This a tremendous read. Among other thoughts, I was struck by the comments on upper education. Even the big name universities suffer from a lack of proper distinction. From the choice of professors, the selection of students to the style and scope of education, there is a much of a muchness about them. Other than the physical differences (city/countryside, facilities, big/small size), outside reputation and types of alumni, the offer seems rather homogenous. Of course there are differences, but these are too often in the fringe nuance. None is really creating a new category.
Overall, whether it's publishing or education (or branding), there is little viable space between top end and grotty bottom. The middle ground is always a compromise.
When I was running Redken, selling products to hairdressers, I always felt that one of its keys to success (now the #1 professional brand in the US, #2 in the world) was that we also SOLD our services alongside our products. That's to say most other manufacturers were inclined to give away free education (as a "cost of doing business"). Whereas, we made our education paying. If your services are charged, you're obliged to make the value evident. It puts expectations on you. There's always a price for FREE and the price is often mediocrity and flimsy fidelity. [Of course, I'd say that on the other end of the spectrum, radical generosity is a different notion]
Similarly, publishing sites who don't pay their writers and don't charge their readers [nor create a vibrant community] are bound to run themselves out of business in due time. The same can be said of conferences that don't pay their speakers and charge little/nothing to attend.
This a tremendous read. Among other thoughts, I was struck by the comments on upper education. Even the big name universities suffer from a lack of proper distinction. From the choice of professors, the selection of students to the style and scope of education, there is a much of a muchness about them. Other than the physical differences (city/countryside, facilities, big/small size), outside reputation and types of alumni, the offer seems rather homogenous. Of course there are differences, but these are too often in the fringe nuance. None is really creating a new category.
Overall, whether it's publishing or education (or branding), there is little viable space between top end and grotty bottom. The middle ground is always a compromise.
When I was running Redken, selling products to hairdressers, I always felt that one of its keys to success (now the #1 professional brand in the US, #2 in the world) was that we also SOLD our services alongside our products. That's to say most other manufacturers were inclined to give away free education (as a "cost of doing business"). Whereas, we made our education paying. If your services are charged, you're obliged to make the value evident. It puts expectations on you. There's always a price for FREE and the price is often mediocrity and flimsy fidelity. [Of course, I'd say that on the other end of the spectrum, radical generosity is a different notion]
Similarly, publishing sites who don't pay their writers and don't charge their readers [nor create a vibrant community] are bound to run themselves out of business in due time. The same can be said of conferences that don't pay their speakers and charge little/nothing to attend.
I seriously feel like I'm getting a second more relevant MBA by reading this newsletter.
I've seen this movement against social platforms accelerating and it's a good thing.
My content is valuable. I put a lot of thought and work into it and I should be able to reap the benefits from it, financially or socially.
I'm so happy to see that we have the tools to create our own businesses with our creations now!
Fucking amazing article!