I did mean that. Was looking in the wrong place for it. Thanks. ________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone Sent: 31 October 2007 13:47 To: Jeremy Stone; [email protected] Subject: RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview Sorry I mean this http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,,2200816,00.html ________________________________ From: Jeremy Stone Sent: 31 October 2007 13:47 To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview Do you mean this ? ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 31 October 2007 13:33 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview "I'm unsure how this bussiness model would translate to other media though." In an article that seems only available in the 'dead tree' edition of last Sunday's Observer, and thus unreferenceable here, some American chap was talking about how live sport will only go up in terms of the rights revenue required to host it on your media outlet. It's the perfect commercial media product that removes all incentive to copy it and redistribute it. Once it is available to be transcribed to a medium that can be replicated and passed around it's lost its value as everyone who was interested was either there or already knows how it turned out. All that's left is to mine the highlights and bloopers to serve ahead of the next game for which you can charge sponsors and consumers anew. In my view (and, I think, the American chap's), that's the model to follow to monetise content. Identify off-schedule content that 'expires' once it has been consumed. ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 31 October 2007 12:46 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview On 31/10/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FWIW I think it's a more powerful argument to state that the value of a recording per-se is now tending towards zero, digital tech having removed scarcity from much of the value chain. The business models which recognise this will thrive in the long term. Bingo! Personally I can see a time when bands will make most of their money from performances and associated merchandising with recordings heading towards either a price of £free, or a Radioheadesque "pay what you want". Unless, of course, you want the physical CD (or Vinyl, as it seems to be making a comeback) with bonus extra track and cover art* etc. For which you'll have to pay a premium. I'm unsure how this bussiness model would translate to other media though. *Why did good cover art die out with vinyl anyway?
