on product

2021-06-13 15:31:58 > Theodore Levitt (...) unveiled his theory of “marketing myopia”. (...) Major railway companies [missed out] on buses, cars, and trucking due to their focus on trains not transportation. (...) Marvel and DC haven’t been comic book-first companies for nearly thirty years. (...) Netflix founder and Co-CEO Reed Hastings recently declared, “we’re really an entertainment company”.

> An entertainment business does only three things: create/tell stories [#1], builds love for those stories [#2], monetizes that love [#3]. (...) Love is incredibly important in storytelling. (...) Marvel’s subsequent Avengers film grossed more in its opening weekend than Justice League did in its lifetime. As did Black Panther, who was largely unknown before.

> Disney’s direct-to-video strategy (…) ended the “Disney Renaissance”. (...) Pixar would fix storytelling, which would lead to love, which would return [Disney Animated Studios] to monetization. (...) [Star Wars] Episode VIII grossed less than Episode VII, and Episode IX tumbled even further (grossing half of VII). (…) No one can escape the cost of harming love.

> Disney “hires” a third party to manage (...) apparel and merchandise. Disney then monetizes this love in other (more lucrative) areas. The $10 licensing revenue from a light saber is insignificant. (...) Microsoft, which has a $1.9 trillion market cap, doesn’t need a few million from $30B ViacomCBS for the rights to a Halo TV series. (...) Game publishers aren’t [licensing IP] to monetize (#3), but to instead to grow love for their content (#2) through new types of stories (#1).

> This trend also means that Hollywood needs to solve its video game problem. (…) Industry is changing beyond “D2C SVOD”. (…) When Netflix’s [The Witcher] started streaming, The Witcher 3 video game saw its player count grow 3-4x, and the thirty-year-old book series returned to the New York Times Best-Seller list.

> The bigger Marvel (or anyone) gets narratively, in love building, and in monetization, the harder it will be for a Power Rangers reboot or Dark Universe or Transformers Ecosystem. (...) It will be a fight for dominance between all franchises and across all mediums. The major stories will expand into all categories, from film to TV to podcasts, and be envisioned as interactive experiences.

> There aren’t many companies that can pull this off. (...) Amazon, Google and Apple, are bad at IP, games, or video. (...) Disney excels at IP universes and [film-to-TV transmedia], but it has no interactive assets. (...) [Warner Bros.] excels in gaming, film, and TV, [yet] it is comparatively earlier in cinematic universe building and social, world-based gaming.

> Sony [created globally resonant IP], from God of War to The Last of Us. (...) [These titles] are now being adapted to film/TV by Sony Productions. (...) Then there’s Sony’s market-leading PlayStation console platform and close partnership with Epic Games. (...) But, corporate integration has always been Sony’s biggest obstacle (hence missing the MP3, smartphone, CTV, and SVOD market).

https://www.matthewball.vc/all/what-is-an-entertainment-company-and-why-does-the-answer-matter Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 13:39:23 Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 13:37:52 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1399292996823269377 Это потрясающий тред Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 13:32:23 https://gopractice.ru/unit_economics_attribution_models/ Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 13:11:08 https://builtformars.com/case-studies/apple-airtags Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 13:05:22 https://joshkaufman.net/how-to-ask-useful-questions/ Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 11:59:50 https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1400812133580001281 Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 11:51:01 > I'm fascinated by interesting memos written for an internal audience - a company, a campaign or even for the President. Raw, not smoothened over for PR departments, they help shed light on how people really think inside institutions. > These are challenging… Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 11:48:20 > The manager's schedule is for bosses. (...) You can block off several hours for a single task if you need to, but by default you change what you're doing every hour. (...) [Programmers and writers] generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. You can't write or program well in units of an hour. That's barely enough time to get started. (...) A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon. (...) It doesn't merely cause you to switch from one task to another; it changes the mode in which you work.

> Each type of schedule works fine by itself. Problems arise when they meet. (...) Classic device for simulating the manager's schedule within the maker's: office hours. Several times a week I set aside a chunk of time to meet founders we've funded. These chunks of time are at the end of my working day. (...) During busy periods, office hours sometimes get long enough that they compress the day, but they never interrupt it.

> When you're operating on the manager's schedule you can do something you'd never want to do on the maker's: you can have speculative meetings. You can meet someone just to get to know one another. (...) They're effectively free if you're on the manager's schedule. They're so common that there's distinctive language for proposing them: saying that you want to "grab coffee," for example. Speculative meetings are terribly costly if you're on the maker's schedule, though.

http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html (июль 2009!) Открыть/Комментировать

2021-06-11 11:42:55 > "Content" is not just Beyonce's new song or the highlight real of yesterday's playoff game. Content is the two lines of code that an engineer somewhere just added to an open-source project. That Slack message your colleague sent you this morning is also content. And of course, the newsletter you sent to your 72 subscribers last week is also content, even if you're not a celebrity.

> Most humans are either overpaid or underpaid for their work. (...) 72% of all contributors [of the Android Open Source Project] made less than twenty commits and nearly 50% of them made less than three. (...) Of course, the quantity of code someone contributes does not mean the code was critical or particularly valuable. (...) But over time, it becomes clear which lines (and whole code libraries) are reused in multiple projects and survive multiple revisions.

> With NFTs and smart contracts, it is now possible to integrate all of the above with a proper compensation mechanism. (...) And if every person gets paid for their contribution, those who are particularly productive or innovative will get paid more than ever. And those who aren't will no longer have a stable salary.

https://www.drorpoleg.com/nfts-and-the-future-of-work/ Открыть/Комментировать