Oct
25
Under the Volcano
Filed Under B2B, Blog, Financial services, Industry Analysis, internet, news media, online advertising, Publishing, social media, Uncategorized, Workflow | Leave a Comment
As the 1990s turned into the dotcom boom, we used to play a game which we named for Malcolm Lowry’s classic novel. Since we were a bit sniffy about the term “disintermediation”, the game was played by each contestant naming an industry which we thought was about to be edited out of the value chain by the reality of virtual communications. We then argued the case for its eventual extinction, and took a secret ballot on the arguments. I can recall the music industry, real world betting shops, cinema, and much retail banking disappearing that way. Now I look round and see that businesses still exist in these spaces. We were smart, but not smart enough. We reckoned without the powerful drive to “re-intermediation” – players moving to a spot where they could add value of a different type more appreciated by a networked marketplace – and we certainly did not see that most of the blighted industry activity would drift on for another few decades, ever more marginal, but representing value to diminishing populations of addicts who are willing to pay more and more to sustain their “fix”. When I went to the US last week my daily newspapers in the village shop cost me £3.00; on my return they cost £3.40. I have both these papers as Apps, and this has become my preferred way of reading them, but do I really want to attack the economic basis of the village shop? Disintermediation is much more complex than I thought in 1999.
And I never won the competition. My candidate for volcanic disruption and extinction was always advertising and PR agencies. According to Sir Martin Sorrell, who should know, these have now disappeared entirely, but I suspect that this is because he has renamed his world-leading enterprizes “data and marketing agencies”. But two events brought all of this to mind. In the first place I saw a headline which said, on October 6, “PR Newswire and Ektron Strike Up One-of-a-kind Strategic Alliance”, and then I had the pleasure of listening to and questioning David Levin, CEO of UBM, at the Outsell Signature Event in Phoenix last week. (Pause for Plug and statement of interest: I work part-time for Outsell, I moderated parts of this meeting, I know of nowhere else in the industry where you can speak with CEOs in depth under Chatham House rules – I cannot tell you what they said – but for sheer depth and understanding talking to Scott Key (IHS), Y S Chi (Elsevier) and David Levin is a bargain at any price, though here it was surrounded by case studies in change from another 13 CEOs and senior executives. Miss it at your Peril – it will be in Europe next year! Obviously I am not going to quote the views of David Levin, and no information market disruptor is ever wise to predict the demise of a part of his customer base while they are still buying services, but I left the room more and more convinced that the “strategy and monitoring” role of these agencies is beginning to shift, even if the creative role stays in place.
So what is this interesting strategic alliance at PRN all about? For me, it is simply another stage in the coupling of PR releases with media response measurement with market response measurement. The Press Release of yesteryear, that single page of grey, effusive but cautious text with the typical note for editors on the participants has given way to documents built around demos and video presentations, with multiple media input, intended to ring bells not only amongst media commentators, but to awaken financial analysts and gain general- to-specialist network user reaction. The destination of much of this stuff is social networks and You Tube. The idea is to launch the communication and then track it, and then track the ripples of activity that circle out from it, in blogs and tweets, and then to be able to take part in, redirect, respond, learn from the feedback loop. Increasingly this seems to be what marketing departments do, and increasingly they can do it for themselves (countless book publishers – yes, even them! – use a simple package to launch a seperate web presence for every book published, using as tools the Superdu components, which any marketing assistant can handle). So, PR Newswire, as the largest distributor of “press releases” (www.prnewswire.com), now moves into media monitoring by plugging its PR Newswire Sync application into Ektron’s widely used corporate marketing web management platform (www.ektron.com). The vital part of all of this is the PR Newswire Listening Dashboard, which enables a primary analysis and social media monitoring tool. This reminds me of something I have been watching for a long time – the evolution of the old Durrants media monitoring outfit into Gorkana (http://www.gorkana.com/group/#index), where the emphasis is on the analysis. Whether we are talking CRM (corporate relationship management) or product launch, it seems to me that more of the game is now managed inside the corporate marketing function, more analysis can be done there with these tools, and more strategy can be created there than ever before. No wonder Sir Martin and his merry men are building the world’s largest data dump of consumer buying decisions, to get “predictive insight” into likely purchasing outcomes: they must add value now by the shovel load, since a whole sector of their traditional skills has been peeled off and re-installed as workflow on the desktop of the most lowly (and low paid) marketing department operative. One of Ektron’s largest customers is the UK National Health Service!
Some people will say that this is reskilling an industry that had very few skills to start with. Other, kinder, souls will point to the continuing need for creativity, and I can see re-intermediation happening already. Typical would be Jeremy Swinfen Green’s Amberlight Agency (www.amber-light.co.uk). Meeting Jeremy recently for the first time in 15 years (as a young digital ad-man he helped me carry the argument for AdHunter (later launched as Fish4) in a Cotswold country house hotel before a very dubious Northcliffe board) I began to see, through his practise as a very busy Human-Computer Interface (HCI) advisor where this fragmentation of skills was taking us. Anyone for a game of Under the Volcano? I am still gong to choose advertising and PR for the lava and hot ash…!
Oct
2
Three Card Poker
Filed Under B2B, Blog, Education, Financial services, healthcare, Industry Analysis, internet, Publishing, Reed Elsevier, STM, Thomson, Uncategorized, Workflow | 3 Comments
In the last weeks and months I have written so much about data businesses, workflow strategies, data and software acquisitions and how major players are being reborn in the heat of all this that I should have expected the criticism. When it came, I was shocked. Me, losing sight of the big picture? After all those years of consultancy when clients told me that the big picture was all I had, and the operational reasons why the big picture was unlikely were beyond me? OK, now here is an unashamedly big picture piece.
In the big picture we can see the battalions of information services companies, having emerged from the publishing stage of their development, developing strategies around data – either as Big Data, mining and extraction players, or as workflow and process emulation players. These are all businesses driven by understanding how users work in a networked society, and they are all about the way in which content and software interact to create solutions for the bench researcher, the equities trading risk manager, the teacher and the learner, the patent attorney and his office, or the insurance risk assessor. And many others. And then, through longer workflows, solutioning at the job level begins to turn into solutioning at the industry level. Users, through shared APIs, create their own answers, and these become generalized and re-iterated by the information service vendors, and over time smaller competitors are excluded. This becomes a rich man’s game, and duopolies become the norm, as they already are in some verticals, and then duopolies give way to quasi-monopolies and invite regulatory attention (as they already are in some verticals). Competing with these giants is difficult and market entry based on re-originating workflow approaches built on the experience of countless users will be seen as difficult and pointless. So competition authorities will settle for price/margin controls and by restricting the number of verticals that one corporation can dominate.
While all this is going on the information service players of today are playing a three card game of risk. I hear this dialogue every day and it goes like this:
STAGE 1 “We now have good business in selling data into process – but the data is very commoditized and the value is in the software which holds it, searches it and provides the end-user access and workflow. We had that stuff written under contract because it was too risky to think of owning it or developing it in house – we have no experience of software or of managing it! And, looking at the contract we drew up with the supplier, we appear to own very little. So the time has come to invest in software, manage our own solutions and just hope that we can cope with the constant iteration of solutions. We will buy our supplier!”
STAGE 2 “This is more difficult than we thought. The innovation that we want is taking place outside of the range of the outfit we bought. If we are to continue to innovate in the face of rapidly developing user expectations (and that is the problem, not competition from our peers) we need to work with higher level suppliers in areas like semantic web, entity extraction etc. So lets do different deals: not sub-contracts and licensing this time, but Strategic Partnership, with exclusivities in certain areas and revenue and/or margin sharing. We will incentivize these people to greatness – but which one do we choose and what criteria do we use to select them?”
STAGE 3 “Well, the strategic relationships are working fine, but these software guys are eating our margins. And they say that all we have to do is update, while they have to re-invest, and 90% of the value in the package is software. And can they buy us? And their toolkit, honed on our clients to whom we did the selling, is now so valuable that IBM are trying to buy them …and maybe us as well. What do we do now, except grin all the way to the bank?”
There are three critical big picture issues that I take away from all of this:
* If the information services industry succeeds it will one day attract the attention of the major Enterprize software players. If this is so, we need to make our own luck and form relationships now. I see this taking place around Oracle in some sectors, and IBM in others.
* Most relationships between content houses and software houses begin with improvements to the data, content, internal workflow of the content player. But the content players end user/client is also vitally in need of systems for handling his content, and other third party content which he has already licensed, and in making it compatible with the workflow solution he is buying. There should be rich pickings here for both the content and the software players in terms of referrals and commissions. Somehow it isn’t happening, but if it did it would iron out some of the creases in those Strategic Alliances.
* Consultancy and customization are the keys to the solutioning marketplace. Trying to sell one-size fits all never quite does it in terms of repeat business. Yet most of the participants seem to dislike both of those elements, yet they are the best protection so far known to man for the defence of niche positions.
Next week, back to the coalface!
« go back — keep looking »