Comments on: Blogs vs RSS and the overall question of Internet value creation/destruction

By: Does RSS Help the Internet Economy | Oliver Thylmann's Thoughts

Does RSS Help the Internet Economy | Oliver Thylmann's Thoughts — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:28:59 +0000

[...] thinking here again was started by a post by Martin, looking at the question whether the Internet creates or destructs value. I really think that the internet creates value, but the only problem in that statement is that [...]

By: Nic Brisbourne

Nic Brisbourne — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:55:59 +0000

Hi Martin – I think some industries will get smaller because of the internet – music for example where the price of music is coming down as margins no longer have to cover physical production and distribution. Newspapers and movies/tv are probably the same.

That said there are some new industries being created, so not sure where the net position comes out.

I blogged some thoughts about this here.

Good to meet you at the WAYN stand yesterday.

best,
Nic

By: Disruption Matters » Blog Archive » Is Internet Creating or Destroying Value?

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:48:57 +0000

[...] in bad times, the debate on whether progress creates or destroys value comes back, as questioned in Martin Varsavsky blog, this time referring to how RSS destroys affects to blogs reducing the amount of displayed [...]

By: David Loughry

David Loughry — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:15:46 +0000

Similar or greater value is being created, but we aren’t noticing it or taking advantage of it nearly as much as we might. And, it isn’t always the kind of value that shows up financially. Networks and the Internet shift the terms of the debate from elements, such as objects, people, businesses and governments, to the proximity and to proximities. To see a new growth model which is focused around the proximity, see the page my name above links to, or use this link: http://proxthink.com/brief/intro-growth-model.php

By: Francesco

Francesco — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:54:08 +0000

Zupo, you make a very good point when saying “I suspect “old-school” media companies had a much higher sustained monetization capability”

But wait a moment. Were this old-school media companies just an oligopoly? Players in a highly-walled industry?

If you look at oil companies today, they form an oligopoly and because of that they are very good in making money. So they create great value … but just for them and for their shareholders! And for the society as a whole?

Something similar could be argued for the media industry. Before it was an oligopoly, everyone inside gained lost of money. Internet broke down the entry cost for new players and, consequently, that oligopoly.

Now is much more difficult to make money. But so what? Maybe with a different definition of value we may conclude that Internet is generating lots of wealth, independently from money.

By: Zupo Llask

Zupo Llask — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:19:17 +0000

Martin, in my opinion that’s one of the most pertinent these days and I’ll try to explain my point of view…

Francesco, I suspect that even if you include Google and that long tail of new media companies the sum may not be positive for “a single reason”: I don’t have all the supporting data I would need to make such a claim but I suspect “old-school” media companies had a much higher sustained monetization capability than new media’s.

Imagine an old-school media group with an influence in its industry comparable to Google’s both NOT living their best days. Are you really sure that Google will be more efficient monetizing its business in the long run than old-school businesses were? Think relatively/proportionally…

I’m not. But this doesn’t mean I already came to a conclusion. In fact my business is precisely trying to sort that problem out (like Martin’s, you and probably every reader of this blog).

I feel that we are still riding the edge of the wave and (almost) nobody came to a final conclusion yet. And that doesn’t make me feel very confident…

But who knows? Maybe with no big waves to ride, the solutions will make themselves more evident.

By: Francesco

Francesco — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:18:05 +0000

Martin, thank you for the definition I was asking. Now the question is very clear.

My two cents. I don’t have this list of companies you mention, but I suspect that if you include Google in the new list, then the top 10 media companies of today sums up more value than the top 10 media companies of 5 years ago. If you exclude Google from the list, the opposite is true.

Apart the top 10, I see today a long tail of new media companies that are much more innovative than the corresponding ones 5 or 10 years ago. And this innovation, after or before, should transform itself in value.

Too optimistic?

By: Martin Varsavsky

Martin Varsavsky — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:57:31 +0000

@ Francesco: I am installing greasemonkey in a new computer and a script that allows me to respond to blog posts. I already responded to this one but I see that the reply is not there so I will try again. What I would like to know is simple, it is to take the 10 largest old media companies say 5 years ago and look at their market cap and compare that summation with the new media companies of 5 years ago. And then see if more value has been taken away from old media than created in companies like Google or viceversa.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:45:57 +0000

Value generated is bigger. The ratio of value captured by users/captured by publishers is much bigger. Internet shifts all the bargaining power to the users

By: Francesco

Francesco — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:32:55 +0000

Sorry to say that, but asking if something is “creating value” not clearly defining “value” is absolutely clueless. At best it will generate a long / short list of value definitions, at worst a discussion where everyone is using the same word (“value”) with a different meaning (the classic talking among deaf persons).

Martin, please define what value (or at least 2-3 definitions of value) and then we may discuss properly.