For decades there were three major TV networks, plus PBS. They were all things to all people - or all TV watchers, at least.

A few new networks appeared in the 80's. One (FOX) focused on terrestrial broadcasting, but most (like CNN and MTV) were part of the cable TV revolution. In the 90's, as cable became more available and increased the number of available channels, many more appeared - most focused on specific topics. The Food Network, launched in 1993, is a tasty example.

The emergence of the internet - the ultimate low-cost distribution mechanism - accelerated the pace of new channel creation. Fundamentally new networks sprung up almost overnight. Going direct to the consumer became a concrete possibility for content producers. The world changed! As consumers, we reap the benefit on a daily basis: endless choice and lower prices.

But there is a darker side to this equation. Traditional media companies - broadcasters and print publishers - have to adapt to this new environment. Print publishers are finding it particularly challenging. In 2008 Andy Cohn of Fader Media predicted that "Five out of every 10 magazines and newspapers will go out of business, scale down their frequency or move entirely to the Web." True or not, examples are not hard to find. Last month the Seattle Post-Intelligencer switched to an online-only model, dropping their print edition. The SPI had been in print since 1863. It now faces an uncertain future.

The answer to dramatic change in the business landscape is invariably innovation. Simply moving online and dropping an unprofitable print business may or may not ensure survival - let alone profitability. The key is to re-invent the business such that the advantages once enjoyed become advantages that can once again be exploited. Every large publisher or broadcaster has two key advantages: quality and breadth. But bringing these to bear against many small competitors can be hard. The cost of creating new channels - cable, terrestrial or online - remains relatively high for most large organizations. There are a few reasons for this:

• Content remains trapped in silos

• Delivery mechanisms - especially technical ones - are not standardized

These challenges are perfectly understandable if one considers the early use of the internet by publishers. Individual publications and channels took the first steps, creating websites that complemented or supplemented their traditional model. Each was built separately, probably using different technologies. How does a broadcaster with 500 shows ends up with 50 websites? It's simple: the most popular programs build their own websites.

But how will they get to 500 channels? Or more? The cost to build each site using the same approach as the previous 50 they built will be prohibitive. So they won't build out the vast number of channels their content might support, and content consumers - i.e. customers! - will look elsewhere.

Beyond the basic "onlining" of existing channels comes the creation of wholly new ones. We have seen remarkable changes in the world in the past year. What will next year bring? How many Black Swans will emerge? How will a traditional publisher, with limited ability to create new channels at low cost, bring their breadth and quality to bear on, for example, the next major celebrity crisis? How will traditional publishers compete with fully personalized models - like iGoogle and MyYahoo! - where each customer effectively creates their own "channel"?

The answer is that many of them won't. Smaller, more agile players will provide the content, or the lens through which to view it - and profit handsomely.

Agile is the key term here. Traditional publishers need to set themselves up so that all of their content can be sliced, diced and delivered in any way imaginable - with minimal effort, and at low cost.

They need to build an Agile Content Network, which we'll take a closer look at in my next post.

Agile Content Networks: Part Two

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)