The Argument for Limited Content

Note: Read past entries about Live Limited Surprise trend in content here.

Today’s preferred Internet business model leans towards maximizing eyeballs for content and selling ads against that content, and also properly identifying smaller subgroups with targeting ads. We’ve been hearing about subscription-based models for a long time, but with few legitimate examples. Why would the model of limited content for a limited audience emerge? And will the market be willing to pay more for good content, or will it just buy generic large bundles of canned content? I’ll try to answer those challenges below.

Why Would Content Creators Go Limited?

First, in bundled arrangements, individual content providers are not getting paid a fair wage. The middle and lower class of musicians is being crushed by Spotify’s payment structure.  And while I don’t wish to discuss it directly, there was a big story in 2019 about how adult content makers get miniscule amounts for producing content that can be sold and sliced in perpetuity. In addition, while ESPN pays plenty for NBA and MLB top rights, how much is, say, the MAC football conference making by playing on Tuesdays and Thursdays to give ESPN filler content? My argument is that the bundle buffet style of content (whether taped or live) is not working out for most of the content creators in that bundle. I also think that the era of ESPN and Netflix throwing around tons of cash to create such bundles is also under attack. See ESPN’s subscriber decline and Netflix needing to raise prices to pay for content: in the future, it may no longer be possible to merely bundle together enough content to achieve a large enough audience to make profits.

In addition, limited can grow the loyalty of your most dedicated fans. Take as an example sites like Massdrop, which allow the customer to order customized products along with other super fans. The product only happens when enough of us buy in. Why can’t that type of model also apply to content providers? I’ll play a short concert from my little studio and live cast it if at least 200 fans pay $5 each. Those fans also now get the appeal of exclusivity and a hard to match experience. And leaking doesn’t need to be the enemy of the content provider, necessarily: see here for how a small music festival creates more thin-sliced limited content from their hard-to-reach festival. As content creators are given the financial and technical support they need, I predict you’ll see an increase in sporadic limited shows, perhaps even with a bidding model (50 seats only, 50 highest bids get in). And while I admit it’s a very limited example, Wu-Tang Clan’s creation of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin as an album where one (1!) copy was created is an example of how even well-known content creators may go the limited route.

Why Would Content Consumers Accept a Limited Model?

The bundling approach, where I can buy one newspaper or cable subscription and get lots of news, sports, lifestyle, business, and other topics covered, still has a lot of appeal. But there’s a natural cultural force also pushing for limited and against the one-size-fits-all option. I’m old enough to remember the mono-culture, with only a few options available for content. ABC, NBC, CBS, and also FOX were the main sources of content on basic. If you wanted music or politics or sports outside the big three, you had MTV, ESPN, or CNN, but even that was rather limited.

Now, however, as ideologies and preferences harden, why should I watch content providers that cause me ideological distress? I don’t want to watch national commentators disparage my beautiful Cavaliers in the playoffs. No, I want to hear Cavs fan broadcasters tell me how great we are and how it’s not fair that we didn’t win. And indeed, sports providers are increasingly offering multi-channel approaches where you get to choose several different broadcaster options. This slicing will only intensify over time, especially as broadcast technology makes it even more feasible. Some of it will also occur for political and religious reasons. Finally, why should I buy cable just to see my favorite team? What if I could pay on a view-per-game basis instead, and pick which games I wanted to watch? The limited audience model will also come with more options to opt-in or opt-out.

On Enabling Technologies and Future Trends

Now of course, such revenue sources sounds highly variable and complicated to track. Who wants to dig into their wallet for a credit card every time they want to watch a game or hear their favorite musician? Enter Square, Paypal, and Amazon, dedicated to pay processing, and backed by AI to remember your choices and preferences and predict new ones. I believe that the financial backbone needed to support this will further develop.

It’s also possible that the current model of letting everyone consume content for free but then selling ads against that content will implode due to privacy and ethics concerns. I admit I don’t think much of this idea, but it’s a small possibility.

We’re already seeing versions of a limited model between The Athletic and Patreon, but both still have some version of a “Pay for many things at once” and/or “Pay for a long time period of access” model. I think that such sites will come closer and closer to allowing users to pay for one small piece of content at a time. I also believe that, say, non-sports fans forced to subsidize ESPN’s high costs in cable will increasingly rebel, wanting only to pay for what they actually want. Disney has kept unbundling at bay for now, but Sling and others veer ever closer to a pay per channel model. And so I do argue that we may yet see a more limited approach to content, more closely tailored and mapped to each customer’s preferences.