As now happens frequently, mainstream media has taken a blog discussion, written it up, and sparked off more interesting debate. Media symbiosis continues to develop. A blog post by Jeremy Liew of the VC firm Lightspeed Venture Partners on how to build online media businesses with at least $50 million in revenue triggered an article in the New York Times titled Popularity May Not be Enough. In essence, he says that there isn’t enough money in advertising for more than a handful of content businesses to make good money. Mainstream media can still price their advertising at a reasonable price, but not the emerging players. The piece explores some of the key issues, including other possible business models, with some interesting comments from Tim O’Reilly.

I think part of the point is being missed here. A VC may only be interested in businesses that earn $50 million annually, but other people will be very happy with a healthy personal income to effort ratio. The entire economy is being modularized, and we mustn’t forget that part of the fundamental dynamic at play here is the growth of many smaller businesses to complement the media monoliths. Allen Stern makes essentially the same point.

As such we are beginning to see how the head, the long tail, and what is in between becomes populated by media and content. A couple of years ago I used the following diagram in a keynote I did at a public relations conference. I’d probably create it differently now, but the point remains that there are different segments along the power law curve along which all media and content creators are distributed. Different business models will apply at different points on the curve.

Kyle Reddinger suggests creating “niche monopolies” is the go, which aligns with the “topic specialists” I proposed. Matt Terenzio says that we will move towards “true value” in how advertising dollars are allocated. It’s very hard to think why this won’t be the case in the long term. However Scott Karp seems to believe that value has got misaligned, with Google a possible culprit in driving down advertising revenue. Mathew Ingram thinks a “measure of engagement” will help identify the value of pricing. There is indeed great value in developing the mechanisms that allow us to understand how value is created in online advertising. But in the meantime there will be vagaries in advertising pricing. All the while new business models will emerge along the curve. VCs love “scalable” business models. However there’s no reason why all business models should scale.

The February issue of Inside Film magazine focuses on the state of industry in documentaries. An article DOC2012 examines the shape of documentaries in Australia over the next 7 years. The piece quotes me as follows:

The potential impacts of digital media are broad. Media strategy consultant and chairman of the Future Exploration Network, Ross Dawson, believes the growing access Australians have to low-cost, high-quality video recording is creating a plethora of potential documentary content.

“It starts to get the Australian population at large documenting what they feel is interesting or pertinent about their lives and what they experience,” Dawson says. “This can lead to an extraordinarily rich repository of what is happening in Australia, which is a resource for documentary makers.”

The rise of internet-based social networks is creating communities of interest that may become a new form of funding. By tapping into a niche audience or issue online it may be possible for a filmmaker to more easily raise the capital to make their production.

There are many ways in which new technologies are likely to transform documentary making. As more and more high-quality cameras become available, there will be more footage that will be invaluable in documenting our life and times. Most people will be happy to make available their video content for use in documentaries. We just need better mechanisms to match videographers (all of us) with those that wish to use that footage. In the last paragraph above I was referring to approaches such as Swarm of Angels, which are arguably more relevant to documentaries than feature films. Documentaries are often of interest to particular groups, who can not only choose to support the creation of something they will want to see, but may also actually profit from it. In short, social media platforms are likely to have far more impact on the future of documentaries than on more mainstream content such as feature films.

I often write on this blog about the fabulous things I come across in the wonderful living networks in which we exist. In this case, I have to write about something that sucks real bad.

From back in the mid-1990s I have thought that one of the most awesome applications of the Internet is for everyone to be able to listen to any radio station on the planet. Back in the bad old days of crude electronic distibution technologies (AM and FM radio), we could only listen to high-quality radio from stations in our immediate locality. As soon as the first internet streams were made I started listening to radio stations in the Netherlands, LA, Nigeria, New Zealand, anywhere where there was an early desire to gain listeners farther afield. How fantastic to be able to listen to them all, finding unique DJs and hearing local news from across the globe! I envisaged that soon anyone would be able to find and listen to their very favorite radio stations from the tens of thousands across the planet.

Since then a whole new space has arisen, with not just existing radio stations streaming their sounds onto the net, but a whole new cadre of internet-only radio stations. Soma.FM, out of San Francisco, is my very favorite DJ-selected station I’ve found. Listen to their Groove Salad station – I love it. In addition, an entirely new offering has arisen, in which technology enables us to listen to personalized music. I have written many times before about collaborative filtering music stations like Last.FM and Pandora. Other interesting ones I’ve discovered lately include Finetune and Musicovery.

Now all of this may disappear. In a shocking decision last Friday, the Copyright Royalty Board announced new Internet radio royalty rates, doing exactly what was suggested by the RIAA’s lobby body, effectively tripling the cost of streaming music, effective retroactively from the beginning of 2006, and increasing every year until 2010. Bill Goldsmith of Radio Paradise, a leading Internet radio station, does the math, working out that he will now have to pay out around 125% of his revenue, meaning he immediately has to consider closing down. Mark Cuban says “goodbye to webcasting.” Om Malik asks “Last.FM, Pandora KO’ed by new royalties?” Mike Masnick talks about “internet radio royalty rates designed to kill webcasts.” Indeed, there some bad craziness in the business logic here. In the first instance, putting music webcasting stations out of business isn’t going to increase revenue. Secondly, recording companies make the majority of their money from hits, and hits happen because people hear them. There is massive investment in promoting music to traditional radio and music TV stations, yet for no good reason the opposite attitude to online music streaming.

Now this isn’t to say that Internet radio will die completely. Those with big pockets or associated business models may still do OK. Indeed, new business models will be found. But it is an extraordinary pity that innovation in how all of us discover and listen to music is being stymied. It would be criminal if Last.FM and its peers were forced to close down, leaving us all impoverished. I hope that sense will prevail and this decision will before too long be changed.

[UPDATE] A few resources: Save Our Internet Radio, Save Internet Radio, Online petition to US Congress, email your Congressman about this, and Bill Goldsmith’s blog post about it.