Content is a right, not a DVD

How many times should I have to buy a DVD? In an ideal world, just once.

I don't look at movies or music the way I used to. I think it happened at about the same time I ripped all the music from my CDs to my computer, because suddenly I had two copies: one real and one digital. As long as it doesn't explode (fingers crossed), that content is on my computer forever. With everyone doing this now, I'm going to assume other people are seeing content differently as well.

Virtual and hard copies of content aren't on equal footing. Should my notebook burn down, I still have the CDs as back ups. iTunes not only doesn't send a CD (I mean, I'm paying full price and I'd just rip it anyways, so can you just send me the 15 cent disk?) or offer me more than a single download. Plus, my CDs have a sentimental value and they are something physical I can hold and love (unless my computer was burned due to a larger house fire...). No matter how digital I get, a hard copy is something I will value more because virtual content feels secondary, frail and less real.

As a result, I don't value virtual content very highly, and I'm often appalled when I see iTunes is charging full price. I think this is probably a big driver of illegal downloading--I don't know if people really feel they are "stealing" as digital copies are not considered as valuable--because, you can't download a real car, or a real DVD. I refuse to pay full price for a one time download.

If content is a right, not a DVD, I think we need to reevaluate some things.

Image: source

TV’s Missed Opportunity

Right now people are watching more premium content than ever, take Net Flix, Hulu, iTunes/ Amazon and then pile on illegal downloading and you have more eyes than ever before. This is an opportunity for premium content producers, e.g. TV networks, movie studios, but unfortunately it's not being framed that way. The business problem is how to monetize those eyeballs. And, while ad rates remain low on sites like Hulu it seems that pay walls are the only answer.

I'd argue that there is a better way.

First, I think sites like Hulu need to get more research on how their ads are watched. I've found that most people I know settle in to watch shows on Hulu, and the very same people that fast-forward on their DVRs are watching the two minute ads on Hulu. Further, most audiences accept that watching ads with your TV show is part of the deal, and most viewers are down with watching them.

Second, premium content needs a business model that's a little more creative. And, as content becomes increasingly detached from specific channels, there should be a greater focus on attaching ads and building revenue on the content itself.

For example, allowing for free downloads with commercial breaks built in, perhaps they could even update periodically? Or give users an interactive experience that unlocks programming via engaging with brands. We could create a whole new type of ad format/ interactive experience for online viewing--like movie trailers (very much enjoyed) make online ads part of the whole viewing experience. Lastly, could we reach out to people who have already downloaded illegally, asking them to register their copies if they enjoy the shows, or to watch ads to help support them?

Finally, people care a great deal about their shows. They feel a sense of personal ownership with the programs they love, and beyond just wanting free programming would also seek to preserve it if given a chance or a way to show their support.

My point is this. Consumption is up, way up. Along with these new habits people also have greater emotional investments in the programs and movies they watch. But, the more the industry denies access the more eyeballs they lose to illegal consumption. Instead, they need to harness the new passion for premium content people have and get creative about making money with all those eyeballs, whatever screen they are on.

Update: A great piece by Carol Phillips on Millennial Marketing cites my article on this topic recently published by TNGG.

Image

Sex Ed vs Censorship

Sex and Gen Y is a messy subject, if only because not that many people want to be open and honest about their kids getting it on. My latest post on The Next Great Generation (TNGG), Does Pornography Always Objectify?, was posted as part of Sex Week -- where we explored some of the issues surrounding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, relationships etc., for Gen Y. On the surface it may not appear that we ever had a 1960s style sexual revolution, but if sexting and internet porn are taken into account, we certainly had one and it was virtual.


There's a lot this revolution has influenced in terms of how Millennials think, and among other things it's led to a greater acceptance of sex on mains street. Though certainly not everyone agrees this is ok. The core idea of the article is, that while some of us disparage hyper sexual images in advertising and in the media at large, the fault is not inherent to the image. That is, there's nothing wrong with pictures of boobs... as long as we talk about boobs too.

And, while we must be cautious of things that may stunt or hinder the healthy development of girls, and boys (let's not forget them), that censoring sexual images is probably not the answer if we want real results: healthy, balanced adults. As a culture we run away from sex, but maybe if we just confronted it head on, talked about it, talked about our values etc.; we'd likely see much better outcomes than what we get from teaching our kids abstinence only or not letting them watch south park or anything on MTV.


Photo Credit: 8136496@N05

Online is Real Life, Too

Online or virtual life gets a bad rap for being less than real, which is weird as we're essentially labeling social media as antisocial. It keeps us away from our real life social circles and robs us all of face-to-face time the advocates of real life argue. And, while they make a good case, certainly some people are on their computers far too much, I think they also do a disservice to a very important point: real life and virtual life do not need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, they have great potential to augment one another.

Yesterday I spent just about all day inside my apartment working on writing articles, editing others and watching a good amount of TV with my roommate. Under normal circumstances I would have had contact with just one person, but instead I was periodically chatting on twitter, sharing articles to read and posting on a few friend's Facebook walls to touch base. What's so wrong with that? I think my life is considerably better as a result and I see these people much more in real life because of these interactions.

I've put down some of these ideas in a much more cogent form in an article published yesterday on thenextgreatgeneration.com, titled (the same as this) Online Is Real Life, Too -- If your'e interested check it out and leave a comment.

I'm Published!

Here it is! "15 Ways Millennials Think About Brands"

I recently jumped on a crowdsourcing project started by Edward Boches at Mullen and driven by young writers. The purpose of the site, dubbed The Next Great Generation (TNGG), is to explore what it's like to be a member of Gen Y/ or a "Millennial." It's a place to give members of our generation a voice to discuss everything from the brands that speak to us (and those that miss the mark) to the values we hold most dear--with an eye towards educating older generations.

Perhaps our 'about us' says it best: "If we pull it off, The Next Great Generation will be an opportunity for Millennial Generation writers to develop a voice and gather a following, along with a real chance for older generations to listen in, learn, even ask questions."

Having grown up literally just saturated in information, our world view is far different from the weltanschauung of previous generations. In my post, "15 Ways Millennials Think About Brands," I look at some of the new ways we interact with marketing and what we expect from it.

If you enjoy it or have any ideas leave a comment and check out the rest of the site. We're brand new and always looking for feedback. Also if you're interested in writing something for TNGG we're always looking for writers.



PS Boston.com blog, Business Updates, mentions TNGG and my article: Blog of interest to marketers debuts in the Hub. Woot woot.

And TNGG in general mentioned on the BostonBusinessJournal.com
Beancast picks up the story, posts: Crowdsourcing That's Actually Crowdsourcing

Some kind words on YRevold! (Brands: We Own You)

Also on SocialLink (Are Brands Important?) and Mullen.com