AOL rebranding according to my advice
In recent posts I poo-poo’d the thinking of current medial moguls vis-a-vis the Google Myspace deal as well as Rupert Murdoch’s plans to charge for their content. Now at least someone is catching on and is not intent on self-destruction as they cling on to the old way of doing things.
Here is what I said in early Nov (and numerous times before):
Content is king on the Internet. Want to improve your traffic, improve your content. Since users create the content at MySpace, it becomes essential to attract users who can consistently generate quality pop content. Even if you have to pay to get them.
Here is what AOL CEO Tim Armstrong said in early December:
Because AOL is content, the brand has to be like content: fluid, flexible, and changeable. It exists as a host for new innovations and new content experiences. In a world where people believe what you do and not what you say, it is these new experiences that will define this brand and people’s perceptions of it. AOL Seed is the first example of this. Here AOL are pioneering the content economy with a publishing platform that will allow budding creatives to publish, find an audience for their work, and make money doing so.
Media outlets that try to own and or control submitted or hosted content to their sole benefit are in for big trouble over the coming years, especially if that tactic is essential to their core business model. Think recording industry.
Yeah, maybe AOL use to suck, but now they plan to share the wealth with those who actually have a talent for creating engaging content. If AOL management can pull it off, don’t be surprised if this model is a raging success.
Rewarding individual talent is preferable to powerful people making tons of money simply because they have power and money. I’m actually quite put out with the latter.
