>>>Actually, the distribution model was very efficient - it delivered everywhere, didn't it?
>>
>>
>>But it delivered in one direction.
>>
>>And it only delivered 4 to 200 channels streamed on a schedule, instead of billions of websites with content waiting for you.
>>
>>The interactivity and pure scope of the new model is what sets it apart.
>
>And the efficiency of being able to target highly specialized markets. There may be only 100,000 people in the world who would subscribe to a weekly program on rebuilding Harley Davidson engines for 10c a week, but if you can reach them all you have an economically viable reason to do the show. A magazine etc. couldn't survive - not because the market isn't there but because the costs of production and the means of distribution are inherently inefficient.


That's true, but the need to publicize and market one's products is not going to go away. Just chucking something out there onto the internet where millions of people can see it doesn't guarantee anyone is going to. The music industry, which has been transformed as much as any other business, is a good example. Anyone with a microphone and a broadband connection can put their music out. It still has to be noticed. That part hasn't gotten much easier than it ever was.