Premium blend
Many of us make our living simply because other people are willing to pay a premium for something.
INFORMATION: Too busy to find out about the latest movies. That's OK, I'll gladly pay a premium to hear what the jounalist in The New Yorker thinks.
FOOD: Too busy to figure out an interesting place for my date. That's OK, I'll pay a premium and take her to a really expensive restuarant. Even if she doesn't like the food, she'll be so impressed by the decor it won't matter.
RENT: Too busy to find out where the hot real estate deals are. That's OK, I'll just pay a premium and move into an already-gentrified neighborhood.
CLOTHING: Too busy to find out what goes into the making of a really nice suit. That's OK, I'll just buy a well-known label whose schtick I'm in tune with. Good enough for the guys at GQ, good enough for me etc.
But of course, the more information somebody has, the more they know about what's really going on, the less willing they are to pay a premium.
The less willing you are to pay a premium for a cab, the more willing you are to walk.
The less willing you are to pay an extra $600 just for the label on the jacket, the more likely you'll buy something from the Chinese guy on Mott Street who nobody has heard of.
The less willing you are to spend $300 impressing her with a fancy restaurant. The more willing you are to take her to the weird Indian place in Brooklyn.
The less willing you'll spend $6 on a magazine just to find out if the movie's good or not. The more willing you'll e-mail some Bulagrian film geek whose opinion matters far more to you.
The less willing you are to fork over your $10 million dollars to the ad agency, just because the Creative Director really wants to make this certain commercial. The more willing you are to try out new technology the Creative Director has never even heard of.
The smarter the market, the harder it is to charge a premium.
Whenever I hear traditional media and marketing people get snippy about blogs, Cluetrain, the advent of "Citizen's Media" etc, I know the reason. It has nothing to do with intellectual honesty.
It has everything to do with the erosion of the high premium their jobs command.
We live in interesting times.
Trying to parse where we fit in that world -- we're old media people trying to think in new media ways. We want to help you find that Chinese Guy on Mott Street. But we want somebody (a reader, an advertiser, etc.) to pay a premium-- because that information, or more appropriately, that connection is worth it
Is it the death of premium, or a transformation to a different one?
Developing...
It is absolutely positively NOT the death of the premium, but a more comprehensive definition of what "premium" means. In a typical media outlet, if you want to peruse their restaurant listings for Mexican food, those listings are not likely to be comprehensive. They'll feature their advertisers first, and the rest (if at all) later.
The new model can still feature their advertisers; but in a truly premium showcase, they'd have an "all are welcome" approach. Correspondingly, you'd have forums/reviews that let the readership/reportage testify to the relative merits or illness-inducing qualities of all subjects.
Same with movie reviews, CD reviews, etc. You should not only NOT rely on a single reviewer, but almost offer a point-counterpoint pro-con forum for topics.
But the important point is, no exclusions. This also gets back to credibility. If you include everyone, it's going to be a lot harder for the critics to claim the "sacred cow" factor you see in a lot of MSM outlets. True journalism: ALL sides of the story.
Posted by: Bruce | January 31, 2005 at 08:54 PM