Canada 3.0 & The Collapse of Complex Business Models

If you haven’t already, I strongly encourage everyone to go read Clay Shirky’s The Collapse of Complex Business Models. I just read it while finishing up this piece and it articulates much of what underpins it in the usual brilliant Shirky manner.

I’ve been reflecting a lot on Canada 3.0 (think SXSWi meets government and big business) since the conference’s end. I want to open by saying there were a number of positive highlights. I came away with renewed respect and confidence in the CRTC. My sense is net neutrality and other core internet issues are well understood and respected by the people I spoke with. Moreover, I was encouraged by what some public servants had to say regarding their vision for Canada’s digital economy. In many corners there were some key people who seemed to understand what policy, legal and physical infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure Canada’s future success.

But these moments aside, the more I reflect on the conference the more troubled I feel. I can’t claim to have attended every session but I did attend a number and my main conclusion is striking: Canada 3.0 was not a conference primarily about Canada’s digital future. Canada 3.0 was a conference about Canada’s digital commercial future. Worse, this meant the conference failed on two levels. Firstly, it failed because people weren’t trying to imagine a digital future that would serve Canadians as creators, citizens and contributors to the internet and what this would mean to commerce, democracy and technology. Instead, my sense was that the digital future largely being contemplated was one where Canadians consumed services over the internet. This, frankly, is the least important and interesting part of the internet. Designing a digital strategy for companies is very different than designing one for Canadians.

But, secondly, even when judged in commercial terms, the conference, in my mind, failed. This is not because the wrong people were there, or that the organizers and participants were not well-intentioned. Far from it. Many good and many necessary people were in attendance (at least as one could expect when hosting it in Stratford).

No, the conference’s main problem was that, at the core of many conversations lay an untested assumption: That we can manage the transition of broadcast media (by this I mean movies, books, newspaper & magazines, television) as well as other industries from an (a) broadcast economy to a (b) networked/digital economy. Consequently, the central business and policy challenge is how do we help these businesses survive this transitionary period and get “b” happening asap so that the new business models work.

But the key assumption is that the institutions – private and public – that were relevant in the broadcast economy can transition. Or that the future will allow for a media industry that we could even recognize. While I’m open to the possibility that some entities may make it, I’m more convinced that most will not. Indeed, it isn’t even clear that a single traditional business model, even radically adapted, can adjust to a network world.

What no one wants to suggest is that we may not be managing a transition. We may be managing death.

The result: a conference that doesn’t let those who have let go of the past roam freely. Instead they must lug around all the old modes like a ball and chain.

Indeed, one case in point was listening to managers of the Government of Canada’s multimedia fund share how, to get funding, a creator would need to partner with a traditional broadcaster. To be clear, if you want to kill content, give it to a broadcaster, they’ll play it once or twice, then put it in a vault and one will ever see it again. Furthermore, a broadcaster has all the infrastructure, processes and overhead that make them unworkable and unprofitable in the online era. Why saddle someone new with all this? Ultimately this is a program designed to create failures and worse, pollute the minds of emerging multimedia artists with all sorts of broadcast baggage. All in the belief that it will help bridge the transition. It won’t.

The ugly truth is that just like the big horse buggy makers didn’t survive the transition to the automobile, or that many of the creators of large complex mainframe computers didn’t survive the arrival of the personal computer, our traditional media environment is loaded with the walking dead. Letting them control the conversation, influence policy and shape the agenda is akin to asking horse drawn carriage makers write the rules for the automobile era. But this is exactly what we are doing. The copyright law, the pillar of this next economy, is being written not by the PMO, but by the losers of the last economy. Expect it to slow our development down dramatically.

And that’s why Canada 3.0 isn’t about planning for 3.0 at all. More like trying to save 1.0.

16 thoughts on “Canada 3.0 & The Collapse of Complex Business Models

  1. David Billson

    Hi David – You summed up our thoughts nicely. We had a team meeting yesterday and this was exactly the conclusion we came to as well. I will be posting some thoughts on last years conference vs. this year's – it seems like this years had a set agenda.

    Reply
  2. Ryan Nadel

    @billson well, it clearly did have a set agenda, responding to the industry canada discussion paper. @eaves one clarification about the media funding, i assume you are referring to the new structure of the canada media fund – the way it works now is there are two streams an experimental fund for purely 'new media' projects and the convergent fund which requires traditional broadcasters to have 'new media' components to content. so, in fact i think it's doing a really good job of spurring traditional broadcasters and also providing a pure space for digital creators.

    Reply
  3. Derek Martin

    I didn't attend the conference, but I'd hoped it was a good one. After reading this, all I can say is: “Ohhhhhh maaaaaaaaaaaaan”You hint at an idea with amazing potential, though: Government sponsored Bloggers. Talk about pushing “CanCon”. Sponsoring a gaggle of Douglas-Copeland-esque bloggers would be money amazingly well spent.

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Reactions to Canada 3.0: A blog of…blogs « CDMN

  5. mjr

    As an ex-pat Canuck, I can only but nod my head in complete accord with your findings. It is not surprising to me that chasing the buck would hold more appeal to Canadian biz and gov rather than the ideas of everyman as content creator and netizen. I left 25 years ago and now work as an Enterprise 2.0 community manager for a global publisher in London, England. I'm working to empower employees as content creators in the workplace. Now that's satisfying.

    Reply
  6. Pravin Pillay

    An extremely useful post on organizational complexity and impulse to bureaucracy in the ecosystem in which many traditional Media makers find themselves – I'll take this thread up to Media that Matters up at Hollyhock. #mtmnet

    Reply
  7. Pingback: rtraction – London, Ontario – Web Design, Web Development and Strategic Consulting » Blog Archive » Moving Beyond Canada 3.0

  8. John Jantunen

    A little, uh, confused here. There was no mention of content in your review of the conference. Typically, Canadians have had rather lacklustre success in producing any worth the grant it was made with. How did the conference address this sorry state? And consumption as the least important (?) and least interesting part of the web? Next you'll be saying that we aren't living in the great cash grab and that all these people sitting behind there screens are making the world a better place (even as it falls apart outside their very windows). Can't blame the hammer, friend, for missing the nail.

    Reply
  9. Pingback: David Eaves nails Canada 3.0 and Canada’s rear-view-mirror digital strategy | Wirelessnorth.ca

  10. Pingback: Canada 3.0v2 impressions « Who You Calling a Jesse?

  11. Anthony Wilkinson

    I agree completely – my takeaways from this conference is: creative digital media in Canada is withering on the vine due to a lack of capital and support. The government feels the need to support traditional broadcast models and not web-based startups.

    Reply
  12. Anthony Wilkinson

    I agree completely – my takeaways from this conference is: creative digital media in Canada is withering on the vine due to a lack of capital and support. The government feels the need to support traditional broadcast models and not web-based startups.

    Reply
  13. Pingback: A Response to a Ottawa Gov 2.0 Skeptic | eaves.ca

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s