The key point, I think, in your post in the concept of big enough. Traditional media are going to have to cut themselves loose from expensive distribution technologies. Once they have done this they will find they don’t need as much money. The big media brands will become syndicated content producers. The downside is that lower costs also mean little barriers to entry – so the main challenge for traditional media brands will come (is coming) from a host of new, much smaller, operators and services – Craigslist being a classic example.

So yes – the money will shrink – but so will the costs. And the money that spills out of the shrinkng business model will (should) be used by marketers to reconstruct the way the engage with consumers so they can become more conversational – which is an expensive and time consuming business to do properly.

This story is illustrated in flash with a catchy tune here:

Advancing Evolution: The dis-intermediation of Media
http://mymindshare.com/b/secure/disintermediation.php

- Viacom/CBS split – in the last 12 months, the so called old media company stock (CBS) has grown from around $25.00 to $31.00. The so called new media (Viacom) has grown from around $38.50 to around $41.00. Any questions?

- As Mr. Garfield well knows, layoffs are not solely a result of poor performance, but a short term trick to pump stock prices. Media companies are now the sole purview of bean counters – squeezing margins is their business, not creating content.

- not so sure I’d hold up Youtube as a shining example of this theory. Mired in legal hassles, deserted by the majority content providers who no longer tolerate being ripped off and even the Google principles themselves have admitted they have no idea how to make it a viable business model.

- upfronts, as Mr. Garfield also knows, do not tell the whole story. His own publication indicates, the short term (scatter) market has been quite robust this season – J&J, GM and Coke all paid more for their TV time than they would have if they did choose to participate in the “broken” upfront.

Rather than bore you with more specifics, let me expound on MY theories for a minute:

- TV is here to stay. People watch as much TV as they ever did – just more choices to watch. Pay per view is a joke. In a world where “free” TV costs over $100 amonth through a cable or fiber optic system, only a very limited number of households will choose to add to that bill by ordering ala carte programs for cash. TV viewing on the net will continue to occur primarily where it always has – on the job.

- Advertisers will quickly realize several things about new media advertising:

– it’s even easier to ignore than commercials and only provides a limited amount of potential to attract new customers. If you have to actively engage with the advertising to receive information, aren’t you simply preaching to the choir? Mass media will continue to be the best method of attracting new customers through simple and hopefully better executed short form messaging over time.

– it will continue to be labor intensive to buy and service, and will provide no standard measurement of value or verification unless client finally decide to hold them to the same standards TV has embraced for decades

– it will quickly become apparent that as dollars continue to shift to new media, prices there will rise as well. And that’s what this is all about to the marketer – paying less for the message

Agree with Garfield that entertainment choices will continue to abound and viewers do not like advertising – who would choose an interruption after all, especially the mostly awful ones we have to endure now? But the model is broken less by these factors than the one no one likes to discuss – the cost of creating content. If the cost of producing an hour of primetime television fell commensurate with fragementation, we wouldn’t be talking about broken models. The Hollywood community (and their partners in crime, the guilds) stubbornly refuse to recognize this reality, opening a window for advertisers to seek more cost effective ways to deliver a message. And yes, Jeff and Bob, most people still think messages are ok.

The ultimate result will continue to be a lot of bad content, a ton of hype and, at some pioint in time, a realization that this emperor, while not completely clothed, isn’t fully dressed either.