The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Large & Growing... Not Shrinking

from the let's-dispense-with-the-doom-&-gloom dept

Announcing the release of our new research report, The Sky Is Rising

Today, in Cannes, at the Midem conference, I did a presentation that was something of a follow up to the presentation I did here three years ago, about how Trent Reznor's experiments represented the future of music business models. This time, the presentation coincided with the release of a new research paper that we've spent the past few months working on, sponsored by CCIA and Engine Advocacy, in which we did a thorough look at the true state of the entertainment industry. For years, we've been hearing doom and gloom reports about how the industry is dying, how customers just want stuff for free, about analog dollars turning into digital dimes... and (all too frequently) about how new laws are needed to save these industries.

Yet, what we find when looking through the research -- from a variety of sources to corroborate and back up any research we found -- is that the overall entertainment ecosystem is in a real renaissance period. The sky truly is rising, not falling: the industry is growing both in terms of revenue and content. We split the report up into video & film, books, music and video games -- and all four segments are showing significant growth (not shrinking) over the last decade. All of them are showing tremendous opportunity. The amount of content that they're all producing is growing at an astounding rate (which again, is the most important thing). But revenue, too, is growing. Equally important is that rather than consumers just wanting to get stuff for free, they have continually spent a greater portion of their income on entertainment -- with the percentage increasing by 15% from 2000 to 2008.

This all points to the fact that what is happening within the industry is not a challenge of a business getting smaller -- quite the opposite. It's about the challenge of an industry getting larger, but doing so in ways that route around the existing structures.

The Sky Is Rising

Some of the key points:

• Entertainment spending as a function of income went up by 15% from 2000 to 2008
• Employment in the entertainment sector grew by 20% -- with indie artists seeing 43% growth.
• The overall entertainment industry grew 66% from 1998 to 2010.
• The amount of content being produced in music, movies, books and video games is growing at an incredible pace.

Of course, some of this is a challenge for many existing players, but it should be seen as an opportunity. In fact, we conclude:

• For consumers, today is an age of absolute abundance in entertainment. More content is available in more ways than ever before. If we simply go by the terms of the US Constitution’s clause from which copyright came, it seems clear that the "progress of science and the useful arts" is being promoted -- even as copyright is often being ignored or foregone. There is just a tremendous amount of content, a tremendous variety of content, it's more accessible to more people than ever before.
• For content creators, it is an age of amazing new opportunity. Traditionally, to take part in the entertainment industry, you had no choice but to go through a gatekeeper, which served to keep the vast majority of people who wished to be content creators from ever making any money at all from content creation. Today, that is no longer true. More people are making more money from creating content than ever before -- with much of that coming via new tools that have allowed artists to use the internet to create, promote, distribute and monetize their works.
• For the traditional middlemen, the internet represents both a challenge and an opportunity. There is no doubt that the internet has eaten away at some traditional means by which these businesses made money. But, as the data shows, there is more money going into the overall market, more content being created, and many new ways to make money. That shows that there is a business model challenge -- and a marketing challenge -- but much more opportunity in the long run. The key challenge for business is in figuring out how to capture more of the greater revenue being generated by the wider entertainment industry. Legacy players certainly face a lot more competition (and fewer reasons that artists have to do deals with them) -- which can explain some of the public complaints about the "death" of various industries -- but overall, it's clear that by embracing new opportunities, there are plenty of ways to succeed.

We're hopeful that having this kind of evidence and data will shift the debate from how to stop the sky from falling (when it's not) to one that looks at how can companies and individuals tackle the key challenge: succeeding in a much more competitive market.

Filed Under: awesome, business models, entertainment industry, growth, human, louis ck, open, sky is rising

The Tech Industry Has Already Given Hollywood The Answer To Piracy; If Only It Would Listen

from the stop-shooting-yourself-in-the-foot dept

While many in the press have really enjoyed claiming that the SOPA/PIPA fight has been about Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley, we've been pointing out for a while just how silly that is. Months ago, we pointed out that it's a strange "fight" when one side (Silicon Valley) appears to give the other side all the weapons it needs to succeed (only to watch Hollywood then aim those weapons at its own feet). It's been pointed out time and time again that Hollywood has a habit of looking a gift horse in the mouth... and accusing it of piracy, when it later turns out to be the answer to Hollywood's prayers.

When the White House came out against the general approach in SOPA and PIPA, it still said that a legislative response was necessary... and asked for the "best ideas" from the tech community and people online:

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

But, here's the thing: as many of us have been saying for quite some time, the "best ideas" have nothing to do with legislation, because legislation is tackling the wrong problem. No amount of legislation or enforcement stops piracy. That's been shown over and over again. What does help deal with infringement is offering a better service that gives consumers more of what they want in a reasonable and convenient manner.

And thus, I can't recommend enough Nat Torkington's brilliant response to "the President's challenge" above by likening it to this old joke:

Heavy rains start and a neighbour pulls up in his truck. "Hey Bob, I'm leaving for high ground. Want a lift?" Bob says, "No, I'm putting my faith in God." Well, waters rise and pretty soon the bottom floor of his house is under water. Bob looks out the second story window as a boat comes by and offers him a lift. "No, I'm putting my faith in God." The rain intensifies and floodwaters rise and Bob's forced onto the roof. A helicopter comes, lowers a line, and Bob yells "No, I'm putting my faith in God."

Well, Bob drowns. He goes to Heaven and finally gets to meet God. "God, what was that about? I prayed and put my faith in you, and I drowned!"

God says, "I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter! What the hell more did you want from me?"

How does that apply to this situation? Same thing. The tech industry keeps sending Hollywood the tools it needs to save itself... and Hollywood keeps "waiting" for some miraculous savior, while missing all of the tools it's been offered to save itself:

All I can think is: we gave you the Internet. We gave you the Web. We gave you MP3 and MP4. We gave you e-commerce, micropayments, PayPal, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, the iPad, the iPhone, the laptop, 3G, wifi--hell, you can even get online while you're on an AIRPLANE. What the hell more do you want from us?

Take the truck, the boat, the helicopter, that we've sent you. Don't wait for the time machine, because we're never going to invent something that returns you to 1965 when copying was hard and you could treat the customer's convenience with contempt.

Filed Under: best ideas, business models, hollywood, innovation, pipa, protect ip, silicon valley, sopa, technology

Subscribe To A Newsapaper, Get An E-reader Free

from the make-it-up-on-volume dept

Well, this was bound to happen. Barnes & Noble is offering big discounts on its Nook e-readers to people taking out subscriptions to digital editions of magazines and newspapers:

The Nook edition of People is $9.99 a month; with a one-year subscription, customers will receive a Nook Tablet, a color device with a 7-inch display, for $199, a discount from its regular price of $249. Customers who buy a one-year subscription for the Nook edition of The New York Times for $19.99 a month, which includes access to NYTimes.com, will receive a black-and-white Nook Simple Touch free or a Nook Color for $99.

It's that last deal that's really striking: a free Nook when you subscribe for a year. The benefit is clear: once you've got your Nook, you're quite likely to buy a few other titles to read on it, and that's where the profit starts rolling in for Barnes & Noble.

It's not hard to see Amazon following suit. After all, it is allegedly selling the Kindle Fire for less than it costs to make, so it has effectively adopted the same business strategy already.

The low-end models for both Barnes & Noble and Amazon are ideal for bundling free with newspapers and magazines, especially as hardware prices continue to drop. E-readers might even be offered free with e-books, provided people commit to buying a minimum number per year - traditional book clubs would be wise to try this approach in conjunction with Amazon or Barnes & Noble before those two do it on their own. Similarly, it can only be a matter of time before the newspaper and magazine publishers start offering combined hardware and software bundles as standard in an attempt to entice people to sign up for digital subs.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: business models, discounts, ebook readers, nook
Companies: barnes & noble

Megaupload Shutdown Means Other Companies Turning Off Useful Services

from the innovation? dept

On Friday, we noted some of the troubling parts of the Megaupload indictment, and how many perfectly legitimate companies did many of the same things that the US government used to suggest that Mega was a evil criminal conspiracy. On Saturday, the NY Times noted that plenty of legitimate companies were getting a bit nervous because of the language in the indictment:

But Megaupload was not the only such service on the Web. Many companies have crowded into the online storage market recently, most of them aimed at consumers and businesses that want convenient ways to get big data files out of their teeming in-boxes, off their devices and into the cloud — perhaps so that friends or co-workers can download them. They include MediaFire, RapidShare, YouSendIt, Dropbox and Box.net. And there are similar services from Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

All of these market themselves as legitimate ways to store content online. But they are inherently ideal for anyone looking to illegitimately upload and share copyrighted video and audio files. Most companies rarely, if ever, inspect individual files to see if the material they store on behalf of users violates copyrights, unless they are notified by someone claiming infringement.

And... by Sunday, reports started spreading of other companies that provide useful services to people who want to legitimately share files... shutting down or limiting those services. For example, FileSonic -- one of the most popular cyberlockers -- has basically killed itself by no longer allowing sharing, and only allowing personal backup. Another site, Uploaded.to, then blocked all access from the US. A bunch of other services, including FileServe and VideoBB have been killing their affiliate programs (again, which had been a good way for independent musicians to make money).

RIAA supporters are cheering this on -- believing that all of these services really focused on infringing content. But for the many, many artists, companies and individuals who used them legitimately, this is pretty troubling. Useful services are being shut down due to an overreaction on the part of the US government.

Again, this is exactly the kind of collateral damage that many of us were worried about. It's entirely possible (hell, perhaps probable) that the folks behind Megaupload went beyond the confines of the law. And, if that's true, I expect that they will lose in court. But many of us are quite worried about a few things: the fact that the entire site got completely shuttered despite substantial non-infringing uses... and that it's now creating massive chilling effects for legitimate and useful services within the US. Separately, as in the case of Uploaded.to, it's also splintering the internet, by having foreign companies put blocks on US internet users. These kinds of things were exactly what people have been warning about... and yet the US government ignored all those warnings (and probably still doesn't realize what it's kicked off here).

Filed Under: business models, cyberlockers, features, internet
Companies: fileserve, filesonic, megaupload, upload.to

Busta Rhymes Backs Megaupload, Says Record Labels Are The Real Criminals

from the who's-hurting-who dept

Well, well. As we pointed out when the Megaupload shutdown happened yesterday, the company had recently named top producer (and husband to Alicia Keys) Swizz Beatz as CEO. Swizz knows tons of artists who respect him, and it seems that some of the biggest names in the business are pretty pissed off that the US government shut down Megaupload. First there's Diddy, who put out a couple tweets pledging support and telling him to never stop.

But what's a lot more interesting are the very direct statements from Busta Rhymes, who is clearly pissed off at the US government claiming that Megaupload is a criminal operation. Putting his tweets together, he states:

1st of all I am soooo proud of my brother @THEREALSWIZZZ 4 being apart of creating something (MEGAUPLOAD) that could create the most powerful way 4 artist 2 get 90% off of every dollar despite the music being downloaded 4 free...

With labels and companies doin' deals with Spotify and many other companies like it who doesn't give us shit continue 2 do what they do and blatantly show us how much they value the artist with doing deals of such disrespect and lack of value 4 our content...

I am proud 2 stand next 2 my brother @THEREALSWIZZZ and fight the good fight...Our freedom is truly being fucked with in a very significant way and I strongly suggest 2 all artist especially the 1's Swizz repped 4 comes out & reps 4 him!!!

Fuck that I say it again...I'M PROUD OF MY BROTHER @THEREALSWIZZZ #GREATMIND!!

You can see the tweets here (full version), here (full version), here (full version) and here.

There's a key point in all of this that we missed in our earlier analysis about paid accounts at Megaupload. In the indictment, the government seems to assume that paid accounts are clearly all about illegal infringing works. But that's not always the case. In fact, plenty of big name artists -- especially in the hip hop world -- use the paid accounts to make themselves money. This is how they release tracks. You sign up for a paid account from services like Megaupload, which pay you if you get a ton of downloads. For big name artists, that's easy: of course you get a ton of downloads. So it's a great business model for artists: they get paid and their fans get music for free. Everyone wins. Oh... except for the old gatekeeper labels.

In fact, this is part of the ecosystem, especially in the hip hop world. It's why the artists also support those hip hop blogs that the RIAA insists are dens of pure thievery. The artists release their tracks to those blogs, knowing they'll get tons of downloads -- and actually get money. If they do deals with labels, they know they'll never see a dime. Putting music on Megaupload is a way to get paid. Working with a gatekeeper is not.

And yet... Megaupload is the criminal operation? Seems like the actual artists know otherwise.

What Busta is pointing out is that services like Megaupload -- while it may be run by some sketchy individuals and probably crossed the legal line in some cases -- are actually a great new business model for artists, while also being the future of distribution. It's a great way to distribute, make money, and let fans get the works for free. And that's why the major labels are so freaked out by cyberlockers. It's not because there's so much infringement on there, but because it's a system whereby artists can get paid and can better distribute their own works to fans... without signing an indentured servitude contract with a label, which never pays any royalties.

Did Megaupload break the law? Perhaps. But it seems clear that the real fear on the part of the RIAA and the major labels is not so much about that. It's the recognition that such a distribution and payment system undermines much of their reason for existing, and takes away their ability to control artists. A smart label would learn to embrace these things. But we're talking about the major labels here, and so instead, they run to the US government -- who clearly knows nothing about the way modern artists monetize and distribute music -- and lets them try to paint a picture of just how "evil" services like Megaupload are.

But the artists know better.

Filed Under: business models, busta rhymes, cyberlockers, diddy, disruption
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music

Tim O'Reilly Explains Where The Federal Gov't Has Gone Wrong On SOPA/PIPA: Solving The Wrong Problem

from the indeed dept

A few months back, in going into great detail on everything wrong with PIPA & SOPA, I started it off by explaining that the whole effort was attacking the wrong problem. Here's what I wrote at the time:

That main issue, we're told over and over again, is "piracy" and specifically "rogue" websites. And, let's be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? Much of the evidence suggests that it's not an enforcement problem and it's not a legal problem. Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all -- and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement. That's because the reason that there's infringement in the first place is that consumers are being under-served. Historically, infringement has never been about "free," but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology.

Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.

And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement.

Tim O'Reilly (who you should know already), who makes his living in the content business, but has always been against these kinds of ridiculous laws, has come out with a great, detailed discussion of the same issue, concerning how the federal government still has mis-defined the problem. He's doing this in response to the White House's statement on Saturday, and makes some important points:

I found myself profoundly disturbed by something that seems to me to go to the root of the problem in Washington: the failure to correctly diagnose the problem we are trying to solve, but instead to accept, seemingly uncritically, the claims of various interest groups. The offending paragraph is as follows:

"Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders."

In the entire discussion, I've seen no discussion of credible evidence of this economic harm. There's no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?

From there, he talks about his own experience running a content business, and how he's learned that any actual infringement tends to benefit him in the long run. That's because, like I explained above, if you put in place a smart business model (something Tim is good at) piracy is no problem at all. O'Reilly is fond of the phrase that "obscurity is a bigger problem than piracy" and he's completely right:

In my experience at O'Reilly, the losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information, which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content. Most of the people who are downloading unauthorized copies of O'Reilly books would never have paid us for them anyway; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of others are buying content from us, many of them in countries that we were never able to do business with when our products were not available in digital form.

History shows us, again and again, that frontiers are lawless places, but that as they get richer and more settled, they join in the rule of law. American publishing, now the largest publishing industry in the world, began with piracy. (I have a post coming on that subject on Monday.)

From there, he starts talking about what the White House should be doing, and it's simple: look for ways to allow innovation to flourish -- not create protectionist plans for industries who aren't keeping up with the times:

Congress (and the White House) need to spend time thinking hard about how best to grow our economy - and that means being careful not to close off the frontier, or to harm those trying to settle it, in order to protect those who want to remain safe at home. British publishers could have come to America in the 19th century; they chose not to, and as a result, we grew our own indigenous publishing industry, which relied at first, in no small part, on pirating British and European works.

If the goal is really to support jobs and the American economy, internet "protectionism" is not the way to do it.

It is said (though I've not found the source) that Einstein once remarked that if given 60 minutes to save the world, he would spend 55 of them defining the problem. And defining the problem means collecting and studying real evidence, not the overblown claims of an industry that has fought the introduction of every new technology that has turned out, in the end, to grow their business rather than threaten it.

He also has a final suggestion that may seem unrelated, but is actually directly at issue:

If Congress and the White House really want to fight pirates who are hurting the economy, they should be working to rein in patent trolls. There, the evidence of economic harm is clear, in multi-billion dollar transfers of wealth from companies building real products to those who have learned how to work the patent system while producing no value for consumers.

But, of course, that will never happen. That's because a totally useless "patent reform bill" passed a few months ago, and Congress and the President now consider that problem "done." And that's even though nothing in the bill actually addressed the issue of patent trolls, which has been a huge problem, and has hit many of the new businesses that are needed to build the innovations that will help the old guard in the content industry adapt. Hell, just look at Spotify. Days after being introduced in the US... it was sued for infringement.

So, the real response to the White House should be that it's time to stop making this a faith-based debate. Let's focus on the actual evidence, and define what the actual problem is. Because if it's (as all the evidence shows) a business model problem, not a legal or enforcement problem, pushing forth new regulation is not going to be the answer.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, economics, internet, laws, legislation, pipa, protect ip, protectionism, regulation, sopa, tim o'reilly, white house

NBC Universal's Own Preferred Researcher For 'Anti-Piracy' Stats Comes Out Against SOPA/PIPA

from the well,-look-at-that dept

This is fascinating and unexpected. We've discussed the research firm Envisional a few times here at Techdirt. The company is NBC Universal's preferred research firm for coming up with stats that NBC Universal then uses to insist that it needs new laws like SOPA/PIPA. Some have certainly called into question Envisional's research as a paid vendor. However, a year ago, we noted that if you actually looked at the details of the research Envisional did for NBC Universal, it actually showed that piracy was Hollywood's own fault. NBC Universal and the MPAA twisted those results to say that piracy was a huge problem, but the data certainly suggested the real problem was Hollywood's failure to release what people wanted in formats that they wanted.

Still, we never expected Envisional to come out and actually make that same point (even if that's what the data said). Yet, as this recent Ars Technica article notes, at CES, Envisional's "head of piracy intelligence," David Price, didn't mince words in saying that infringement was, in fact, Hollywood's own fault for not offering products in the way customers wanted and that SOPA/PIPA were the wrong approach to fixing its business model problems:

"The content owners are really fighting the tide of the Internet," Price said. "They're trying to fight the flow of the Internet which is all about making content as widely available as possible, as easily as possible, as quickly as possible. They're trying to hold back the 1.4 billon users of the Internet from doing what the Internet wants them to do."

In discussing SOPA/PIPA:

Price does not like the way the bills are drafted, potentially causing major technical and free speech issues. "When I talk to content owners I try to tell them this is not the way to go," he remarked. "You don't want to hurt people. You want to try and go with a compete approach, put the content out there and hope people will come to you."

Again, none of this is surprising. We've been saying the same thing for ages -- and we get dismissed as "piracy apologists." Yet this is the research firm that NBC Universal has relied on and regularly quotes in making its arguments about just how "big" a problem infringement is. That says something. And that something is that NBC Universal (yet again) is unwilling to face reality.

Filed Under: business models, hollywood, research, windows
Companies: envisional, nbc universal

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work

from the oh-come-on dept

It seems you can find people to file a class action lawsuit against just about any crazy thing these days. The latest, as pointed out by Eric Goldman (with the complaint embedded below), is someone filing a class action lawsuit against eBay claiming all sorts of violations for the way eBay's auction system has always worked. Here's the basic issue. eBay developed a rather clever system back when it launched to handle bidding. You don't just put in your next bid -- you put in what's supposed to be the maximum you're willing to bid on an item. But the auction system itself always goes for the highest bidder's lowest increment above the second highest bidder. If that sounds confusing, let's take the language from eBay's own site, and quoted in the lawsuit:

1. The current bid for an item is $10.00. Tom is the high bidder, and has placed a maximum bid of $12.00 on the item. His maximum bid is kept confidential from other members.
2. Laura views the item and places a maximum bid of $15.00. Laura becomes the high bidder.
3. Tom’s bid is incremented to his maximum of $12.00. Laura’s bid is now $12.50.
4. We send Tom an email that he has been outbid. If he doesn’t raise his maximum bid, Laura wins the item.

This is how eBay has always worked. And it's a perfectly reasonable business model choice that eBay did because it makes life much more convenient for users. Rather than having to put in place each bid, you can set the most you're willing to pay and rest assured that you'll just have to pay the next increment above the second highest bid. Of course, in practice, the bidding rarely works that way, with people often feeling pressure to raise their highest bid, or wait until the very end to snipe the bid. But, overall what could possibly be the problem with this system?

Well, according to the lawsuit, this all seems to be a conspiracy to defraud the seller of the full $15 that Laura bid. The fact that she only pays $12.50 is apparently due to eBay failing to "act neutrally" and instead "inject[ing] itself into the transaction by intercepting the bid aamount [sic] before it is received by the seller." Seriously.

Once again, this is how eBay has worked forever, and it's pretty clearly explained on the site. It's a business model choice that makes plenty of sense. It's not some breach of contract, or "tortious interference" or "unfair competition" or "unjust enrichment." It's just a business model. In fact, if eBay were really being nefarious, wouldn't it set things up the other way? After all, since eBay gets fees as a percentage of the sale price, if the company were really being sneaky, it would try to force everyone to pay the higher bid. If anything, it seems like eBay's structure is designed to help people, not to unjustly enrich itself...

Filed Under: auctions, automatic bidding, business models, class action
Companies: ebay

Even In The Age Of Abundance It's Quality, Not Quantity, That Counts

from the do-books-need-to-be-expensive-to-be-good? dept

Seth Godin is nothing if not prolific. As well as publishing a string of popular marketing books with catchy titles like "All marketers are liars", "The big moo" and "Small is the new big", he writes short but smart blog posts every day, some of which are rather obvious, but many of which contain real gems of insight.

This fluency with words means he is well placed to comment on the age of abundance we are entering thanks to the rise of digital technologies. One of his latest pieces is entitled "How the long tail cripples bonus content/multimedia", and appears as part of The Domino Project, "a new way to think about publishing. Founded by Seth Godin and powered by Amazon" -- a partnership that is itself symptomatic of the digital times.

The post is in response to a HuffPo interview with President and CEO of Ingram Content Group, David "Skip" Prichard. Prichard shows himself optimistic and surprisingly open to new ideas for someone leading a book distribution company -- not a sector known for its innovation.

But Godin concentrates on one particular aspect of Prichard's replies, which is typified by the following exchange:

Are there enhanced books available this holiday season that have already changed the definition of a book?

Yes, for example, a biography can to come to life in many ways. Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy has all of the interview audios, videos, photographs, text, and transcripts available. Even classics -- Penguin has updated Pride & Prejudice with clips from the movie and even instructions on dancing. For the 75th anniversary of The Hobbit, HarperCollins released an e-version with exclusives including J.R.R Tolkien's book illustrations and recently discovered Tolkien recordings. Publishers are still learning what added value readers will or won't pay for. I expect we'll continue to see lots of experimentation in this arena.

Godin describes these "breathtaking visions of the future" as "economically ridiculous", and comments:

The Long Tail creates acres of choice, so much as to make the number of options almost countless. But at the same time, it embraces (in every format) much lower production values. For what Michael Jackson and Sony paid to produce the Thriller album, today's artists can make and market more than 5,000 songs. You just can't justify spending millions of dollars to produce a record in the long tail world.

This is an important point that the copyright industries are extremely reluctant to acknowledge, because it's at odds with their business models based on just a few massive blockbusters that are highly profitable. There's a good reason for their preference: the elevated costs involved in creating these works act as a barrier to entry for newcomers, and help preserve the status quo. The new model, based around large numbers of low-cost products, is available for anyone to adopt -- including artists selling directly to their public.

As Godin puts it:

it's not a few publishers putting out a few books for the masses. No, the market for the foreseeable future is a million publishers publishing to 100 million readers.

He explains what that means for ebooks:

The typical ebook costs about $10 in out of pocket expenses to write (more if you count coffee and not just pencils). But if we add in $50,000 for app coding, $10,000 for a director and another $500,000 for the sort of bespoke work that was featured in Al Gore's recent 'book', you can see the problem. The publisher will never have a chance to make this money back.

Finally, Godin addresses the inevitable complaint that the imminent loss of those $500,000 multimedia ebooks -- like the imminent disappearance of $100 million movies - means the end of creativity as we know it:

The quality is going to remain in the writing and in the bravery of ideas, not in teams of people making expensive digital books.

Even in the age of abundance, it's not about quantity, but quality.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: abundance, business models, quality, quantity, seth godin