Content is king. Content is 27% king. Stephdokin TCELab OnAPage

In 1996, Bill Gates predicted “Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting.”

“Content is King,” has become the battle cry of a generation of inbound marketers, content publishers, graphic designers and social media gurus. Mr. Gates was wicked right when he said that in 1996. I went searching for his famous article the other day, and it inspired me so wanted to share. Interestingly, Microsoft has taken it down from their archives on their site, but I found it nonetheless. The entire article is below.

As a marketer, I love content. Clever content by companies to market their wares can entertain, educate, and engage. It helps to close sales. It helps to define customer relationships. So, in terms of inbound marketing, content IS king.

But the content to which Bill Gates refers isn’t king. Those that make the content STILL don’t make as much as the broadcasters. Let me explain.

It’s been 17 years since Bill wrote this article. Let’s reflect a moment on how correct Mr. Gates was by using Market Cap as our measurement.

The market caps of the content makers? Disney is the largest entertainment company on the Fortune 500. The combined total of the top three content maker market caps is $202B:

  • • Disney: $91B
  • • News Corp: $65B
  • • Time Warner: $46B

By comparison, we have “broadcaster” companies like Google and Facebook. Google does have lots of content, but, really, they make their money as a broadcaster of other people’s content. Facebook distributes our personal content for us.

I also consider Apple a broadcaster. Apple makes tons of content, but they have an end-2-end ecosystem of devices that gives them a very large and robust closed broadcasting viewing audience. The multiple in their market cap is not because of their content, but because of this broadcasting system they’ve architected that allows them to distribute other people’s content.

The total market cap of these three broadcasters is $762B:

  • • Apple: $458B
  • • Google: $238B
  • • Facebook: $66B

Thus, broadcasters are actually 2.7 times the king that content is ($762B vs. $202B). In other words, content is a 27% king (as measured against the broadcasters).

This actually makes me sad. In the case of mobile apps, it makes me furious – the content (i.e. the apps themselves) is what makes platforms successful, and mobile developers, except for a very few, make less than the poverty line. I think content SHOULD BE king, and content makers SHOULD be making AT LEAST an equal share of the revenues floating around. I think we, as an industry, need to sort that out sooner rather than later.

And, I think it’s happening. In the latest instance when Instagram (Facebook) tried to misappropriate it’s users hipster photos for advertising without paying them, the content makers went crazy (of which I was one). Instagram rescinded on it’s decision. Yay for the content makers.

Which brings us to Microsoft.

Ironically, it is Bill Gate’s startup, Microsoft, which perhaps didn’t read his article as much as they should have. Microsoft has historically been a strong content provider and a broadcaster through it’s Windows operating systems. But, as we all know with Windows 8, has really just started the long journey to build the same type of content/broadcasting end-2-end ecosystem that Apple and Google have created.

Microsoft’s current market cap $226B. That is a minus 16% loss in market cap ($44B) since last January. That’s almost $4B a month. At this rate, Microsoft has about 14 months to go before they reach their 5-year market cap low posted in Dec 2008 of $172B. Go, Windows 8, Go.

Personally, I hope Windows 8 does take off, even though I’m a Google fan-boy. It’s always good to have another broadcaster paying the content makers.


Content Is King – Bill Gates (1/3/1996)

Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting.

The television revolution that began half a century ago spawned a number of industries, including the manufacturing of TV sets, but the long-term winners were those who used the medium to deliver information and entertainment.

When it comes to an interactive network such as the Internet, the definition of “content” becomes very wide. For example, computer software is a form of content-an extremely important one, and the one that for Microsoft will remain by far the most important.

But the broad opportunities for most companies involve supplying information or entertainment. No company is too small to participate.

One of the exciting things about the Internet is that anyone with a PC and a modem can publish whatever content they can create. In a sense, the Internet is the multimedia equivalent of the photocopier. It allows material to be duplicated at low cost, no matter the size of the audience.

The Internet also allows information to be distributed worldwide at basically zero marginal cost to the publisher. Opportunities are remarkable, and many companies are laying plans to create content for the Internet.

For example, the television network NBC and Microsoft recently agreed to enter the interactive news business together. Our companies will jointly own a cable news network, MSNBC, and an interactive news service on the Internet. NBC will maintain editorial control over the joint venture.

I expect societies will see intense competition-and ample failure as well as success-in all categories of popular content-not just software and news, but also games, entertainment, sports programming, directories, classified advertising, and on-line communities devoted to major interests.

Printed magazines have readerships that share common interests. It’s easy to imagine these communities being served by electronic online editions.

But to be successful online, a magazine can’t just take what it has in print and move it to the electronic realm. There isn’t enough depth or interactivity in print content to overcome the drawbacks of the online medium.

If people are to be expected to put up with turning on a computer to read a screen, they must be rewarded with deep and extremely up-to-date information that they can explore at will. They need to have audio, and possibly video. They need an opportunity for personal involvement that goes far beyond that offered through the letters-to-the-editor pages of print magazines.

A question on many minds is how often the same company that serves an interest group in print will succeed in serving it online. Even the very future of certain printed magazines is called into question by the Internet.

For example, the Internet is already revolutionizing the exchange of specialized scientific information. Printed scientific journals tend to have small circulations, making them high-priced. University libraries are a big part of the market. It’s been an awkward, slow, expensive way to distribute information to a specialized audience, but there hasn’t been an alternative.

Now some researchers are beginning to use the Internet to publish scientific findings. The practice challenges the future of some venerable printed journals.

Over time, the breadth of information on the Internet will be enormous, which will make it compelling. Although the gold rush atmosphere today is primarily confined to the United States, I expect it to sweep the world as communications costs come down and a critical mass of localized content becomes available in different countries.

For the Internet to thrive, content providers must be paid for their work. The long-term prospects are good, but I expect a lot of disappointment in the short-term as content companies struggle to make money through advertising or subscriptions. It isn’t working yet, and it may not for some time.

So far, at least, most of the money and effort put into interactive publishing is little more than a labor of love, or an effort to help promote products sold in the non-electronic world. Often these efforts are based on the belief that over time someone will figure out how to get revenue.

In the long run, advertising is promising. An advantage of interactive advertising is that an initial message needs only to attract attention rather than convey much information. A user can click on the ad to get additional information-and an advertiser can measure whether people are doing so.

But today the amount of subscription revenue or advertising revenue realized on the Internet is near zero-maybe $20 million or $30 million in total. Advertisers are always a little reluctant about a new medium, and the Internet is certainly new and different.

Some reluctance on the part of advertisers may be justified, because many Internet users are less-than-thrilled about seeing advertising. One reason is that many advertisers use big images that take a long time to download across a telephone dial-up connection. A magazine ad takes up space too, but a reader can flip a printed page rapidly.

As connections to the Internet get faster, the annoyance of waiting for an advertisement to load will diminish and then disappear. But that’s a few years off.

Some content companies are experimenting with subscriptions, often with the lure of some free content. It’s tricky, though, because as soon as an electronic community charges a subscription, the number of people who visit the site drops dramatically, reducing the value proposition to advertisers.

A major reason paying for content doesn’t work very well yet is that it’s not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate.

But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel, you won’t be writing a check or getting a bill in the mail for a nickel. You’ll just click on what you want, knowing you’ll be charged a nickel on an aggregated basis.

This technology will liberate publishers to charge small amounts of money, in the hope of attracting wide audiences.

Those who succeed will propel the Internet forward as a marketplace of ideas, experiences, and products-a marketplace of content.


This article is copyright © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.