I think one of the issues with this is not the need for NEW business models, but for companies to look for monetizing extensions to their existing stuff. Subscriptions combined with transactions look to be the most realistic concept for me. Thats the easiest for people to translate to financial success in my opinion (at least for companies like 37S and others building business apps). For consumer pure-plays I would think the best way to go about this would be a combination of subscription and microcommerce/brokering (the idea would be you can license your content through an aggregating company and they give you a cut, and take a cut for the leads). Why not get your flickr account or techblog syndicated into a magazine? Assuming you pre-approve your content for republication, then why not?
The sort of thing I was thinking about is in the second last paragraph of that piece: [A company attempts] "to devise its own products that do not use the IP of other sites, but relate to the same things that the other sites are covering, with the assumption that your users are familiar with that content because they have visited those other sites (probably through your links or mashup code)."
Maybe productisation is the wrong word. What I am talking about is creating new, independently legally defensible IP which is nonetheless dependent on consumers' broad knowledge of IP belonging to some other entity. I guess it's one of those concepts that is best explained by example, but I don't want to give away Tinfinger's game just yet.
Pete Cashmore
· 4 years ago
Hi Paul,
Thanks for that. I think I understand what you're saying; the content is inspired by the content of other sites, but still unique.
Paul Montgomery
· 4 years ago
Yes, that's it. I'll expand further in my next blog post.
All Comments
Why not get your flickr account or techblog syndicated into a magazine? Assuming you pre-approve your content for republication, then why not?
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com/2005/12/its-all-a...
The sort of thing I was thinking about is in the second last paragraph of that piece: [A company attempts] "to devise its own products that do not use the IP of other sites, but relate to the same things that the other sites are covering, with the assumption that your users are familiar with that content because they have visited those other sites (probably through your links or mashup code)."
Maybe productisation is the wrong word. What I am talking about is creating new, independently legally defensible IP which is nonetheless dependent on consumers' broad knowledge of IP belonging to some other entity. I guess it's one of those concepts that is best explained by example, but I don't want to give away Tinfinger's game just yet.
Thanks for that. I think I understand what you're saying; the content is inspired by the content of other sites, but still unique.