a reply to: Hazardous1408
But publicity is irrelevant if the consumers do not visit that companies business and interact with their own ad revenue generation system.
The reason I asked about legislative action separating the entities permanently is because that is exactly where this kind of disagreement could lead
to in the near future. Yes FB is a private company and also reserves the right to serve whatever customer it chooses. But at the same time, if it is
deprived of all the free production (shared media) that keeps its other users glued to its own services through legislative action, the billions of
members may not be as interested to stay with that platform if they can no longer consume what they wanted and have it delivered to them as a perk of
keeping in touch with their friends and relatives.
When one has a discussion like this in regards to the rights to produced content , we have to analyze all the interactions and interconnections which
have offered that model to be able to expand the way it has.
I personally believe that if legislative action separated the news and platform like facebook permanently , facebook would see a steep decline in
growth, and likely even contract significantly from an exodus of customers who may seek a different platform. Perhaps lets say, one that has
compromised and capitulated on sharing their revenue with the content producers as Murdoch is requesting.
Remember Metallica and Napster right? This is nearly the exact same thing. One could argue Metallica was getting free promotion for their content and
that they would get increased sales from concerts and licensed merchandise. That was not the case though, they took legal recourse because it did in
fact eat into their earnings, just like the movie and recording industry in general have also done with regard to backup copies
globally for free online.
Now clearly, consumers who are used to and expect , no, demand
everything they consume come with zero cost to themselves, almost always fall
back on the defense that free promotion is good for the content producers bottom line. People have to participate in their money making model however
in order for the producer to see growth from said promotion of their media.
As the years wore one, physical album sales have all but gone extinct in relation to the years prior to the digitization of content. But also, people
watch the concert for free from those spectators who now also share those. Concert attendance goes down, album sales go down, even licensed
merchandise sales go down as people can simply custom make their own products for a lower price.
Where this gets connected with the topic at hand is, those artists/content producers begin to take a big hit in revenue due to a lack of participation
in their business model. When all of the content produced by news is being offered freely through an intermediary/promoter to consumers without the
need to interact with their own business model, it will continue to lead to a decline in revenue for the producer, while at the same time the
intermediary sees record growth year over year and increased revenue because everyone is now consuming the content through their platform for free,
bypassing the producers own revenue generating business model.
This is why I see an inevitable conclusion in one of two directions. Either platforms like facebook and twitter will share their revenue with the
content producers, almost like youtube does. Or after years of litigation some kind of legislative action will result in a permanent separation from
platforms that refuse to compromise on the former. Honestly, we all know big companies like money, and clearly they will eventually decide to
compromise on revenue sharing.
I know that was a lot, but I like to try and offer the entire perspective in one shot.