Wetpaint CEO Ben Elowitz on the Future of Digital Media
This follows my recent post about how a new TV interface from Apple could decimate the television landscape.
Even though Steve Jobs never talked about changing the face of search with Siri, its natural language interface.
But doing so would certainly be a riveting Hollywood screenplay in which Jobs, the uber-innovative, uber-inventive CEO, ultimately gets revenge on a corporate rival he views as a “copy cat.”
In this fictional script, that rival would be Eric Schmidt, one of the top executives at search giant Google. It’s Google, after all, that’s breathing down Apple’s neck with its rapidly expanding Android phone platform – a platform that, according to Jobs and his lawyers, mimics Apple’s breakthrough iPhone technology.
Putting this Oscar dream aside, there’s intensifying competition heating up between Apple and Google, even though Jobs is –sadly – no longer on the scene.
Indeed, even though Google has had voice-enabled search for some time on iOS and Android devices, Schmidt has said it’s possible that Siri could be a real and radical game-changer.
Schmidt may be right. And if he is, then Google will be facing a serious threat as Apple reinvents Google’s home turf of search.
With a “personality” that displays a unique understanding of humanity, Siri’s digital chromosomes enrich the user’s experience. This sets it apart from Google’s more mechanical offerings, and shows why Apple’s consumer-obsessed culture is so different from Google’s corporate DNA, which is as robotic and algorithmic as the “Android” name suggests.
There is rich irony here, as Apple disintermediates the greatest disintermediator of all time. When Google’s superior search service started, it practically single-handedly reduced the brand-driven experience that consumers had thereto relied on with directories and a fully editorialized Web. Google replaced those channels and home pages with 10 blue links. And in the process, became users’ destination of first resort 13 times per day.
And Apple has always been a curator extraordinaire – developing collections and exercising famous (and occasionally notorious) judgment to determine who deserves to be in its directories of songs and apps.
In all fairness, Page and his team are now trying hard to enrich the user experience by aligning their YouTube brand with media companies like Disney, and doling out big dollars for proprietary programming. The hope here is that YouTube can create dozens of lucrative user-friendly / user-favorite Web channels featuring comedians, sports stars, musicians and other entertainers. The company is building stocks of its ‘own’ media weapons in preparation for the coming war.
But, as always, it will be hard for Google to win the hearts of consumers when it comes to content; and it will be especially daunting because Apple is already so completely connected to users.
Meanwhile, with its enviable consumer connection, Apple will undoubtedly extract a toll from media companies, who still want to bathe in the warm digital light that emanates from the inviting and engaging brand Jobs built. And, as it has in every other media category, Apple stands to capture an outsize share of profits for delivering content into a magical consumer experience.
Jealous much, Google?
Laura Lang has a proven and powerful track record as a media change agent.
As CEO of Digitas, she helped uber-marketers like Procter & Gamble and American Express move smartly into digital advertising. And she is conversant and fluid with new publishing platforms – and knows how to make them profitable.
Now, she’s been asked to lead Time Inc., and its 21 venerable titles, which include Time, People and Sports Illustrated.
Time Inc. has absolutely amazing brands with outstanding reputation, heritage, editorial staff, and customer bases; but, at the same time, the business model of magazines is structurally breaking.
What an interesting – and tantalizing – choice.
And you can’t be a media leader today, unless you’re willing to innovate on the business model itself.
Which is why Laura seems so promising.
I love the idea that at Time Inc. she’ll be able to innovate in core product, just like she did at Digitas. I also love the notion that she’ll aggressively develop new products for advertisers.
What will be new to her is the actual business of publishing – a business where Time Inc. stands stronger than almost any other player.
The central question for me is whether Time Inc. is ready for the change that a leader like Laura will want to (and need to) bring.
Indeed, Time Inc. has fundamental open questions to address when it comes to its own relevance in the digital world.
While the powerful brand of Time magazine has set the American agenda for decades, Time.com has wandered. In the past, Fortune magazine always spoke to the most important business issues and people; but today, its online brand is less clear, with basic confusion even in its home-page address (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/). This simply muddles Fortune, Money, and CNN.
To be as successful in the next century as it’s been in the past, Time Inc. will have to adapt more fully to the digital world. That means developing new business models, as well as new attitudes toward consumers, advertisers, and the product itself. It will also require a healthy reinvigoration of key brands, an area where I think Laura may especially shine.
All of this will take nuance, to bend things without breaking them.
I’ll end the year on an optimistic note, and say that I hope Laura can finesse major innovation for this major publisher. If she can, watch out world – because very interesting and far-reaching things will happen.