Competing without even trying to

by Mathew on April 2, 2006 · Comments

My old colleague Richard Siklos, who now writes for the New York Times – he and I worked together as summer interns at the London Free Press in picturesque London, Ontario a couple of lifetimes ago – has an interesting piece in the NYT today called Death by Smiley Face, in which he talks about “purpose-driven media” and how it is creating no end of problems for regular old media like newspapers.

Jeff Jarvis thinks it is kind of old hat, and of course he is right, but it’s still worthwhile seeing the Grey Lady writing about it. My favourite part is where Richard writes:

These are new-media ventures that leave the competition scratching their heads because they don’t really aim to compete in the first place; their creators are merely taking advantage of the economics of the online medium to do something that they feel good about. They would certainly like to cover their costs and maybe make a buck or two, but really, they’re not in it for the money. By purely commercial measures, they are illogical.

As I commented on Paul Kedrosky’s blog, this gets to the heart of what newspapers have trouble getting their heads around. Craig Newmark of Craigslist.org often seems slightly baffled when people single him out as the guy who is killing the revenue side of newspapers, because it’s not like he set out to kill newspapers. He’s just using the natural economies of the medium to do something he sees as worthwhile, which kind of defines “purpose-driven media.”

The fact that what Craig and others are doing is taking away printed media’s bread and butter is almost beside the point. And the fact that he doesn’t even care whether he makes money at it just rubs salt in the wound.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Mathew
    That's a good point, Paul. Thanks for the comment. And I agree that we may be confusing a dislocation caused by rapid market evolution for some kind of "purpose-driven" revolution.

    Mathew
  • You know what though? This is a fun story, but as I say over on my site in response to this NYT story, the self-congratulatory sorts leaving oodles of money on the table are being foolish. While leaving excess profits on the table may get you a little free publicity today, it guarantees tomorrow competitors who ape your model and do it faster, cheaper, and better.
  • Sigh. Reminds me of the early day of online travel. I remember sitting in industry meetings with all these Old Skool types, all of them saying to each other "this online thing's not really happening, right? Right? Heh. Heh. Right?" I would sit quietly, and stare at my hands. Sorta sad, really.

    Fast forward to 2006. So when's the last time *you* booked a trip without buying at least part of it on the web?

    Exactly. Wake up, media types. The train left the station in 1997.

    - Stuart
  • I'm doing the same thing to the online dating industry. For every million that i make I take away 10's of millions from paid dating sites. The falling cost of hardware make it really easy to create economies of scale that were impossible a few years ago.
  • The real fun comes when people figure out how to apply this to other industries.

    Granted other industries Are Different. Capital costs alone will keep people from Craiglisting (say) Boeing or Airbus. Of course I'm sure the conventional wisdom in the publishing industry said this twenty years ago as well.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: