cnbc is BIG business. their web side is important but, as a business/revenue model piece, tangential. maybe that will fade or die. maybe not (actually I think not.)
but do you believe seeking alpha will be a big business? how big? just off web traffic? etc
bijan
· 5 months ago
my point is that I think cnbc is big now because they get paid from cable
I dont' think that is sustainable
online distribution combined with free alternatives change the rules.
Steven Kane
· 5 months ago
Yes, I understood that
But i'm asking for a little more deeper - how does it change the rules?
Does seeking alpha ever get to be a business the size of cnbc? Why/why not? If so, how?
Btw, I agree that cable sub fees will eventually fade or even in some cases go away. But I will predict that cnbc will be a survivor and will continue to be a huge business for many years, both from fees and advertising
bijan
· 5 months ago
I don't know if seeking alpha gets huge
But it could be another one
Like a huffpo for finance
-bijan
Steven Kane
· 5 months ago
Huffpo has traffic for sure
But is it a big business? Or even a profitable one (at any size)? And they barely pay contributors, if at all. Not clear to me they can survive without venture funding
Digital dimes.............
bijan
· 5 months ago
I'm more of an optimist. This will be figured out.
Too much value being created
The previous model feels very fragile to me. Right now tv is a huge business but people don't watch the ads. They either flip the channels or dvr and skip them all together.
That model doesn't work over time.
Same with news print business model.
ID rather own huffpo or craigslist over the Boston globe
We are gonna say the same thing with some of these cable networks too. At least the ones that don't evolve.
-bijan
Steven Kane
· 5 months ago
Respectfully, I don't think its fair or correct to make this about "optimism"
I agree the old model is broken.
And I am as optimistic about the future as you, I dare say!
But in an ironic way, I think a lot of folks in the VC industry and a lot of new media recipients of VC money are suffering from "the innovators dilemma" - people have been pushing these notions for so long, and are so invested in certain dogmatic notions, they can't see let alone admit they are mistaken or need to change.
That's neither optimism nor pessimism, its just... Stubbornness, or "the innovators dilemma" form of myopia.
New media will inevitably upend or replace or destroy the old business models. But it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be a profitable ecosystem to follow, no matter how many investment dollars pour in, and no matter how popular some services become.
I mean, we may still be in the "first innings of a nine inning game" (gosh, that cliché has been tossed around for at least 15 years now) but we are also many years into the post-napster, post-kazaa, broadband blogosphere UGC world, but where are the successful new business models for music? Or journalism? Or video?
Again, I don't think being clear-eyed and realistic is either "pessimism" or "optimism" -- that's just a dismissive way of ending a discussion...
bijan
· 5 months ago
I'm a stubborn optimist :)
-bijan
Steven Kane
· 5 months ago
and i'm a patient optimist -- i look forward to someone someday showing successful business models alongside rosy visions of the always-around-the-corner future
Tyler Willis
· 5 months ago
Bijan, I think you'll like Scott Rafer's recent series of posts related to free: http://hubb.me/Dbb
bijan
· 5 months ago
Okay. I will check that out.
-bijan
Steven Kane
· 5 months ago
as usual rafer is spot on
Larry M
· 5 months ago
NYTimes is already considering a subscription model. They did beta test a while ago, but maybe the current industry issues will push them into a revenue generating model.
I would ditch the paper print business and do a free and pay hyrbid online model at the nyt.
-bijan
Larry M
· 5 months ago
NYTimes eventually can 180 deg and charge more for the digital version and offer a discount on a the print version. While I get most of my news online, there is nothing like a spreading out the paper on weekends and perusing at leisure.
howard
· 5 months ago
I agree 100% on the "color part" and blogged about that earlier today, reminding people that Stuart Brand's famous quote about information wanting to be free was only half of what he said. Information also wants to be expensive. Business models are being worked out in the color part, that is the tension, between those poles.
There are 3 affirmative sentences that I use to explain the concept succinctly. (1) Give away something that used to cost money. (2) Make money in a different way *as a result of the disruption*. (3) Have happier customers and higher profits. [ http://bit.ly/Vo7g6 ]
If you can't figure out (2), don't do (1) or get into another business :-)
fnazeeri
· 5 months ago
Is "free" really the right descriptor? It seems like "subsidized" is a better description because if something of value is delivered truly free that means it cannot last. For example, the premium accounts at Blinksale are subsidizing the free accounts and the advertisers (plus maybe Google shareholders) are subsidizing Gmail. In order to be long term viable, I think "free" needs to be "subsidized" where the entity paying the subsidy derives business benefit greater than the cost. If that is true, and you compete with this, then you are in big trouble. Otherwise, if your competitor is someone who just does "free" then all you need to do is outlast their funding ;-)
All Comments
but do you believe seeking alpha will be a big business? how big? just off web traffic? etc
I dont' think that is sustainable
online distribution combined with free alternatives change the rules.
But i'm asking for a little more deeper - how does it change the rules?
Does seeking alpha ever get to be a business the size of cnbc? Why/why not?
If so, how?
Btw, I agree that cable sub fees will eventually fade or even in some cases
go away. But I will predict that cnbc will be a survivor and will continue
to be a huge business for many years, both from fees and advertising
But it could be another one
Like a huffpo for finance
-bijan
But is it a big business? Or even a profitable one (at any size)? And they
barely pay contributors, if at all. Not clear to me they can survive without
venture funding
Digital dimes.............
Too much value being created
The previous model feels very fragile to me. Right now tv is a huge
business but people don't watch the ads. They either flip the channels
or dvr and skip them all together.
That model doesn't work over time.
Same with news print business model.
ID rather own huffpo or craigslist over the Boston globe
We are gonna say the same thing with some of these cable networks too.
At least the ones that don't evolve.
-bijan
"optimism"
I agree the old model is broken.
And I am as optimistic about the future as you, I dare say!
But in an ironic way, I think a lot of folks in the VC industry and a lot of
new media recipients of VC money are suffering from "the innovators dilemma"
- people have been pushing these notions for so long, and are so invested in
certain dogmatic notions, they can't see let alone admit they are mistaken
or need to change.
That's neither optimism nor pessimism, its just... Stubbornness, or "the
innovators dilemma" form of myopia.
New media will inevitably upend or replace or destroy the old business
models. But it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be a profitable
ecosystem to follow, no matter how many investment dollars pour in, and no
matter how popular some services become.
I mean, we may still be in the "first innings of a nine inning game" (gosh,
that cliché has been tossed around for at least 15 years now) but we are
also many years into the post-napster, post-kazaa, broadband blogosphere UGC
world, but where are the successful new business models for music? Or
journalism? Or video?
Again, I don't think being clear-eyed and realistic is either "pessimism" or
"optimism" -- that's just a dismissive way of ending a discussion...
-bijan
-bijan
http://bit.ly/18L6wF
I would ditch the paper print business and do a free and pay hyrbid
online model at the nyt.
-bijan
While I get most of my news online, there is nothing like a spreading out the paper on weekends and perusing at leisure.
There are 3 affirmative sentences that I use to explain the concept succinctly. (1) Give away something that used to cost money. (2) Make money in a different way *as a result of the disruption*. (3) Have happier customers and higher profits. [ http://bit.ly/Vo7g6 ]
If you can't figure out (2), don't do (1) or get into another business :-)