What does content a la carte mean for digital strategy?

We know what it means for consumers - content on demand, binge watching, and having the ability to catch up to the early watchers two seasons in. 

Personally, I like Adam Sterbergh's take on the rise in content on demand: 

From all this chaos, though, one truism about popularity apparently survives: If something is popular, it can’t also be good.

What he means is the broadening democratization of the popularity throne, that a growing number of access to content means a growing number of ways to become "the most popular". Here's an example: NCIS routinely brings in 17 million viewers a week, making it the highest rated non-football program you can find on your cable box. But my Breaking Bad feed, errr I mean, my Twitter feed paints a radically different picture. Last week, AMC's killer hit Breaking Bad pulled in a series record 6.4 million viewers - just a third the viewership of NCIS. But which TV show feels more relevant to you right now? Which TV show feels more popular? 

And if that doesn't surprise you, then maybe Mad Men's 2.5 million viewers a week will. Or the ability for HBO's Girls' to pull in a paltry 615,000 viewers each week.  

Sternbergh brings to light a new paradox. By one measure, Girls plays a weak contender for gaining viewership. But by another measure Girls' season one trailer on YouTube gains over a million views compared to the tally on  NCIS' most recent trailer at 91K views. 

Are we using the wrong metrics? Probably. If Breaking Bad feels more popular, then why don't the ratings numbers reflect that popularity? If Daft Punk's Get Lucky can score a Spotify record breaking 27 million streams the day of the release how can the single not even make it to the top position on Billboard's charts the entire summer? (Hint: The answer is not Blurred Lines).

Does it really matter whether the song is being listened to on a CD or on an online stream?  

According to Kevin Spacey (and truthfully, we all know this) what has always mattered most to the consumer is the content itself. In Spacey's James Mc Taggart Memorial lecture he animates himself into the following line of thought: 

If you are watching a film on your television, is it no longer a film because you're not watching it in the theater? If you watch a TV show on your iPad is it no longer a TV show? The device and length are irrelevant. The labels are useless - except perhaps to agents and managers and lawyers who use these labels to conduct business deals. For kids growing up now there’s no difference watching Avatar on an iPad or watching YouTube on a TV and watching Game of Thrones on their computer. It's all CONTENT. It's all STORY.

The paradox is important because consumers can't be the only ones breaking down categorical walls and this is the problem that Sternbagh, Nielsen, Billboard and others are trying to figure out. 

Even my own venerable employer has invested in the game with Chromecast (and yes, of course, YouTube). Start-up companies like Tugg are bringing that a a la carte luxury to other types of content like big screen movies. Social ranking sites like Klout and Crowdbooster are attempting to orchestrate all of these strands. And marketers are trying to focus more on the audience behind a ranking metric than the ranking itself.

Because when everything's popular by some measure, it's impossible to keep up with everything that's popular.  

The difference between time and bandwidth

I see it all the time in New York. People split days into sections, hours, and ultimately, minutes. One portion of the pie is dedicated to developing a presentation at work and the other slice is set off to the side for a night out with friends. This division of time is the reality of a young professional.

What isn't altogether obvious, however, is the difference between managing time and managing bandwidth. 

 Sendhil Mullainathan best encapsulates this problem in Time magazine:  

When we schedule things, we don’t want to just show up, we want to be effective when we get there. This means we need to manage bandwidth and not just manage time. And this is where things get tricky, because bandwidth does not behave the way time does. Time can be dissected easily: an hour can be cut up in many ways. Fifteen minutes on this memo, a five-minute walk to another meeting, 30 minutes at that meeting and then 10 minutes debriefing. Oh, and maybe a quick phone call on the walk to that meeting. The busy are expert at dissection: that’s how they make it all fit.

...This is the big mistake: we focus on managing time and end up mismanaging bandwidth. Here is another example. An important strategy memo requires two hours to write. As a good time manager, you find the time for it — a one-hour block between two meetings and two half-hour blocks later. But by the time you’re really focused and have got the previous meeting off your mind, your first hour is nearly over. And the other half hours may as well not have been there. Your two hours got you maybe 30 minutes of quality work.

Unfortunately, adopting this philosophy means I'm probably better off saying no more than yes, adding less to my plate and finishing what's on there in the first place. Fortunately, over time we begin to recognize which tasks require plenty of bandwidth. Sendhil buckets tasks into three different categories: tasks that require more or less bandwidth, tasks that tax your bandwidth even when you're not working on them, and tasks that replenish your bandwidth. Divide accordingly.