It's the Content Dummy

I remember in the late 90's the recurring theme among many "Internet-oriented" companies - the stated strategic ambition of "creating content". Many fledgling companies that came to us for funding insisted on the "content focus" but something regularly did not seem quite right: it was that much of the content that they proposed to produce for their target market was hurried and forced. Many times they published something that might seem to be appealing but was instinctively not quite on target. Popularity of content was measured in "hits" and "click-through". The frequency and momentum of this data activity was the basis of "getting funded" and "potential economic value". Many of these funding candidates were funded but with capital from others.

We kept an eye on these "content companies". We noted that while some flourished most died. This death was measured in the "peaking" of their hits and click-through followed by a slow decline thereof. What happened? Was the content losing its relevance? Why did so many die?

Part of the answer lies in choices. As the Internet grew in popularity the amount of content available exploded. The available supply of content outpaced incremental growth in Internet users wanting content and the time available users had available to sift through the increasing mounds of content. This meant fewer clicks available per capita for the mass of Internet content as a whole.

As a further result, content was required to become more specialized to be appealing. This meant that these content companies had to develop a deeper relationship with a smaller number of users. Obviously this is why search engines became so popular. They could point to that content that pertained to a particular subject matter. Content companies became beholden to the technologies that searchers used to get to what was relevant.

Users then decided that they wanted ways to organize subject matters in which they had a persistent interest. Bookmarks helped but content aggregation took the lead. These were in essence search engines that compiled data on particular subject matters or areas of interest and presented it in a way appealing to interested parties. These aggregation sites in part decreased the import of generic search engines.

So yes....we all have either consciously or unconsciously witnessed the evolution and importance of content specialization with regard to survival and prosperity of many "Internet companies." So what is this saying? What did this mean? How can we look at this?

What is interesting is what was going on in the background and it is this: one part of the Internet was increasing in value and another part was decreasing in value. Remember the great fortunes that were developed in Internet Access as the nascent Internet was evolving. These were the foundation companies that were hooking users up to this new information resource (Earthlink, Covad, AOL, PSInet, etc. etc. etc.). Where did they go?

Well they still exist but for the most part they lost their distinguishable import in the "information supply chain". In other words..."what good is electricity if you don't have any light bulbs?" They didn't provide light...only the means to make light possible and many others strted developing the commercial means to make light possible. AT&T, Time-Warner, Hughes, Sprint, Verizon...and the list goes on.

These companies managed to take market share from the pioneers of Internet access. At first is was primarily because they could bundle Internet access with other services they provided and lower overall cost to the customer and increase convenience by presenting a single bill for this bundle of services. But as these companies started to compete with each other with bundled offerings they needed to compete on something other than price. And what they had in mind was..."you guessed it....content." AT&T hooked up with Apple computer and developed an exclusive relationship for the iPhone. While one may look at this as a physical device it is actually content - it is a desired form of relationship with the Internet. They also developed a relationship with Yahoo. Through this they offered services that enabled users to organize content (i.e. content aggregation) d/b/a My Yahoo - AT&T Uverse. As a result, they are taking market share at a very fast clip from those with lower value content offerings.

So what is the history lesson here? It is this: If you are a network services provider.....you had better get on your horse and develop a strategy for layering content on top of your basic network service or else you will find yourself a distant memory in the supply chain of the Internet. This natural law applies to networks of all sorts now matter what their initial market focus. To do this...they must understand what the common ground among their users may be...why are they on this particular network access system? Is it a common industry focus? Is it a common service these users may in turn provide to their own customers? Is is a common set of problems they might share? Answer these questions carefully and you will find your network content strategy. Ignore these questions at your own peril.

And Now for Something Totally Different

I was doing some calculating. The math exercise in which I was engaged contemplated the intersection of gasoline consumption, people, and the "green" movement.

When I think of a "green planet", my mind's eye sees a pasture, farmland, trees, etc. It does not see New York City. It does not see Houston, Texas. I think most people share an imagery consistent with mine when contemplating "green." I also think that when most people think of "un-green" they think of hydrocarbons. Using something other than oil as an energy source is generally referred to as "green."

Ok...so what we have established here is that cities are not the image of "green" relatively speaking and hydrocarbon burning is a root cause of "un-green". If you want to be green and more a part of the green movement like our farmland dwelling cousins, then burn fewer hydrocarbons. It is pretty simple.

So here is the math exercise. I mapped out the population density of each state in the union based on inhabitants per square mile. I then obtained the per capita gasoline consumption for each of those states and here is what it showed:

• The per capita gasoline consumption of Alaska dwarfs that of New York. It's not even close by a factor of something like 2x. In other words, the data very very clearly showed that the higher the population density..the less the per capita consumption of gasoline.
  

So...it might be said that...if we define "green" geographies on the notion of per capita hydrocarbon avoidance, then the "greenest" place in the United States is New York City. Said another way, if we want to reduced hydrocarbon emissions around the globe, one method could be for all of us earthlings to move to what may otherwise be perceived as the least green place on the planet....the "concrete jungle."