As a venture investor in internet companies, I look for technology-based innovation which causes major disruption among incumbents. Since advertising is the dominant business model for most of the web, I think a lot about these technologies and their impact on the future. Clearly the new devices we use to access information and entertainment are wreaking havoc on traditional business models based around ad sales. But I think the biggest change is the way new modes of consumption are forcing the unbundling of packaged media across a wide spectrum of industries.
In music, the carrier format shifted many times, from vinyl to cassette to 8-Track to CD to MP3. In all but the last shift, the content owners controlled the format changes. Along the way, largely driven by the allure of bundling economics, record labels started packaging songs together in albums rather than selling them individually as singles. This allowed the unit price to go up 3x – 6x. If singles cost $2 – $3, records cost $12 – $18. Consumer went along with it.
But as digital emerged, the labels were faced with a harsh reality: over the decades, consumers began to prefer singles. There was no economical way to get them, so we bought full albums to get the 1-2 songs we really wanted. We wanted the album unbundled, but we had no choice. With the emergence of alternative distribution (like Napster and then iTunes many years later), the latent demand for singles was unearthed and havoc ensued.
It was havoc because the labels had not prepared a business model or cost-structure for the unbundling of the record. They had grown accustomed to higher-margin and higher unit-priced albums. We started to witness the unbundling of media. And it took the record industry more than 5 years to offer digital singles for sale legally. Now, music industry total revenues are down more than 50% since their peak in 1999, and continue to fall every year. The biggest culprit is not piracy, it is the fact that consumers, when they buy music, are buying 10% of what they used to, because they only need to buy the single, not the album.
In print, newspapers and magazines have taken a bundled approach for decades. It is impractical to pay for editorial content by the article. Bundling articles into convenient formats like newspapers and magazines solved a distribution challenge and made the economics of selling editorial possible. Once editorial went digital and we could consume information by the article simply by following a link, the unbundling began. Today it is still impractical to charge consumers by the article, so newspapers are trying to convince us to subscribe to digital bundles.
But as it was with music, it is getting harder and harder to imagine this model holding for the vast majority of editorial we consume, since we are discovering more often what to read by following a link passed to us through social media. It might be from The New York Times, but it also might be from Reason Magazine or The Nation or Huffington Post. In looking back at the totality of the editorial media we consume online these days, I imagine it is from a far more diverse group of sources than in the past, making it harder and harder to justify these monthly subscriptions to bundled media, despite the model of metered access being touted the latest great hope for print pubs.
I believe the same unbundling is now happening to traditional and cable TV networks. For decades we watched networks. They made judgement calls about what shows we would like, and we had little choice, so we watched them. The economics of cable TV networks are fantastic (with their dual advertising and subscription revenue streams), so more and more of them popped up. But thanks to DVRs, and now internet video, we stopped watching networks and now only watch shows. We don’t even care on which networks they appear, nor do we tend to know. This is the unbundling of television. And if consumers could only pay for the shows they watch and not the 500 channels times 22 hours per day of other programming I pay for but never see, we’d spend a LOT less on TV than we do know, and the total subscription revenues of cable networks would crumble. Until we have real choice among digital distributors, this is not likely to happen. And the powerful forces of TV networks are working very hard to make sure we must be paying them even if we are watching shows online somewhere else (read more about TV Anywhere here.)
My observation is that unbundled media results in smaller markets than bundled media by artificially inflating total revenues. Some will say, “if you only bought (TV shows, newspaper articles) individually, you’d have to pay (10x, 100x) what you are paying now.” That is only true if you assume the cost structures must stay the same. And when media is unbundled, the cost structures do NOT stay the same. They are forced to radically alter themselves and become more in line with what the market is willing to pay to consume those atomized bits of content. We won’t pay $120 per TV episode. We’re willing to pay something closer to $2 per episode, and so production costs are going to have to fall dramatically. Mobile devices and the social web are accelerating the unbundling of media. This is the great disruptor.

David, a timely post. I just returned from the EPCA conference in Amsterdam where bankers and payment professionals discussed the new business models including digital content/virtual goods transactions.
As shown by the presenters, there is a significant number of new technologies to support content monetization, safely cheaply, in real time; however, very few takers on the part of the media and/or banks and payment processing firms. Nearly everyone seems to be in the “wait and see” mode, while the cost of (lost) opportunity reaches billions.
During one of the workshops about mobile on-demand payments (good also for digital content) of the 30 or 40 decision-makers in the audience only 2 (two!) had a smart phone and were familiar with NFC (sic) Draw your own conclusion.
David, as a media professional now for 20+ years, I have watched much of this unbundling. Your post puts it into great historical perspective. As it relates to “television”, I believe this inflection point could actually open the door for a new birth of creativity amongst those on the creative side. For example, I like what I am seeing from folks like those at Believe Entertainment are doing with programs like The LeBrons – incorporating sponsorship, using “broadcast” platforms like You Tube, and driving viewership leveraging LeBron’s social media following.
[...] reading this, please read this blog post from David Pakman which succinctly describes “unbundling” in the music business and what that means for [...]
[...] friend David Pakman wrote a great piece on “unbundling” last week, describing how music was unbundled and what that means for media in general. It was [...]
Great article! I’m dying to unbundle my cable tv subscription as our family consumes most of our video via Netflix and iTunes. If it weren’t for a couple of interesting tv shows and sports, we’d get rid of cable tv….which makes us frustrated consumers in search of better alternatives.
Hi David,
What do you think about The Daily from News Corp? It seems that News Corp are re-bundling the content. Compared to Zite and Flipboard, The Daily is a vertical integration of proprietary assets. Do you think The Daily will become the standard for online newspaper(it seems that the subscription dropped a lot since its launch)?
Ke
Hi Ke, thanks for your comments. I believe the future of online “journalism” media is closer to the HuffPo model than The Daily model. Strong brands (NYT, Economist, The New Yorker) will have little trouble being vertical and getting people to subscribe to an app. Brands delivering largely proprietary commodity news content get quickly disrupted as news is atomized and shared. For news, I think building personalized, aggregator tools is a better approach. If The Daily builds a strong brand for itself, it is possible to build a loyal following. I just don’t see that happening yet.
I actually don’t think that NetFlix model of aggregation is sustainable. They are beginning to look more and more like a channel – and treated as such by content owners limiting the availability of content that’s available to them for streaming. They will either have to start charging extra for some of the content, or they won’t have everything included in the subscription.
I don’t agree. Netflix is killing it right now and are gaining FAR more content than they are losing. Their model forces some new economics on the studios, who don’t like it very much, but them’s the breaks.
Looking again at this comment 10 months later, it looks like Aleks was right…
People should be allowed to choose what they want instead of listening and watching loads of rubbish that’s been ‘bundled’ in to jack up the price of the good stuff.
[...] die ‘het’ wel waren was er immers niet. In een tweetal uiterst interessante blogposts, The Unbundling of Media en The Unbundling (and Re-Bundling) of Music wordt beschreven hoe de cd als medium tekortschiet en [...]
[...] social animals, we want to discover and share music, and external forces are working in concert to unbundle all types of media. These forces helped produce services like Grooveshark and Rdio, new [...]
[...] is now possibly becoming less appealing as different providers (e.g. Pandora, Spotify) seek to unbundle these benefits to deliver a more limited offering but one that serves better particular customer [...]