Among the buzzwords out of the recent industry trade shows has been the phrase, “The customer is king.” In some circles, that has even nudged aside the long-held belief that “content is king.”
As a content play, we, of course, are partial to the latter. But regardless of which phrase has pre-eminence, a simmering debate relates to both.
As our In-Depth notes this week, many people are grappling with questions such as, Who holds the rights to future content? Who serves as the true gatekeeper? And, what measures will be taken to protect those rights? The debates will only get more heated and complicated as time progresses.
Time and again, we hear concern from property holders, rights holders, or those associated with key brands or athletes who float out concerns about rights management, but at the same time question the best ways to exploit those rights and the best entity to use to reach mass potential.
Is a popular coach of a university or pro team a free agent when it comes to starting their own online portal? Or, does the school or team control such inventory? Should television partners have limitless or limited access to that coach’s show and programming? Should the coach or the university or the team have total control of that access and resulting content, or does it lie with the individual?
And, to drill down to more of a consumer level, if a fan uses a video camera at the Daytona 500 and posts that content on his Web site, who owns that?
These content elements seemingly have value. They draw viewers and users. Therefore, they should be able to be monetized. But by whom, and how?
As noted in our In-Depth, the debate pits personal and civic rights against commercial rights, and it will likely only grow more contentious as technology advances and appetite for this content continues to grow.
