AND there's more...
A quick email interchange with David W. this morning has me leaning back in on the “World of Ands” idea.
I think this may be getting closer to being something...
David characterised my half-thought as:
”Highly appealing but hard to evaluate. It flies in the face of Phil Becker's idea that the Internet reduces everything to a commodity and thus is a threat to the economy rather than a boon.
“The And seems more relevant to companies selling physical goods than digital ones. E.g., I think the Net will Or and then Not the recording industry within the next 5-10 years. And I just read an article about how many BAM music stores have closed already.”
He’s right, of course. The atoms/bits distinction, in particular, is a crucial one.
So.
1. The Internet has the potential to OR and then NOT any business wherein the product is "consumed" or used primarily by our minds.
2. Products that are either ingested or whose purpose and use is a function of their atoms seem better-suited to resist the OR/NOT fate.
Examples in this second set would be cars, clothing, food, electronics, etc.
These are all things that can be sold online, and the market is often enhanced (AND logic) when they are -- but they're not likely to move entirely online any time soon.
Going back to the first category, David’s absolutely right to pick music as the obvious example. I agree with his assessment that the music industry establishment is accelerating towards NOT faster than almost anything else one can think of.
The entertainment business in general is still road blocked by thinking that ties the value to the physical artifact - the CD, DVD, VHS. The fact that music is shipped to you in the form of atoms has zero to do with the value inherent in the product. The purpose of recorded music is not tied into the physical delivery mechanism. Why is this so hard for the RIAA and others to understand?
Hmmm. I'm struggling now to balance this thinking with the future of book stores. My first draft WoA waffle cited Amazon as an AND example that poses no threat to established booksellers. I believe this still holds.
Yet books are another product consumed between the ears. You don't need a physical high-street store to sell books, and yet they survive.
Of course, they're surviving mainly by getting bigger and consolidating - there are lots of small bookshops going out of business. But I don't think the small stores are being killed by the Net: it's the big box retailers delivering the death blow in this case.
Same deal with the friendly high-street hardware store, the local greengrocer, corner bakery. The threat is big box, big brands, all-under-one-roof convenience.
And that's a shame, of course. Just as biodiversity is an absolute good that needs to be protected and encouraged; so with "econodiversity". If all we have left in every city is a dozen all-encompassing brands in out of town big box locations, life will be very dull indeed. Diversity breeds innovation.
Um.
Where was I?
Oh yes - book stores. Maybe BAM book stores can survive longer than BAM music stores simply because the act of purchasing words inscribed on paper is embedded deeper in our culture than the act of acquiring 'entertainment' on shiny plastic discs.
Plus, as Doc has so bluntly put it: “ink shits on atoms”. Technically, consumers in the first world no longer need the traditional physical manifestation of a book - but we're not likely to dump our paperbacks any time soon.
Example: I'm a huge fan of AvantGo on my Palm. As a big user of public transport, I love being able to catch up with Salon, Wired, the Guardian, the WSJ, CBC, etc. on my Palm while strap-hanging on the tube. But it still sucks compared to a nice big crinkly, high-res, scribble in the margins, don't-worry-about-dropping-or-scratching-it, really truly newspaper.
When useable / re-useable digital paper finally arrives, then the book stores will be OR/NOTted out of existence.
So I think my World of Ands message to business gets re-focused into this:
a. If you make your money selling physical stuff, embrace the AND of the Net to your, and your customers' benefit.
b. If you make your money selling digital stuff, grab you ankles and see if the rush of blood to your head shakes loose a clue. OR, if it doesn't, you're still in the best position for what's coming next. (btw, you CAN still make money, but only if you submit to a hearty beating with the cluestick now, before it's too late. A tip: you will probably have to let go of EVERYTHING that currently defines your idea of a business model. And people will lose their jobs. Sorry).
c. If you make your money selling services, I want to see your timesheets.
This is still incomplete, but it's closer. Unfortunately, I'm sure it's also all been said before.
Cue: Richard Bennett
A quick email interchange with David W. this morning has me leaning back in on the “World of Ands” idea.
I think this may be getting closer to being something...
David characterised my half-thought as:
”Highly appealing but hard to evaluate. It flies in the face of Phil Becker's idea that the Internet reduces everything to a commodity and thus is a threat to the economy rather than a boon.
“The And seems more relevant to companies selling physical goods than digital ones. E.g., I think the Net will Or and then Not the recording industry within the next 5-10 years. And I just read an article about how many BAM music stores have closed already.”
He’s right, of course. The atoms/bits distinction, in particular, is a crucial one.
So.
1. The Internet has the potential to OR and then NOT any business wherein the product is "consumed" or used primarily by our minds.
2. Products that are either ingested or whose purpose and use is a function of their atoms seem better-suited to resist the OR/NOT fate.
Examples in this second set would be cars, clothing, food, electronics, etc.
These are all things that can be sold online, and the market is often enhanced (AND logic) when they are -- but they're not likely to move entirely online any time soon.
Going back to the first category, David’s absolutely right to pick music as the obvious example. I agree with his assessment that the music industry establishment is accelerating towards NOT faster than almost anything else one can think of.
The entertainment business in general is still road blocked by thinking that ties the value to the physical artifact - the CD, DVD, VHS. The fact that music is shipped to you in the form of atoms has zero to do with the value inherent in the product. The purpose of recorded music is not tied into the physical delivery mechanism. Why is this so hard for the RIAA and others to understand?
Hmmm. I'm struggling now to balance this thinking with the future of book stores. My first draft WoA waffle cited Amazon as an AND example that poses no threat to established booksellers. I believe this still holds.
Yet books are another product consumed between the ears. You don't need a physical high-street store to sell books, and yet they survive.
Of course, they're surviving mainly by getting bigger and consolidating - there are lots of small bookshops going out of business. But I don't think the small stores are being killed by the Net: it's the big box retailers delivering the death blow in this case.
Same deal with the friendly high-street hardware store, the local greengrocer, corner bakery. The threat is big box, big brands, all-under-one-roof convenience.
And that's a shame, of course. Just as biodiversity is an absolute good that needs to be protected and encouraged; so with "econodiversity". If all we have left in every city is a dozen all-encompassing brands in out of town big box locations, life will be very dull indeed. Diversity breeds innovation.
Um.
Where was I?
Oh yes - book stores. Maybe BAM book stores can survive longer than BAM music stores simply because the act of purchasing words inscribed on paper is embedded deeper in our culture than the act of acquiring 'entertainment' on shiny plastic discs.
Plus, as Doc has so bluntly put it: “ink shits on atoms”. Technically, consumers in the first world no longer need the traditional physical manifestation of a book - but we're not likely to dump our paperbacks any time soon.
Example: I'm a huge fan of AvantGo on my Palm. As a big user of public transport, I love being able to catch up with Salon, Wired, the Guardian, the WSJ, CBC, etc. on my Palm while strap-hanging on the tube. But it still sucks compared to a nice big crinkly, high-res, scribble in the margins, don't-worry-about-dropping-or-scratching-it, really truly newspaper.
When useable / re-useable digital paper finally arrives, then the book stores will be OR/NOTted out of existence.
So I think my World of Ands message to business gets re-focused into this:
a. If you make your money selling physical stuff, embrace the AND of the Net to your, and your customers' benefit.
b. If you make your money selling digital stuff, grab you ankles and see if the rush of blood to your head shakes loose a clue. OR, if it doesn't, you're still in the best position for what's coming next. (btw, you CAN still make money, but only if you submit to a hearty beating with the cluestick now, before it's too late. A tip: you will probably have to let go of EVERYTHING that currently defines your idea of a business model. And people will lose their jobs. Sorry).
c. If you make your money selling services, I want to see your timesheets.
This is still incomplete, but it's closer. Unfortunately, I'm sure it's also all been said before.
Cue: Richard Bennett
