White Paper - KAE · PDF fileDisruptive innovation in the creative industries | Keith Jopling 2 We’ve got five years In David Bowie’s 1971 song Five Years, the closing couplet

White Paper

Disruptive innovation in the creative industries: killer questions from key industry playersKeith Jopling, Senior Vice President at KAE Marketing Intelligence Limited

Disruptive innovation in the creative industries| Keith Jopling

1

Disruptive innovation in the creative industries: killer questions from key industry playersOn 23 February 2015 around 40 senior executives shared a room with students from Henley Business School’s MBA for Music and Creative Industries, to try and dissect the real meaning of the words ‘disruptive innovation’. Even more importantly, the theme for the day was how to manage for disruption, from the point of view of both disruptor start-ups and the disrupted, incumbent market leaders.

We were joined throughout the day by eminent speakers from the creative and media sectors for a series of thought-provoking talks. Even better, each one came with a specific ‘real’ question about disruption, which they posed to the delegates after they had spoken.

The day was facilitated by Henley Business School’s Professor of Strategy and Innovation Management, George Tovstiga and by strategic marketing consultancy KAE’s Senior Vice President of Strategy, Keith Jopling.

The speakers and their disruption questions were as follows:

Matt Wilkinson, Head of Brands, Mirriad

On strategy vs operations for disruptors:

‘How can disruptors balance strategy and operations when in high-growth execution mode?’

Will Page, Director of Economics, Spotify

On partnering between incumbent and disruptor:

‘How can large incumbents be encouraged to shift their mindset about openness and partnership, when this approach is so natural to disruptors?’

Simon Presswell, entertainment and media executive

On keeping up with changing consumer behaviours and expectations for incumbents:

‘Are consumers tomorrow’s disruptors? Should content owners license OTT providers – like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu – or should they keep their own channels?’

Ben Drury, CSO, 7digital

On disruptive innovation in the music industry:

‘Is the current state of play the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?’


2

We’ve got five years

In David Bowie’s 1971 song Five Years, the closing couplet states:

‘We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot We’ve got five years, that’s all we’ve got.’

Thus, in typical fashion, with a 44-year advantage, Bowie was able to visualise the predicament of the world’s media executives circa 2015.

Take music. In just five years, the landscape of how we consume music has changed for good. In the music industry, the well known disruptor is Spotify. Now very much a household name, Spotify crashed into the music world in 2009. It grew at breakneck speed against the prevailing trend of falling music sales, with a slick music app and a well thought-out business model.

Spotify is a marvel. What it delivers to its customers is truly miraculous, but its ability to pull it all off in a business with notoriously high barriers to entry (music rights is a complex and expensive proposition) is even more remarkable.

Before Spotify of course, came Apple’s iTunes. Launched in 2004, iTunes was the primary source of music sales in the US by 2009 – again disrupting the market within five years.

This is what real disruption does. It forces us to ask the most primal questions about marketplaces. Why on earth do music fans need to buy records anymore?

Because of disruption, we’re asking the same questions in travel (what do travel agents do?), telecoms (why do we need a landline?), publishing (why do we need physical books, or why pay for the news?) and soon enough it will be banking, buying houses and so on.

However, given the violence of its effect on businesses and consumer lifestyles, relatively little is known about how to cope with disruption – or how to manage for it. What strategies are advised and how should they be executed? What sort of business response is most effective? What sort of leadership capabilities are required, and how are they mobilised effectively in order to capture new opportunities brought about by disruptors? It’s a blind spot for many business leaders at the moment but, as an area of expertise, it will need to develop massively over the next few years.

Any incumbent business needing to grasp the impact of disruption (from pay TV providers to radio brands, from banks to insurers) are encouraged to hark Bowie’s insight and to visualise how things will be in five years; where will they fit into the picture? Make the assumption that market forces will reach their inevitable conclusion over the five-year timeframe – how will you be relevant once these market forces have played out?

Brains will hurt a lot.

(Keith Jopling, Senior Vice President, KAE)


3

Setting the scene: why the creative industries are a playground for disruptionTo set the scene, Professor George Tovstiga mapped out the disruption challenge as a trichotomy:

managing – implies deliberate, purposeful action

disruption – implies chaos, destruction, disorganisation, breaking up

innovation – implies unpredictability, serendipity, novelty

In managing for disruption, the first fundamental challenge is to grasp how to shape management’s ability to understand, accept, cope with and respond to the more violent forms of innovation happening these days. Does this trichotomy pose an opportunity or a threat?

The second challenge – for incumbents in particular – is to realise what is really happening. George posed the opening questions of ‘Who are your disruptors?’ and ‘What makes them disruptive?’

Research carried out in advance of the event suggested that most of the audience (the majority from music, film, TV and other creative sectors, but some from financial services as well) were very much coming to terms with disruptive market dynamics – with around half viewing disruption as opportunity, not threat.

However, the research also suggested that specific understanding of where disruptive forces are most present in their respective markets was varied. The research findings were linked to the unique competing space, a spatial representation of the new, disruptive value offering. Findings of the research indicated that while delegates focused on different boundaries of the unique competing space affected by disruption, such as concerns about new competition arising and evolving market needs, the greatest shared source of concern focused on the firm’s ability to respond appropriately to that disruption. Figure 1 Unique competing space

Industry/market context

Evolving market needsCompetitors’

offerings

Firm’s competitive

basis

Unique competing

space

New value proposition: where the firm fulfils

market needs in ways that competitors cannot

3

1 2

(Tovstiga, 2013)


4

In closing, George reviewed two elements key to understanding the competitive impact of disruption:1 irreversible changes to the new value proposition at the core of the

disruption2 the corresponding business model describing its operationalisation

While the value proposition was shown to correlate with the unique competing space established by the disruptive value offering, the business model was shown to be appropriately captured by Osterwalder’s business model canvas (see Figure 2). Once the speakers got going, we revisited the business model canvas after each disruption question to see where the pressure points were in each case and to see how prioritisation and organisational focus could become useful in dealing with strategic questions and challenges.

At the end of each Disruption question in this paper, under ‘In KAE’s experience’, Keith Jopling shares his experience as Senior Vice President of Strategy at KAE in consideration of the relevant issues.

Figure 2 Osterwalder’s business model canvas

(Strategyzer AG, 2014)

Disruption question 1: strategy vs operations for disruptors‘How can disruptors balance strategy and operations when in high-growth execution mode?’Launched in 2008 with a mission to revolutionise advertising, Mirriad’s patented computer vision technology has created a new format for advertising. Through dynamic insertion technology, Mirriad integrates products, signage, video and other forms of branded assets into professionally produced video content. The company claims that brands are twice as likely to be ‘top of mind’ with consumers watching its ‘native’ in-video ads than comparable pre-roll spots.

Mirriad’s Head of Brand, Matt Wilkinson, gave an overview of the company’s journey from launch to the present, and spoke in particular about the

The Business Model Canvas

Revenue Streams

Channels

Customer SegmentsValue PropositionsKey ActivitiesKey Partners

Key Resources

Cost Structure

Customer Relationships

Designed by: Date: Version:Designed for:

DesigneD by: Business Model Foundry AGThe makers of Business Model Generation and Strategyzer

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

What are the most important costs inherent in our business model? Which Key Resources are most expensive? Which Key Activities are most expensive?

is your business moreCost Driven (leanest cost structure, low price value proposition, maximum automation, extensive outsourcing)Value Driven (focused on value creation, premium value proposition)

sample characteristicsFixed Costs (salaries, rents, utilities)Variable costsEconomies of scaleEconomies of scope

Through which Channels do our Customer Segments want to be reached? How are we reaching them now?How are our Channels integrated? Which ones work best?Which ones are most cost-efficient? How are we integrating them with customer routines?

channel phases1. Awareness

How do we raise awareness about our company’s products and services?2. Evaluation

How do we help customers evaluate our organization’s Value Proposition?3. Purchase

How do we allow customers to purchase specific products and services?4. Delivery

How do we deliver a Value Proposition to customers?5. After sales

How do we provide post-purchase customer support?

For what value are our customers really willing to pay?For what do they currently pay? How are they currently paying? How would they prefer to pay? How much does each Revenue Stream contribute to overall revenues?

For whom are we creating value?Who are our most important customers?

Mass MarketNiche MarketSegmentedDiversifiedMulti-sided Platform

What type of relationship does each of our Customer Segments expect us to establish and maintain with them?Which ones have we established? How are they integrated with the rest of our business model?How costly are they?

examplesPersonal assistanceDedicated Personal AssistanceSelf-ServiceAutomated ServicesCommunitiesCo-creation

What Key Activities do our Value Propositions require?Our Distribution Channels? Customer Relationships?Revenue streams?

catergoriesProductionProblem SolvingPlatform/Network

What Key Resources do our Value Propositions require?Our Distribution Channels? Customer Relationships?Revenue Streams?

types of resourcesPhysicalIntellectual (brand patents, copyrights, data)HumanFinancial

Who are our Key Partners? Who are our key suppliers?Which Key Resources are we acquairing from partners?Which Key Activities do partners perform?

motivations for partnershipsOptimization and economy Reduction of risk and uncertaintyAcquisition of particular resources and activities

What value do we deliver to the customer?Which one of our customer’s problems are we helping to solve? What bundles of products and services are we offering to each Customer Segment?Which customer needs are we satisfying?

characteristicsNewnessPerformanceCustomization“Getting the Job Done”DesignBrand/StatusPriceCost ReductionRisk ReductionAccessibilityConvenience/Usability

typesAsset saleUsage feeSubscription FeesLending/Renting/LeasingLicensingBrokerage feesAdvertising

fixeD pricingList PriceProduct feature dependentCustomer segment dependentVolume dependent

Dynamic pricingNegotiation (bargaining)Yield ManagementReal-time-Market

strategyzer.com

Key partners Key activities Value proposition

Customer relationships

Customer segments

ChannelsKey resources

Cost structure Revenue streams


5

company’s latest major deal with Havas Media. This deal enables Mirriad access to the entire Havas network of agencies, with the potential to feature its native video advertising across a very wide range of brand video properties. More pointedly, this is a big deal for Mirriad – its biggest so far in terms of revenue and resource commitment. Thus comes Matt’s killer question.

Disruptors cannot know how long it will take to gain the critical mass needed to provide the platform for sustainable market growth. Mirriad has entered its eighth year of operation in 2015 and its founders and investors are naturally keen to take on bigger, global deals. However, with this territory come major resource headaches, round-the-clock working and the rapid scaling up of both people and business infrastructure (for example, the capability to track and measure the performance of its campaigns for the Havas network).

How can Mirriad keep on track with its long-term strategy and plan for growth, while at the same time fulfilling the huge operational commitment of its new deal?

The question is a fundamental one for start-ups and disruptors. When such a big deal comes along, who can say no? Mirriad’s board evaluated the pros and cons carefully and chose to do the deal, but what did delegates think of this choice and how would they consider a similar dilemma?

Audience responseMuch discussion amongst the delegate groups centred on the nature of the deal (some of which was undisclosed), with the overriding sentiment being that Mirriad needed to carefully ensure that the deal was aligned with its longer term strategy.

In Matt’s talk, he had made a bold statement that Mirriad had no competitors – true as far as we know – but this was challenged by the audience in the context of the deal. If Mirriad had tied itself to the deal with Havas exclusively, could competitors come along with a more ‘open’ technology and attract a wider global base of agency or brand clients?

In fact, the deal is non-exclusive. Ultimately, most thought that the deal was the right thing to do and that Mirriad’s only real concern was how to recruit the right people into the business as it grows.

On Osterwalder’s business model canvas, the crunch areas for Mirriad were clear: customer relationships and key resources (see Figure 3).

‘We (the exec team) had to carefully evaluate the deal to make sure the company could deliver the high growth opportunity.’Matt Wilkinson


6

Figure 3 Business model canvas – Mirriad’s pressure points


In KAE’s experienceAs a marketing consultancy, the words ‘we are about to go into planning’ from a client strike us with dread. This can mean several months of key contacts going to ground, with decision-making entering limbo. Most planning cycles are unhealthy in today’s fast-moving digital markets, and could be reduced radically. Making strategy and planning shorter and part of everyday action, experiments and decision science has to be the way forward. For reflective-thinking time away from the cut-and-thrust, just a few carefully managed senior team awaydays could suffice. The challenge is different for disruptors, who may be moving so fast there is no planning being done at all. But uncontrolled growth will lead to problems down the line. Perhaps the biggest required change is cultural, with successful disruptors needing to recognise that, within as little as five years, they will become the defending incumbents. As such, strategic planning becomes a necessity not a luxury.

Disruption question 2: partnering between incumbent and disruptor‘How can large incumbents be encouraged to shift the mindset about openness and partnership, when this approach is so natural to disruptors?’Spotify needs little introduction these days (see Box 1, above), and in the field of ‘data as entertainment’, nor does its Director of Economics, Will Page. Will joined the company in 2012 to focus on data relationships, internal-facing business decisions and external-facing industry thought leadership.

Will’s talk centred on Spotify’s partnerships, primarily with BBC Radio 1 and BBC Playlister. The BBC Playlister app on Spotify, launched in October 2013, enables music fans to enjoy BBC music content from across the broadcaster’s biggest presenters, radio and TV shows.


Revenue Streams

Channels


Key Resources

Cost Structure































strategyzer.com


Customer segments

Channels



Key resources


7

Will posited firstly that disruption was ‘measurable’, which was demonstrated through data evidence that the partnership saw increased demand for content on both Radio 1 and Spotify playlists, in a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ scenario.

Secondly – and with license of being an economist – Will presented an actual ‘value equation’ demonstrating the network effect of the partnership: Radio 1 was able to broaden its demographic of listeners, Spotify benefited from the curation expertise of the channel brand, and artists themselves saw increased play counts as a direct result.

The bigger point however, was the BBC’s open attitude to collaborating with Spotify. For many in the wider radio sector, this presented a major competitive threat and disruptive force. The partnership, in effect, represented a ‘value chain rearrangement’, with the BBC jettisoning its channel efforts (this becoming Spotify’s role) to focus purely on content. As younger audiences start listening to Playlister via Spotify, they start to consume BBC content where they previously did not. It might even prompt them to actually listen to the source of the playlist – the radio!

Audience responseThe audience discussed the major differences in mindsets between disruptors and incumbents when it comes to partnership and collaboration. Too often, incumbents are a ‘closed culture’ that will not open up through fear of ‘educating the competition’; this is essentially a false notion since incumbents probably have more to gain, particularly in terms of multi-channel, digital expertise.

All too often, the incumbent response is to create an ‘innovation lab’ or venture capital (VC) spin-off, usually with little direction, impact or long-term success when compared with specialist VC businesses. In the end, such responses burn cash and distract internal talent. Likewise, when incumbents acquire start-ups (with whatever motivations) the acquired businesses are then constrained, or worse, shuttered (Google being a notable exception as a ‘smart acquisitive incumbent’).

In contrast, in the world of start-ups, competition is often seen as healthy, enabling new entrants to ‘educate the market’ together, thereby accelerating the evolving market needs in the unique competing space. Indeed, collaborations can crop up between players that might be seen as competitors, and start-ups often benefit from the network effects of geographical clustering – even sharing office spaces.

Of course, the BBC is no ordinary commercial entity, and can afford a more experimental approach to solving its marketing challenges. The unanimous answer from the audience however, was that incumbents must open up to collaboration and partnership, and look to ‘convene the conversation’ taking place in their industries to help harness new ideas and grow market niches.

On the canvas, clearly BBC and Spotify had formed a partnership in order to reach a specific segment of consumers, utilising each other’s value propositions (see Figure 4).

‘Fortunately we have a treasure trove of data for evaluating the impact of the partnership’ Will Page


8

Figure 4 Business model canvas –Spotify’s pressure points


In KAE’s experienceIn our marketing strategy work with larger incumbents in the media and technology space, we often recommend a more open approach to partnering when taking new propositions and products to market, to both de-risk the investment required (time, money and people) and acquire new expertise in digital platforms and relationships with generation Y and Z customers (i.e. the digitally savvy consumers). Few incumbents have the speed or the will to bring new propositions to market without some form of partnership arrangement. Yet we see partnership announcements in the market place all the time, with little follow-up or evidence of success. It was refreshing to see real, data-driven evidence presented by Spotify on the initiative with BBC Playlister. We see a need for more focused partnerships to undertake key, measurable activities that can result in win–win gains for partners and consumers.

Disruption question 3: keeping up with changing consumer behaviours and expectations for incumbents‘Are consumers tomorrow’s disruptors? Should content owners license OTT providers – like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu – or should they keep their own channels?’Simon Presswell spoke on behalf of incumbent TV and movie broadcasters (in the broadest sense) including networks, movie studios and major pay TV operators such as Sky, Virgin Media and BT. However, Simon’s killer question holds relevance for all custodians of content, from publishing to radio.

His question relates to the ever present dilemma of when and where to release content for maximum viewing and monetisation. How to take advantage of multiple platforms, from multi-channel networks on YouTube to on-demand player apps, with minimal cannibalisation effects on the more traditional ‘release windows’ (cinema, first broadcast, pay-per-view, sell-through, etc).


Revenue Streams

Channels


Key Resources

Cost Structure































strategyzer.com

Key activities

ChannelsKey resources



Value proposition

Customer segments

Key partners


9

His session had a pragmatic feel, looking to strike the balance that could allow the disruptive innovators to thrive, but not at the expense of the custodians’ patronage of creators and their art. Can the industry value chain realign itself to allow all these players to co-exist sustainably? Not without the bravery to ‘disrupt thyself’ – one theme that Simon emphasised, singling out Sky as one traditional incumbent player with the will to self-cannibalise (NowTV) in the interest of expanding beyond its traditional heartland customer base of subscribers to the ‘digital generation’.

Big themes emerge here, but particularly the changes in consumer behaviours driven by the availability of on-demand content, such as ‘binge viewing’ and the increasing popularity of user-generated content and short-form video by swathes of younger viewers. However, the idea that cord cutting has already reached ‘100 million’ will perhaps have content producers reframing this as a more present rather than distant threat. Another clear message was the commercialisation of the BBC. What price will the BBC charge for access to iPlayer five years from now? Indeed, Simon revisited the notion of five years as the expanse of time by which content networks would need to have established their role in the future content landscape.

Audience responseThis was a fundamental question for content creators and as such, engaged the group in far-reaching debate. With so much content available, from live events to deep video-on-demand catalogues, the overwhelming sentiment among delegates was that content creators have more to gain than to lose by taking a more liberal approach to distribution.

The innovative case studies exist. World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), Discovery and BBC (through the iPlayer), have pioneered innovative distribution approaches as content owners. Recently WWE has chosen to go wholly over-the-top (OTT), eschewing its variety of deals with traditional networks.

Plentiful, long-tail content can reach wider audiences more efficiently via on-demand platforms, so why don’t these services exist? For example, in football, ‘B2B’ commercial market value is still a more powerful business imperative for the Premier League than pure customer demand. Surely broadcasters can offer more options for their customer base and wider audiences via on-demand?

The audience view was that if more choice and availability are not made available by providers, consumers will turn more quickly to OTT services, and this may create more opportunities for players with an appetite for disruption. Will Netflix, Amazon or YouTube make a move into long-tail sports content? If Sky was to start from scratch today, could it justify monthly content packages of up to £70 per month, or would it need to offer many more bespoke choices? The value of current premium TV packages is subject to increasing consumer scrutiny. Sky is working hard to demonstrate value through investment in content as well as new distribution platforms like NowTV, but will it be enough to retain its customer base and drive growth?

Following Sky’s lead, in the US, HBO is one of a number of TV content networks now creating branded standalone streaming services that people can purchase without having a subscription. These services are meant to appeal to the growing number of ‘cord cutters’ and are likely to reach them via consumer tech platforms such as Apple, Xbox and Amazon. However, with these having their

‘Tastemakers and content creators have a significant challenge keeping pace with disruptive innovation’ Simon Presswell


10

own content services too, the mish-mash doesn’t look as neat as the equivalent offer in music, for example, where iTunes or Spotify has everything available in one place.

The audience widely agreed that consumers themselves are the true disruptors in the content space, willingly shifting behaviours to more convenient, accessible channels via multiple platforms and devices. Perhaps what’s required for content providers is a much more sophisticated way of understanding the audiences of their programmes and channels, and better ways to measure mixing up the various release windows and distribution strategies. Without more sophisticated measurement, the networks will remain uncertain about optimising distribution simply through fear of the unknown.

With further agreement that ‘content is king’ and the value proposition being highly attractive to a large number of audiences, the key areas of focus on the canvas in this case were customer segments, customers relationships, channels and revenue streams (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 Business model canvas – TV and movie incumbents’ pressure points


In KAE’s experienceMulti-channel strategies in media and content are all about the strength of the value proposition. In television, there has been an increased confidence and commitment to content, with more major productions commissioned and budgets increasing. This is in contrast to movies, where major studios are playing safe with film franchises. However, there is much lower confidence when it comes to multi-channel distribution decisions. The film and TV studios chose not to license whole catalogues to Netflix (or could not agree on terms), leaving them with a need to find an alternative way to reach mass digital audiences, once programmes have been pushed through the traditional release windows.

The requirement is one of portfolio management, supported by powerful, real-time analytics. Not all content is created equal, but deserves to find its maximum audience. For TV producers like Sky, ITV and BBC, brand equity has become supremely important in pushing content out to multiple platforms in a global marketplace. But once the content is licensed or released to other


Revenue Streams

Channels


Key Resources

Cost Structure































strategyzer.com


Key resources

Cost structure


Customer segments

Channels

Revenue streams


11

platforms, do consumers care about the producer brand, or do they just want the programme title? Hence another killer question for media and content producers: just how valuable is brand to the overall proposition?

Disruption question 4: disruptive innovation in the music industry‘Is the current state of play the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?’Ben Drury has spent almost 20 years innovating in digital music, beginning in 1996 as a founder of dotmusic, an internal venture at United News and Media. In 2004, Ben founded 7digital with James Kane. Over the past 10 years 7digital has become a key service provider in the digital music landscape, forming the backbone of branded music services launched by Samsung, Blackberry and many others. Indeed, 7digital was an early download partner to Spotify, before the latter service focused purely on streaming.

For the final talk of the day, Ben chose to widen the perspective on disruption by giving a short history of technology-driven innovation in music, from the piano roll (disrupting live music), to the gramophone (disrupting radio), the CD (in fact the first digital music format), downloads (unbundling albums into tracks) and now streams (replacing ownership with access).

Most recently, digital services have brought in a more ‘experiential’ focus to discovering and arranging music collections (playlists and synching) than historical innovation efforts focused on products and audio quality. Convenience has won out over quality. This led to his killer question – just how much further can recorded music go, now that the long-awaited ‘celestial jukebox’ has arrived? Has recorded music reached its final format?

Audience responseThe question prompted a broad, reflective discussion – perfect for the final session of the day. Few industries have felt the full force of digital change in the way music has. However, the audience felt that there was much more to come, and were prompted to think about the drivers of further changes in the industry. Would technology continue to be the major driver? Will consumers care about audio quality again? Can more be done to create new formats from live performance?

There was some discussion about how music producers had not only continued to survive but had benefited considerably from new technology-driven partners like iTunes and Spotify. For all their disruptive impacts on music consumption, most of the pain has been experienced by traditional music retailers, not music producers (labels, publishers). Indeed, producers have licensed music to new partners at premium prices, while successfully converting or shutting down pirate services.

But is the artist community happy? With high profile artists such as Taylor Swift and The Black Keys withholding their music from streaming services, and others ‘windowing’ their releases like in the film industry (iTunes first, Spotify and streaming services later), there are clear signs that some artists do not buy into streaming as a business model. Also, daily gripes from artists about the low

‘We’ve had more disruption in music consumption in the last 10 years than over the previous hundred’ Ben Drury


12

remuneration filtering back from streaming seem to indicate a groundswell. Could the next wave of innovation be digital platforms with fairer revenue shares for artists? Is this the motivation behind Jay Z’s bid for streaming service Tidal?

Other, perhaps more incremental innovations were discussed, such as playlist sharing between streaming services, a wider range of payment models, more multimedia content including better digital artwork, and the potential disruption coming for traditional radio broadcasting, like the sector has seen in the US.

The resounding answer from the audience was that this was in fact ‘the end of the beginning’, since we are only still at the start of the digital revolution. On the business model canvas, Ben’s talk had naturally encouraged a focus on value proposition, revenue models and perhaps, with the debate on artist remuneration, cost structures too (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 Business model canvas – music industry pressure points


In KAE’s experienceMusic has certainly come a long way in 10 years. Incumbents in music retail, from Tower Records to HMV, probably had more time to respond to disruptive threats in hindsight, but in the end could not compete with the sheer power of iTunes and Spotify as value propositions. However, recorded music’s shift to digital formats has tended to show replacement in demand, rather than growth – hence overall music sales remain flat or falling in most markets around the world. It seems that the debate over whether consumers would switch from ownership to access models rather than do both, is over. Most of our marketing consultancy work has been in the live sector, where consumer desire for experiences has generated boundless growth opportunities for promoters of concerts and festivals. With the growth in music being driven by live performance, we feel there are many opportunities for greater collaboration between the recorded and live sectors. Indeed, this latter subject is to be explored in a future Creative Dynamics session.


Revenue Streams

Channels


Key Resources

Cost Structure































strategyzer.com


Key resources

Revenue streams


Customer segments

Channels

Cost structure

ContactKeith JoplingSenior Vice President at KAE Marketing Intelligence Limited.

email: [email protected]

kae.com

George Tovstiga Professor of Strategy and Innovation Management at Henley Business School.


Helen Gammons – Creative Dynamics‘Creative Dynamics’ is a series of 1 day workshops offering strategic discussions around management challenge and change across the creative industries, as a result of the work

on the ‘MBA for the Music & Creative Industries’, developed by Helen Gammons for Henley Business School and launched in 2012.

For more details on future ‘Creative Dynamics’ events and on the MBA for the Music & Creative Industries:


ReferencesStrategyzer AG (2014) The business model canvas: your business model on one page. [Accessed 3 March 2015] www.businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas/bmc

Tovstiga, G (2013) Strategy in Practice, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons

Disruptive innovation in the creative industries

For more information, please contact:

Executive EducationHenley Business School Greenlands Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU

[email protected] Tel +44 (0)1491 418 767

www.henley.ac.uk

mailto:[email protected]

www.kae.com



www.henley.ac.uk

Documents

White Paper - KAE · PDF fileDisruptive innovation in the creative industries | Keith Jopling 2 We’ve got five years In David Bowie’s 1971 song Five Years, the closing couplet