Yahoo finance ran an article talking about 10 industries in major decline. What I found interesting is that six of the ten industries were tied to digital content replacing more traditional forms of handling video and print content.
It was interesting to see that fixed-line carriers were on the doomed list (personally I'm waiting for mobile costs to go down in Canada before I toss out my landline, but it is in my plans to do so). I already use Skype for all my long distance calling.
The only thing misleading in this article is when they post revenue declines over the past decade. It's hard to judge just how much these industries have been 'crushed' based on those numbers when we've really been in a recession since 2001 (with it exploding in to a financial crisis in 2008). They may simply be industries hardest hit by the recession, but also quickest to rebound if we recover.
They also say newspapers are doomed. I'm not so sure about that. Again, since 2001 we've seen businesses running lean and mean, which obviously hurts anyone who depends on businesses spending money on advertising (hence newspapers have been hurting).
If we were to ever return to a growth cycle in the economy (ie. a five year boom phase) it's not inconceivable that newspapers would do just fine - they are still the easiest and fastest way to reach millions of people in one shot.
I think the real trend that will determine winners and losers moving forward is audience-specific content. It's not that people don't buy the newspaper because the Internet is better, but rather, because through the Internet they can get just the content they are interested in. When you get the paper you pay for the whole thing, even if you only read the business section.
Same thing goes for television. Why do I have to get the Women's network when I never watch it? Why do I have to buy an additional 30 channels just to get the one channel I'll actually watch?
Any industry that figures out how to tailor its content to various audiences will likely thrive. The reason people are turning to the Internet is because it's enabling them to do just this. But it's still a pain in the butt as you have to piece together everything yourself from multiple sources. I think the solution will lie in some model of co-opetition between vendors.
So I'm not so convinced that the demise of all these industries is set in stone, but there's no question that they will have to evolve.
And I'm further convinced that many of the winners will be tied to who has the best PR and marketing, who can achieve thought leadership if you will and convince consumers to spend their money on their product (or who can get partners to work with them more easily because they are seen as holding mind share with consumers).
It was interesting to see that fixed-line carriers were on the doomed list (personally I'm waiting for mobile costs to go down in Canada before I toss out my landline, but it is in my plans to do so). I already use Skype for all my long distance calling.
The only thing misleading in this article is when they post revenue declines over the past decade. It's hard to judge just how much these industries have been 'crushed' based on those numbers when we've really been in a recession since 2001 (with it exploding in to a financial crisis in 2008). They may simply be industries hardest hit by the recession, but also quickest to rebound if we recover.
They also say newspapers are doomed. I'm not so sure about that. Again, since 2001 we've seen businesses running lean and mean, which obviously hurts anyone who depends on businesses spending money on advertising (hence newspapers have been hurting).
If we were to ever return to a growth cycle in the economy (ie. a five year boom phase) it's not inconceivable that newspapers would do just fine - they are still the easiest and fastest way to reach millions of people in one shot.
I think the real trend that will determine winners and losers moving forward is audience-specific content. It's not that people don't buy the newspaper because the Internet is better, but rather, because through the Internet they can get just the content they are interested in. When you get the paper you pay for the whole thing, even if you only read the business section.
Same thing goes for television. Why do I have to get the Women's network when I never watch it? Why do I have to buy an additional 30 channels just to get the one channel I'll actually watch?
Any industry that figures out how to tailor its content to various audiences will likely thrive. The reason people are turning to the Internet is because it's enabling them to do just this. But it's still a pain in the butt as you have to piece together everything yourself from multiple sources. I think the solution will lie in some model of co-opetition between vendors.
So I'm not so convinced that the demise of all these industries is set in stone, but there's no question that they will have to evolve.
And I'm further convinced that many of the winners will be tied to who has the best PR and marketing, who can achieve thought leadership if you will and convince consumers to spend their money on their product (or who can get partners to work with them more easily because they are seen as holding mind share with consumers).
Comments
Post a Comment