Christensen’s and Rheinghold’s articles both attempt to describe the implications of new technology on the media ecology.
Christensen’s work focuses a bit too much on the business-side aspect of divining customer trends. Some trends are invented first by the consumer and then become monetized later by businesses; a good example of this is the Napster music sharing (pirating) system leading to a monetized version of this with online purchasing of music via iTunes. In this case under-shot consumers (people who grudgingly accept the hassle of finding pirated music versus paying for it,) are better served by a more organized and monetized version of obtaining music through the reasonable .99 cent per song rate that Apple offers with iTunes. Successful innovation cannot always be foretold by how companies block and compete with each other in a rush to fill a new market.
I prefer Rheinghold’s more common sense, even simplistic approach to analyzing the media ecology. Rheingold addresses more of the emotional/behavioral impacts of new technology and how it serves both old and new customer needs. By using Rheingholds ‘Ten Principles of Technology” a business can better understand the consumer and what technology will be embraced by the consumer.
Christensen’s cycle of competition between companies and the attempt of each company at promoting current technology while blocking new technologies via standardization, ignores the undefined variable which is the consumer’s ability to innovate for themselves. An example of this is the battle between Blu-Ray and HD DVD. By the time that a standard is set, say in the next 2-5 years, the means of video delivery may be entirely online, driven by the advancement of H.264 and expanded broadband. In this case, disruptive new technologies and the need of the consumer to access video on demand in a mobile world, makes the attempt of standardizing an optical storage system irrelevant. In this case the whole media ecology is changed while the major HD optical storage companies have their backs turned locked in a competitive battle to set a self serving technologic standard.
Questions:
Why is it that many businesses miss the boat fighting their own wars, while converging technologies make their battle ultimately pointless?
Why should businesses try to create new markets for non-consumers in a rapidly changing media environment, when the consumers have already indicated what they want by the networks they create on their own? Wouldn’t it make more sense to improve and add value to consumer created technologies? (i.e monetizing peer to peer file sharing)
How much should businesses focus on the emotional connections consumers have with technology versus a more logical approach? (Sometimes having too many options for a given technology creates confusion or anger. Look at the multitude of cell phone options/services that go mostly unused, whereas a company like apple focuses on the emotional/social status experience of using an iPhone.)
[...] came across this post – Reading Reflection #2 – and thought it was worth sharing. I hope you find it interesting too and take the time to read [...]
[...] Kirk (1) Why is it that many businesses miss the boat fighting their own wars, while converging technologies make their battle ultimately pointless? (2) Why should businesses try to create new markets for non-consumers in a rapidly changing media environment, when the consumers have already indicated what they want by the networks they create on their own? Wouldn’t it make more sense to improve and add value to consumer created technologies? [Closed] (3) How much should businesses focus on the emotional connections consumers have with technology versus a more logical approach? [...]
I think your example of the Blue-Ray and HD DVD is great. It shows how industry leaders can be too focused on what they are doing that they don’t realize an entrant is creating new disruptive technology that makes their efforts to win the battle obsolete. Your suggestion that the entrant in this case may be the consumers themselves is very interesting.
Hi Kirk,
I like the points that you brought up from the Christensen and Rhienghold readings.
Regarding your point about undershot consumers coming up with their own technology solution (Napster), which was later monetized, I had really never considered this scenario and appreciate that you recognized what happened. Now that I have considered this, I see this all over the place. For example, Radiohead, by releasing their latest album online for free (and allowing users to pay what they wanted), targeted the undershot consumer. They essentially joined the crowd and went with the grain instead of against it.
I pondered your reference to Christensen’s views on competition. In my heart I would like to believe what you suggest regarding ‘everything will be online’ and thus your implication that an HD optical media format will be obsolete. However, this begs the question, is online content disruptive to HD optical media, or is it the other way around? For example, optical media will provide a quality standard, as well online content will be optimized to meet certain bandwidth requirements. A title that is 30GB on optical media, will be 4GB from a download server. In addition to the quality aspect, people like physical stuff. When do you suppose people will give up their collectables and ‘trust’ the online environment with their non-physical purchases?
Great reflection!
Amy