Maybe Diller was AOL Right

palo alto concept store
Originally uploaded by redbarren.

In 3rd year undergrad media theory I learnt that the "stratification" of media, driven by the rise of 'new media', actually makes high reach, branded 'professional' content all the more valuable. And once you have worked in a big ad agency you realise, "big brand" clients want a "one media buy" solution not 2 million itemised websites and blogs. Hence, why Rupert Murdoch believed Sports programming on TV was so valuable in the 90's... because so many people watched it at once. (similar to myspace, although the demographic is teenagers, content is music/community/dating, and interaction is disaggregated... but the key is its still one brand + one ad buy/brand with cross-media platform integration - eg tv - which is the key, plus the owner of the business is driving integration between platforms) If you want to launch a new car for example, and need the majority of population to create a 50% awareness among 18-45yr males, you know tomorrow you don't speak to Nick Denton, or Jessica Coen. You want Rupe, Chernin or now Levinsohn. (who suitably ran Foxsports.com as training) So Barry Diller's comments might not have been as dumb as they sounded last week, even if they are as equally 2-dimensional as the other side that posits 'user generated content' conquers all. We all have our favourite authors, directors, bands, and artists. Some are very high reach, others niche : Just as the most popular bloggers get book deals, the B-List self-publish a blook, professionally unemployed join blog networks (not that there's anything wrong with that fine1's) and the remainder like me use blogspot as a means of securing cheap real estate in a tsunami of spam. But at the end of day - isn't it for any media the combination of weekly ratings - total reach or segment ownership, box office revenue, and the odd (professional, artistic +/or peer reviewed) award, that should decide ? Anyway, that's my lead in for a re-cap of Diller's argument applied to Apple's use of Lost + Desperate Housewives (not youtube's content), combined with AOL becoming more than the 'swinging vote' and indeed the 'swinger' - All AOL need do is create a major rumour about a company they are going to buy (eg facebook), contain all leaks by not telling anyone internal, then buy a better company cheaper (need total budget around $2b, ideally MSN, maybe vonage, and something in the organic search advertising side : AOL BUY ADBRITE.com please), poach some senior Google staff and David Faber will be talking about Virginia again.

"There aren't that many people in that many closets who are really talented and can't find their way out," Diller said. "Making a television program or a movie or a song - there are going to be relatively few who do that because there's simply not enough talent. Maybe that's an utter birdbrained statement, but there you are - it's mine." At that, Diller grinned broadly, and the techie crowd murmured that Diller was stuck in the past and utterly clueless. But look what's happened: Over the past week, two of the most admired companies in technology have basically proved Diller right. First came Apple Computer, run by Steve Jobs, who gets on more magazine covers than Paris Hilton. When Jobs unveiled Apple's video iPod, the most significant thing wasn't that a handheld device could play video on a tiny screen. That's been done by Nokia, Archos and others - arguably better. Jobs' real revolution is his deal with Disney to sell downloadable versions of top TV shows such as Desperate Housewives. The new AOL shines an Oscar night-size spotlight on its competitors' strategic hole. To be an Internet-based mass medium in the second half of this decade, you're going to need access to mass-market hits."