, when seen in the overall context of evolution of media, is a perfectly logical sequence of events. Growing media consolidates, and then fragments. During the growth phase it is perfectly acceptable to have a single brand name, but the moment the medium matures (maybe in the context of the limited audience it gathers in the Indian scenario)
Show me the money!!!
Whether people will pay to read (& someday in the future see) such content is debatable. The likes of Al Ries would have us believe that advertising will never work on the internet (which is something I disagree with strongly). So what will happen? Will the internet become a subversive medium which will undermine modern society as we know it. A sort of a no man’s land where no content will be paid for? products and services being the only ones able to draw any sort of revenue?
“The Truth” as the immortal words form ‘X Files’ go “is out there..”.
My personal suspicion is that heavily prized content a la NYT or WSJ will not only be paid for, but will also attract significant advertising revenues. For the rest, creation of strong niches will allow them to do the same…
PS: Don't hesitate to comment...
Comments
Post a Comment