July 28, 2006

“all existing business models are wrong. find a new one.”

zzzzzz7654210.jpg
Pro­bably my favo­rite bit of “How To Be Crea­tive” is the intro to Point Num­ber Ele­ven:

11. Don’t try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds alto­gether.
Your plan for get­ting your work out there has to be as ori­gi­nal as the actual work, perhaps even more so. The work has to create a totally new mar­ket. There’s no point trying to do the same thing as 250,000 other young hope­fuls, wai­ting for a miracle. All exis­ting busi­ness models are wrong. Find a new one.

It’s weird when you find your­self a pro­fes­sio­nal car­too­nist, even though you don’t really publish anything in the con­ven­tio­nal sense.
Ins­tead of using the car­toons to sell books, t-shirts, maga­zine edi­to­rial etc, I use car­toons to sell $10 wine, suits, yachts, soft­ware, wha­te­ver. All very indi­rectly. The more indi­rectly, the more I pre­fer it.
Would this approach have been pos­si­ble before the inter­net and what Chris Ander­son calls “The Long Tail”? Of course not.
The journo from the WSJ can yak on to the con­trary all he wants [As long as his bos­ses don’t fire him, which, by the way, I believe is an impor­tant point to remem­ber]. But he’s mis­sing the big pic­ture.
[Order The Long Tail book at Ama­zon here. Con­grats, Chris!]
[UPDATE: Lee Gomes, the WSJ journo in ques­tion, res­ponds.]

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

8 Responses to ““all existing business models are wrong. find a new one.””

  1. Kevin Behringer says:

    Hugh:
    As an aside to your links to the Long Tail “fallout” I am ama­zed how, while impro­ving busi­ness, the Inter­net and blo­gosphere have an uncanny abi­lity to turn peo­ple into high school girls!
    Peo­ple tend to rant and com­plain about what “he said or she did,” but fail to con­verse with each other to rec­tify disa­gree­ments.
    “Piss me off? Well, I’ll blog about you rather than tal­king to you.“
    See the Roc­ket­boom fallout as well.
    Why is it that nor­mally pro­fes­sio­nal, ups­tan­ding peo­ple can gos­sip like high schoo­lers when it comes to the blo­gosphere?
    I’d like to get Chris and Lee together for a cage match!

  2. Chris Lee says:

    hmm biza­rre. my name is chris lee.

  3. John says:

    You make a good point that gets lost in the rush to debunk Anderson’s book. Even if the tail is a long way from equa­ling the head in the mar­ket­place, it is clearly get­ting big­ger, and the Inter­net, as you point out, is allo­wing more peo­ple to step foot in the mar­ket­place in the first place. As more peo­ple do, thus offe­ring more choice, the head will shrink (I love the word­play all of this allows). There always will be hits, but there is inc­rea­singly room for those offe­ring something on the other end of the spec­trum to carve out a com­for­ta­ble niche.

  4. llywrch says:

    Isn’t this new “long tail” phe­no­mena Chris Ander­son actually desc­ri­bes something that has been known for a while — only it has been desc­ri­bed in another way.
    Years ago in the publishing world (I don’t know if this is still the case), although the publishing hou­ses were eager to print as many best-sellers as pos­si­ble, the goal was to build up a healthy _backlist_: books that might not be part of the “head” of the tail (to use Anderson’s ter­mi­no­logy) but would sell a pro­fi­ta­ble num­ber year after year & pro­vide a steady & pre­dic­ta­ble income so they would have to the money to risk on poten­tial best sellers. I think the name for these was “mid­list tit­les”.
    The rea­son why these mid­list tit­les were pro­fi­ta­ble was that the cost of their deve­lop­ment — edi­ting, crea­ting a mas­ter to make copies with & adver­ti­sing — had been paid for. When was the last time you saw an ad for one of Hun­ter S. Thompson’s books, let alone a clas­sic like Homer’s _Iliad_ or Gibbon’s _Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire_?
    What I believe has hap­pe­ned (I stop­ped follo­wing the publishing industry clo­sely years ago) was that as copo­ra­tions came to con­trol more of the industry, they star­ted pru­ning mid­list tit­les & authors because they didn’t bring in “enough pro­fit”.
    What ven­dors like Ama­zon & Net­flick has done is found a way to broa­den the cate­gory of this mid­list thru tech­no­logy, so that they can make “enough pro­fit” from the pro­ducts that aren’t the best-sellers.
    Another bene­fit of this broa­de­ned “mid­list” is that they can keep in the mar­ket items that might be okay sellers — but become best-sellers due to outside events. I don’t claim to be a suc­cess­ful busi­ness­man, but it seems to me that it’s easier to make “enough pro­fit” selling something that you have in stock than to have to order it & hope it arri­ves before the demand fades.
    A last note: I find it fas­ci­na­ting that what is heral­ded as a “new dis­co­very” or a “revo­lu­tio­nary change” with Web 2.0 is often an old idea desc­ri­bed in dif­fe­rent words. Wikis seem to be all the rage now, but they are very simi­lar to what Tim Berners-Lee had in mind when he inven­ted the World Wide Web: an user-edittable envi­ron­ment.
    Geoff

  5. Jeff Schmidt says:

    Hugh — I’m curious if you think your par­ti­cu­lar busi­ness model (now that you’re doing it) is now WRONG for others — say poets, musi­cians, sculp­tu­res or other “artists”?
    Can a poet give away poetry for free and hope in indi­rectly sells shoes? Can a musi­cian give away his music and hope it indi­rectly sells furniture?

  6. Lost Flier says:

    Kevin Beh­rin­ger has found my major con­cern… why would i want to risk my busi­ness by put­ting it out in front of blog­gers… for them to des­troy it?
    What may be per­fectly use­ful and valua­ble for millions can be chop­ped down by two dozen blog­gers.
    Anyone know how to avoid this?
    In the “old world” your pro­duct or ser­vice would have to earn it’s way into irre­le­vance and dis­dain… today peo­ple will do that for you who have never nee­ded, truly used, or bene­fit­ted from what you have.

  7. Dannie Jost says:

    Ah! But Hugh, humans love three things: to abs­tract, gene­ra­lize and to try to find the magic for­mula for tur­ning sto­nes into gold. Now, on the phy­si­cal plane that is an uto­pia and what hap­pens is actual diver­sity. Still, the inte­llect likes to focus on small aspects of something or other and gene­ra­lize or pre­tend that it has dis­co­ve­red something new and fan­tas­tic that is finally going to turn crap into gold for all. The gene­ra­li­sa­tion idea is not wrong, after all nature is frac­tal, but that is not the end of the story.

  8. Tim Clague says:

    I agree. As a film maker I sick of the Holly­wood busi­ness model — its bro­ken any­way. I’m going to make a film and give it away free (it’ll be fun­ded by adverts) and the http://www.365films.com idea (make a film in a day, every­day, for a year) is also taking off with some serious inte­rest from big companies.