顯示具有 Innovation 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Innovation 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2013/03/20

“自媒体”就是知识精英商业化

某一个冬夜,网友“花总丢了金箍棒”把我拉出来宵夜。此人因鉴表反腐成为公众人物,那时节他刚好开发了一个独立APP,投放于苹果和安卓的软件市场。下载量不小,可能远超一些创业团队。那次聊天,我第一次听人认真讲“自媒体”。花总说,微博红人都可以做一个APP,比如“作业本”,然后看能不能靠广告赢利。事实上,当时已经有不少广告主跟花总暗送秋波,意味着“自媒体”已经有商业模式了
 
几个月后,科技评论员程苓峰正式开卖“自媒体”广告。此时,微信公众平台已然大火,自媒体发布成本降低,连开发APP的成本都省去了。程的发布平台,无论博客、微博、微信,全部都是免费的,在这些平台上,他拥有至少5万的活跃读者,这个数量已经超过很多杂志了。而一天一万的广告价格,仍然吸引了不少科技界广告主。
微信也把传统媒体人搅得心猿意马。到2月底,一些媒体同行们,也开始和我讨论,办一个自媒体怎么样?其实“自媒体”的概念本身不新,早在博客兴起时,已经蓬勃发展。如今进入微时代。微博和微信取代了博客,成为覆盖面更广、活跃度更高的传播渠道。内容提供者根本不需要报纸、电视台作为发言的平台,他们可以在“两微”上迅速找到自己的读者。
从内容生产者的角度来看,自媒体的优势在于,发布流程短、工作效率高、言论空间稍大。知识精英往往拥有较强的自我把关能力,且经过网络舆论平台的洗礼,所以这方面没有太大问题。
上述三个优势,当然是以思考为业的知识分子求之不得的状态。如果掂量一下,在微博上有10万左右粉丝的知识精英,基本都够格玩一下。而大众用户获得的产品,基本就是一条推送到你手机上的微信、一条图片制作的长微博。用户需求摆在那,只要你内容牛,粉丝会咣咣的涨,因为他们对好的内容仍有需求,何况还是免费的。
但自媒体不是慈善事业,是一门生意,究其本质,不过是知识精英商业化。自媒体的未来,取决于商业模式。目前看来,已经有比较成型的商业模式在支撑自媒体的发展
第一种,自然是广告。在细分市场,如科技、时尚、高尔夫、古玩,这些玩家都有特定的用户需求,如果能够获取海量用户,广告就是一个不错的变现方式。花总和程苓峰的读者都非常清晰,有广告价值。
第二种,是内容的二次开发,比如印刷成书拿版税。李承鹏的新书热销,就与其微博的影响力有直接关系。花总、作业本等微博红人,也都在写书。
第三种,是线下的活动,比如讲座与咨询。这要求作者本人有较高的学术修养,以及出众的口才,要求高,但变现也快。我有朋友是这种玩法,据说比以前做杂志主编还忙,当然收入也不菲。
总而言之,自媒体并不是新鲜事物,只不过是两微(微博、微信)流行之后,一些知识精英影响力得到更大的释放。而其商业模式,依然是传统媒体的复制,并不新鲜。从商业角度而言,也不是一个可以上市的大生意。“自媒体”这个概念的流行,社会价值更大。越来越多的知识精英可以通过内容打造个人影响力,并以此变现,过上独立而体面的生活,并专注于内容的生产和研究。这自然是极好的。

2012/09/27

台灣年輕人沒有創業動力與想像力

簡立峰:創業 把22K變220K
Google台灣董事總經理簡立峰昨(25 )日表示,年輕人月薪22K(2萬2,000元),不是台灣真正的問題,真正問題是台灣年輕人沒有創業動力與想像力;「如果年輕人有想像力,22K後面就可以加1個0,變成220K(22萬元)。」

為鼓吹創業精神,「Google for Entrepreneurs Week」活動於9 月23日起在全球13個國家、28個城市中陸續展開。

Google台灣響應國內政府政策並鼓勵創業,昨天舉辦「創業新商機-行動新勢力」研討會。

簡立峰表示,放眼手機產業有3大機會,包括裝置端、應用程式,以及商業模式,台灣以代工為主,在硬體上沒有太多主導權,必須加強服務。

他以亞馬遜Kindle Fire為例,虛擬內容服務由亞馬遜提供,硬體則由廠商設計與生產,打破傳統的「軟體歸軟體、硬體歸硬體」的模式,就是台灣產業可以依循的範例。

簡立峰表示,未來消費者到任何螢幕都要上網;「裝置」對消費者只是螢幕大小、操作簡單與否而已,來自什麼品牌已經愈來愈不重要,市場變成由網路服務(web servive)廠商來主導。

這樣的改變對於以生產硬體裝置為強項的台灣產業而言,有利有弊。
【2012/09/26 經濟日報】@ http://udn.com/

全文網址: 簡立峰:創業 把22K變220K | 財經人物 | 財經產業 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN12/7388629.shtml#ixzz27f6ODotc
Power By udn.com 

2012/09/15

關於創新的細節


常看到談創新. 但始終不見創新的細節和紋理.

到底各行各業要創新什麼?  在哪一個部份創新?


創新的面向,分類, 細項的討論和研究為何?


最近看到富比世雜誌和Ted 各談到兩個觀念, 是可以做為企業創新的方向之一.


1. 工作方式的創新.


運用雲端技術, 在家上班.  做為一種企業雲端策略的運用, 提升員工生產力, 同時並兼顧家庭生活與生活品質, 降低企業成本及固定支出.


在台灣,搞直銷的才在家工作; 

現在應該要產業界企業思考在家上班的工作方式做策略的運用, 是雲端策略的一個項目.
目的是提高生產力,降成本.

1)運用部落格做為員工內部討論專區. 


討論都有紀錄, 可以討論專案, 策展, 文案, 設計...

所有辦公室了的生產行為都可以在部落個內做封閉的討論並追蹤.  

2)開會運用Skype, Google Hangout, 有聲音,有畫面, 只要員工處在上班的狀態, 地點不重要.  


對員工來說有好處, 但也不盡然. 

好處是可以節省交通時間, 避開塞車, 情緒上也比較安靜專心工作; 
壞處是工作與生活不易區分, 也許因時差還會日夜顛倒.   

對企業來說經營成本可因此降低,或更具彈性.  

真正在企業裡碰面的意義是要解決問題, 而不是聚在一起的歸屬感. 也可以減少很多辦公室政治和人際關係的困擾 

當然企業主心態也要調整, 員工不應只是滿足雇主的控制慾,  

員工的功能和價值是要幫企業主解決一部分的問題, 而不是賣時間給雇主. 
雖然減少了社交行為, 不見得符合人性需求,但不是沒有社交和人際網路,  
"被監控" 不應該是一個常態.

其實真正重點是在家工作在各行各業中能不能提高員工的生產力? 

在家工作值不值得企業界產業界導入以提升生產力? 



在家工作很適合創業家, 科技業的小型公司.


產業界,企業界需要知道哪些行業 哪些企業適合工作方式的創新. 做策略的運用.


2. 另外一個創新的主題, 是用線上影片來學習.



數位學習是創新的學習方式.  

傳統的學習是去上學, 全班聽老師授課, 期末時以考試決定學習成果.  


"老師講, 學生聽", 考試打分數決定學習成果.  高分的很厲害,低分的是輸家.


這樣的觀念要改變.


線上影片學習是老師先把要教的影片放在網路上給學生預習, 


老師在課堂上的功能是解答各個學不同的學習障礙與問題,  是"指點", 是 "解惑".   


這樣學生可以因自己的學習速度而自我調整. 有預習 ,有課堂面對面互動.  影片看不懂, 可以放慢及重播.  學生也不會因聽不懂而不好意思.


"線上影片學習"和 "在家工作"就是創新的應用的兩個面向. 可以提升產業競爭力.


產業界需要的是找到更多創新的面向作為範例以優化台灣的競爭力和生活品質. 

做些改變和調整,並在其中找到機會. 

2012/08/07

创新疲劳


 创新?各家公司都说正在做
  那些时常抛出这个声调的公司并不意味着他们正在历史性地改变什么。
  各家公司之所以抛出这个声调,是为了显示他们正在从技术、医疗到点心、化妆品等方面都做出了划时代的贡献。
  公司“兜售”着他们的首席创新官、创新团队、创新战略甚至创新日。
  但是这并不意味着他们实际上做了任何创新。相反,他们只是觉得在描述产品改进时过于平淡,利用这个词汇来增强他们的成绩而已。
  就像被广泛使用的“齐心协力”和“乐观”这类时髦词汇,“创新”一词也处于这样危险的边缘——倘若它还没有变成这类时髦词汇的话。
  哈佛大学教授,1997 年畅销书《创新者的困境》一书的作者克莱顿•克里斯滕森曾说,“大多数公司在说他们自身是富有创新力时,都是希望能够让投资者觉得他们公司是具有很高的成长性,但事实往往与之相反。”
  通过对证券交易委员会披露的各家上市公司季报和年报的检索发现,去年在这些文件中一共出现33528 次“创新”
  一词。与五年前相比,这一数字增加了64%。
  根据对亚马逊网站的检索发现,在过去三个月里,有超过250 本书名中带有“创新”一词的书出版,其中大多数都有关商业。
  对于不同的人来说,创新的含义往往不同。对于泡泡包装纸的生产商——密封空气公司的首席执行官比尔•西奇来说,创新意味着发明一个原来根本不存在的东西,比如密封膨胀包。
  对于海洋喷雾红莓公司的首席执行官兰迪•帕帕泽利斯来说,创新就是废物再利用,如将剩下的红莓皮,变成像Craisins 一样的一种点心。
  对于辉瑞制药的研发总监米卡埃尔•道尔斯登来说,创新就是扩展产品的种类和使用范围,如增强婴儿疫苗的药效,以至成人也能够使用。
  2007 年畅销书《创新的奥秘》的作者斯科特•伯克维其,对于创新一词的滥用警告道,大部分人使用创新一词时,通常是将其视为“一种很好的商品”。
  他倾向于将创新一词用于推动人类文明发展的发明上,比如电力、印刷机、电话,以及最近苹果公司发明的的iphone 手机。
  作为一名创新顾问,伯克维其先生建议他的客户们禁止创新一词在他们公司中使用。
  他认为:“这个像变色龙一样的词汇容易隐藏内在的浅薄。”
  伯克维其先生将创新开始成为时髦词汇的历史追溯到20 世纪90 年代,美国互联网泡沫愈演愈烈、詹姆斯•厄特巴克发布“精通创新动力(310328,基金吧)学”和克里斯滕森先生发表“创新困境”之时。
  他说:“这个词汇充分满足了大公司的需求,因为它已经含蓄地表达出了灵活与‘酷’,就像创业企业和创业企业家一样。”
  技术企业并不是最可恶的滥用者。
  苹果公司和谷歌公司在最新的年报中分别谈到了22 次和12 次创新。但是他们只是与宝洁公司(22 次)、S MG 公司(21 次)相近。
  创新浪潮也给了咨询行业一个巨大的机会。根据Booz & Co. 咨询的创新战略咨询师亚历克斯•坎德宾估计,全球财富100 强企业平均在每个项目中支付给创新业务咨询师30 万~100 万美元,平均下来,每年达到100 万~ 1000 万美元此外,根据最近一项由Capgemini咨询主导的调查,接受调查的10 位高管中有4 位说,自己的公司中有一位首席创新官。
  在基于对全球260 位高管的在线问卷和25 个深度访谈显示,创新一词出现的意义有时候只是为了“出现”。
  大多数高管都承认他们的公司仍然没有一个清晰的创新战略来支持他们的创新角色。
  杰夫•谢缅丘克被海厄特酒店公司任命为首位公司的首席创新官在去年8 月。
  但他的工作随后被认为是空洞且没有意义。
  这家连锁酒店最近采访了数百位客人,随后得出一个结论:“我们正在被各种过去的不良模式限制了。”
  他审视着试验性创意在全球8 个试点酒店里的运用。在他的试点中:有一项新流程是由一位携带着iPad 的服务台职员在机场为客人办理入住手续。
  根据罗夫斯特拉大学语言项目主席罗伯特•莱纳德教授所说,创新根本就不是一个新词汇。它首次出现在15 世纪的印刷品上,但来源于拉丁文中“innovatus”的该词,已经被剥夺了原有的改变、更新之意了。
  他说,随着公司在对其产品生产链进行提速时,创新一词的含义也从做一些新的事情,扩展到更快地做一些事情。
  以坎贝尔汤料公司为例,公司称他们正在努力带来新的产品,从汤料到煎料,并努力地比竞争者们更快地将产品从实验室传递到市场上。该公司的副总裁兼总经理达伦•塞劳称,“连想法现在都会被更快地抄袭走。”
  克里斯滕森先生将创新划分为三类:
  一是效率式创新,即以更低的成本生产同类商品,如自动的信用确认;二是保持式创新,即将原有的产品改进成更佳的商品,如混合动力汽车;三是分裂式创新,即将昂贵的、复杂的产品改进成便宜的、简单的产品,如将大型计算机改进成个人电脑。
  “一家公司成长的最大潜力来源于分裂式创新。”他说,其他两种创新充其量只能被称之为普通的进步,且通常并不能创造新的行业和工作。
  但是分裂式创新往往需要5 ~ 8 年才能“结果”,他说,所以公司对此都会失去耐心。
  他强调,对公司来说,往往过早地说自己是在创新。“每个人都在创新,因为他们认为任何的改变都可称之为创新。”
  一些经常使用创新一词的人也承认他们已经开始厌烦这词了。
  曾经从20 世纪80 年代就开始在公司文件中使用创新一词的密封空气公司首席执行官西奇先生,现在已经开始考虑在公司的文件中放弃该词了。
  然后呢?“创新力。”
  “创新力是一种思维模式,而创新只是一件事物。”克里斯滕森先生说,“我们应当朝着这个方向努力。”

2012/06/08

The New Economics of the Music Industry


How artists really make money in the cloud – or don't

October 25, 2011 4:35 PM ET

adele mtv vma
Adele onstage at the MTV Video Music Awards.
Kevin Mazur/WireImage
In the old days, it was much easier for pop stars to keep up with how much they were getting paid. Somebody would buy a CD at a Tower Records for $15 and a few dollars would appear months later on the star's royalty sheet. Then iTunes took over the record business, and it was even easier (if not more profitable) – every time somebody bought a 99-cent track, a few pennies went into the artist's bank account.
Those were such simple times. Today, music fans play free music videos on YouTube, stream songs for free on Spotify, MOG or Rdio, customize Internet radio stations on Pandora or Slacker and consume music a zillion different ways. The fractions of pennies artists make for each of these services are nearly impossible to track – at least for now. "People like to simplify this and say, 'There's no money in it,'" says Jeff Price, founder of TuneCore, which charges artists to place songs directly into iTunes, Spotify and others. "But it's complex, it's complicated and it's still being worked out."
So you're Adele, the year's biggest pop star. Your songs stream on Spotify – or MOG, Rdio, Pandora or YouTube. You still sell downloads through iTunes and Amazon, and you still sell old-fashioned CDs in old-fashioned record stores. How much do you get paid?
Rolling Stone talked to several sources in the music business and got several different answers.
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
Spotify, MOG, Rdio and other subscription services are either free (with ads) or charge users monthly fees for unlimited streaming music. The quick calculation, according to one band manager: If a song gets streamed 60 times, the songwriter receives 9.1 cents in mechanical royalty payments. And the performing artist gets 38 cents (or splits that money, half and half, with a record label, per contract).
(UPDATE: A music-business source contacted us after this article appeared to clarify that these numbers were estimates based on one manager's royalty statements. They are not an actual formula Spotify and music publishers use to calculate their songwriting royalty payments. This manager's royalties could change as Spotify's subscriber numbers change, and they vary depending on the streaming popularity for each artist. This source explained to us, again, the actual formula used for determining artist royalties from streaming services – as Price says, it is too ridiculously complicated to reproduce here.)
Maybe you don't want to know the non-quick formula. "It is beyond complicated. It took me literally three months to understand this thing," says Jeff Price, founder of TuneCore, which charges artists $10 (for a single) and $50 (album) to place music in online stores such as iTunes and Amazon, as well as subscription services like Spotify and MOG.
Generally speaking, songwriters make about 10.5 percent of Spotify or MOG revenue. "However, each service has to run literally five formulas each month -- on calculation number one, they have Subsection Number One and Subsection Number Two," Price says. "They throw out the higher of those and then compare that one against the other three. After that, they have to run this formula five different times."
Because the formulae are so byzantine, and the royalty payments that show up on audit sheets are still so tiny, very few artist lawyers and managers truly understand how much they could make – one day – from Spotify, MOG, Rdio or the other relatively new streaming services.
But Price makes the point that Spotify and the others encourage music fans to explore, listening to songs they might not have purchased. Even if it's not a rock-star payday, it's something. "Is it big money? I think it could be! I really do," says Jim Guerinot, manager of Nine Inch Nails and No Doubt.
ITUNES
Adele, who is signed to Sony Music, sells "Rolling in the Deep" for $1.29. Apple, as the retailer, keeps 30 percent, or roughly 40 cents. The rest, 90 cents, goes to Sony. From that, the major record label must deduct 9.1 cents as a "mechanical royalty," paid to Adele and her co-writer, Paul Epworth (although they might split it with their respective publishing companies). That leaves about 81 cents.
Typical record contracts give artists 12 to 20 percent of sales, depending on the hugeness of the star, so let's split the difference and say Adele's percent is 16. That comes out of the original $1.29 price – so the artist's cut for sale of the master recording is about 20 cents. (This is assuming Adele has made enough to "recoup" the expenses for her album – otherwise, it just contributes to paying off her debt to her record company.) And the remainder, a grand total of 60 cents, goes to Sony to pay for marketing, publicity, videos, executive salaries and obviously, profit.
Of course, many artists don't want to share nearly half of their revenues with a major label like Sony, which is essentially a middleman. Before the Internet, and stuff like ProTools, an artist had to sign with a label even to be heard. That's obviously no longer true. Today, an artist can pay a service like TuneCore to be included in the iTunes Store. At that point, after Apple takes its cut, the entire 90 cents goes to the artist.
"When we released the first Puscifer record, we went to a major distributor," says Maynard James Keenan, frontman for Tool, A Perfect Circle and indie band Puscifer, which put out Conditions of My Parole on its own earlier this week. "There was still this groaning dinosaur, grasping at straws, trying to get out of the tar pits. They were still doing things the old-school way, throwing my money at things that really didn't matter. And there are always these little extra fees when you try to go through channels – distribution fees, hidden costs. All these things really add up. It doesn't seem like you can really make a living off that. I pulled out of that this time. It just makes more sense."
YOUTUBE AND VEVO

Over the past couple of years, YouTube has grown into a lucrative machine for record labels. Popular videos – those that generate hits in the millions – can be festooned with ads, and YouTube shares that revenue with the copyright holders. And it can be just as lucrative for goofy, homemade videos that use popular songs as it is for stars' original videos. For the homemade stuff, the system works like this: JK Wedding Entrance Dance, in which Chris Brown's "Forever" is the soundtrack, has racked up more than 70 million views since its debut in July 2009.
After the video was becoming a huge hit, YouTube's content identification people and employees of Brown's record label, Sony, had a conversation. The label had two options: Because YouTube isn't a piracy service, like Kazaa or LimeWire, it could take down the video immediately – or it could sell ads against it. According to music-business sources, a top artist might make $1 per 1,000 video plays -- so Sony has received, by our rough estimates, $70,000 for the JK Wedding Entrance Dance. (Vevo can draw five or 10 times that amount.) And artists get a fraction of that based on the percentages in their contracts. Which did Sony choose? Well, check out the multitude of ads, inside and outside the video box, throughout JK Wedding Dance.
Of course, truly independent artists – like video kings OK Go, who recently split with their longtime label EMI – are in a much better position in this scenario. "I know individual artists who make tens of thousands of dollars a month on YouTube," says Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne.com, which measures online metrics such as illegal file-sharing numbers and sells the data back to labels. "And I know of individual artists who make more money on an individual basis from YouTube than they do from iTunes."
INTERNET RADIO


After years of fighting over pennies, Internet radio services reached an agreement with artists, music publishers and record labels a few years ago on royalty payments. The rates go up every year, but the broad formula is that big "pure play" companies, such as Pandora and Slacker, pay either 25 percent of their total revenue per year, or a little more than $.001 per song -- whichever is greater. These payments go to a music-business collection agency known as SoundExchange, which then pays 50 percent of it to the copyright owner (usually a record label like Warner or Sony), 45 percent to the artist and 5 percent to non-featured performers. Smaller Internet radio companies pay slightly lower rates.
Anu Kirk, product lead for MOG, said at the recent Digital Music Forum in Los Angeles that Pandora winds up paying out much less than that – about a tenth of a penny per play. "It sucks that right now that artists are getting paid so little money by subscription services, but it sucks that artists are getting paid so little money by everyone," Kirk said.
David Hyman, CEO of MOG, won't divulge his subscriber numbers, but he offers broad royalty estimates that apply to both Pandora-style radio and MOG-style subscriptions. "Let's say MOG has 1 million subscribers and everyone's paying $10 per month. And let's say the labels got 60 percent of that. Now, each label gets their piece of 60 percent based on frequency of plays. So if Warner [Music, a major label] was 30 percent of all plays in a given month, then Warner gets 30 percent of that 60 percent," he says. "Then they get a wad of money. Once they get that wad of money, how do they distribute it internally? I have no idea."
CDs

Speaking of wads of money, CDs were intensely profitable for artists and (especially) record labels for more than two decades, until the Internet, MP3s, piracy, Napster, iTunes, YouTube and Spotify kicked in over the past 10 years. The formula for artist payment is roughly the same as the iTunes model – only labels have traditionally removed hefty percentages for mysterious deductions.
Josh Grier, veteran music-business attorney for Wilco, Ryan Adams and others, walks us through the math. The retailer takes out about 30 percent of the suggested $17.98 price, or $5.40. From what's left, the songwriter and publishing company remove another 9.1 cents per song – or say, 91 cents for 10 songs. That leaves $11.67. (Often, producers take a cut as well.) From that, the artist receives 12 to 20 percent – let's use 16 to split the difference.
But Grier points out that labels have been cutting into artist royalties for years with deductions marked "free goods" (usually 10 percent of the artist's royalty) and "packaging" (usually 25 percent) -- dropping the royalty rate from roughly 16 to 11. (These old-school deductions for physical CDs and LPs don't apply to digital sales.)
In the end, in very broad terms, that leaves about $1.93 per sale in profit for the artist and $9.74 for the label. (We're assuming, once again, that the artist in question has recouped expenses, meaning he or she no longer has to pay back a record label for videos, tour support and so forth.) Of course, both need to remove their own expenses from that.
A decade ago, this disparity in payments was a huge point of contention between artists and the labels they worked for. That's still true today, but artists are far more likely to throw up their hands and say, "Who gives a crap? Let's just make a pile from touring." Says Grier: "The questions you're having are not all that relevant to the band. 'How many records are we going to sell? Pfpfpfpft. We just want to play the songs.'"

閱讀地圖

歷史上人為書而瘋狂, 但現實裡, 愛書的人仍有但是越來越難尋. 一切知識的傳播都是靠書, 書靠印刷術的發明的普及與傳播. 書,權勢的權力還是在讀者, 有讀者,書才會有意義..