Jim Colleger has an amazing knack to assemble impressive C-level panelists, this one was no exception. Jim kicked off his "skate to where the puck is" session by asking Dick Harrington how he made the decision to sell Thomson's print divisions at more than $4 billion. Dick noted that he saw that eBay was growing rapidly and was typical of services that were going to kill newspaper classified advertising. But Harrington noted also that in B2B markets Thomson developed technology assets that enabled them to provide workflow-based products and services in a more client-centric approach to enterprise publishing. Thomson Reuters is still a work in progress, but how far it came under Harrington's leadership is impressive.

Andrew Lack of Bloomberg, LP's multimedia group was brought on to help Bloomberg integrate their media assets more effectively. He enjoys not having "analysts crawling up your backside" as being part of a private company, which enables it to look at the cost structure for its 2,000-plus reporters around the world and to repurpose them aggressively for professional audiences through media and enterprise distribution channels. Of course, when Bloomberg's revenues come primarily from its enterprise financial trading services, you have the luxury of looking at media markets with the comfort of stronger financial support than many news media companies face. Lack wants Bloomberg to be "among the most influential news producers in the world," but not with the same profit requirements hanging over their heads that a company such as Dow Jones may face with a far less robust enterprise revenue stream. Lack is planning to take these news assets and focus more on consumer markets, presumably, as I noted earlier in ContentBlogger, to take on Dow Jones' recently consolidated enterprise and media assets more effectively. Lack didn't give too many hints on competing with the WSJ Online "freemium" model, but it's a given that they will have that option based on their strong branding from enterprise markets that appeals to many consumer investors.

David Eun focused on YouTube's relationship to Google's overall mission, seeing video as data that can be connected with audiences. Google takes a long-term view of markets at YouTube, seeing that it would need to be easy to use as the key goal. The growth of YouTube is staggering, with more than a billion views per day, but business models are now a key focus also. This seems to sync in with Ken Auletta's earlier comments about driving more revenues from premium content, and certainly syncs with YouTube's efforts to deliver more premium content via YouTube. It turns out that free is amazing and great, but people like paying for stuff, too.

Mark Anderson of Strategic News Service noted that the concept of value is key to success in content markets, where there is more direct pay for value and less emphasis on ad-supported access. He notes, though, that Google's "fortuitous" implementation of ads as their revenues sources changed everything. Today, kids don't expect to pay for media ever. "That's a long time to wait," Anderson notes. The old world of "I'll tell you what to watch and when to watch it" is gone, though, and the customer's perception of value is in the drivers' seat. There is a generational gap, however, in which more adult people are more willing to pay, be it just general maturity or a generational difference. He believes that these people entering the workforce will be willing to pay for services such as Westlaw (I am not sure that our own research bears that out).

David Eun pointed out, though, that there are many different kinds of value transactions. "The challenge is that most [video] advertising doesn't work, you have to put the right ad in front of the right person at the right time." Eun believes that ads will work, especially if you think of ads as content, and begin to think not just about keyword matches but audience matches. Thinking of Apple's iTunes store, he sees that people are willing to pay for well-designed, convenient services, a concept that should be applicable to other types of content. Lack noted that the model for purchasing music via iTunes is not attractive to most music producers, but with the music industry competing with piracy at the time and seeing its whole model going down the drain rapidly, he was able to corral music publishers into the iTunes platform fairly rapidly. Today, he notes, subscription models have new meaning, in part because of iTunes and other mobile-oriented ecommerce models.

Jim asked if today's Kindles and tablets are actually dedicated terminals in a different packages. Anderson noted that there is a limit as to how many of these devices people will buy. "It's all going to the same place, it's nine inches by seven inches and will do your email." To me, that is a compelling rationale for cost-effective, open source Google Chrome OS devices conquering the tablet markets globally in 2011. Harrington notes, though, that you have to be very vertical, rather than very horizontal, to make money in the content industry today. He's right in an important way, of course, but that's not necessarily a concept that you can tie to a hardware platform: a tablet is not a vertical any more than a Bloomberg terminal is, or was, a vertical. It's the markets that they serve that are verticals, verticals which are increasingly real-time verticals of markets as small as one or a few people in a given moment.

This has been a great panel, though my overall impression is that although most publishers have accepted the reality of digital markets, they have not necessarily accepted their place in them. I agree with Mark Anderson that publishers shouldn't be shy about charging for valuable products and services, but it has to be more than a self-declared artificial scarcity that defines the uniqueness and value of their capabilities. The three billion-plus people empowered as publishers around the world, including businesses that are using content to create transactions on a different level than most publishers do, are competing for the value equation of publishing. What we're talking about emerging is a robust but far more specialized publishing industry which still provides highly valuable content, often on a paid basis, but which recognizes that the world has moved on to an era in which they can no longer dictate platforms arbitrarily and expect to succeed for any significant length of time.