I continue to ponder what the emerging business models
for sharing content on the Web might mean for knowledge management.
I
see three characteristics of the emerging model that are relevant to knowledge management:
- Most
content is free to the user, yet it cost someone else to create it.
- Access
to others' content seems to bring
high value to the user and to the "connector."
- Rare
or expert content (that which can make you money) is still costly and often
charged for.
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine and author of The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of
More, declares in his new book that the emerging online business model for
content is Free: Give
away your best content online, build a brand, and make your revenue on the
ancillary services generated. In Anderson's case, his money comes from the book
and his speeches. At $50,000 a pop, not a bad model for him. But what if you
aren't "branded"? Is helping your colleagues by answering their questions a way
that employees can build their personal brands within communities of practice? There
is no additional money to be made by helping your colleagues, at least in the
short term. The value must come from being seen as helpful and having good
content. Then it must lead to reciprocity and, eventually, a promotion.
As
an example of the second business model listed above, Google
is the epitome of free (to the user), succeeding by providing access. I Google
every day, yet it never appears on my credit card. Google makes billions from
counting my views and click-throughs. This second model involves delivering content to people and then charging advertisers for the
eyeballs. (Notice that this isn't much different from the model that TV
stations have used to make money over the past six decades.)
As
a caution, Facebook connects people to
people (and their endless pictures), gets billions of views, and is valued in
billions of dollars, but as yet hasn't made any money. YouTube is in the same boat, providing a
platform for users to share video content. By contrast, Howcast is making money by getting
advertisers to help cover the cost of the "how to" videos. (Check out "How To
Survive a Bear Attack" for a useful example.)
The
analogy to internal KM is the value that the KM core group can deliver by (1)
providing great search functionality and (2) building valued communities of
active users and generous responders.
Finally,
most content on the Web (and in life) is just someone's opinion. But that's all
we want much of the time. If I have a problem or want information, I am
perfectly happy if 60 colleagues tell me how they do it, or if they send me
their favorite PowerPoints and let me sort through what works for me. Before I
buy a coffee maker, I browse the Amazon
user ratings, paying special attention to the reviews reflecting what I value
in a coffee maker. Both of APQC's consortium studies on expertise location bear
this out. (Note: Our 2003 study can be accessed here. Our 2008 study has not yet been released to the public, but APQC members can download the best practices from the APQC Knowledge Base).
However, if I want to know how to open a market in China, the formula for a drug, how to
mend an artery in the brain, or President Obama's Blackberry address, I prefer
expert , validated content. This knowledge is expensive to create, rare, and
has to be paid for by someone. Likewise, internal experts must be protected
from casual "use" by having their content collected and codified whenever
possible. This is difficult to accomplish for tacit knowledge, which is why we
have such a hard time conveying expert skills to a novice.
Leave a comment