I've been asked to put together a panel discussion on emerging issues in media law, and I'd really love to move beyond the things that always get talked about at these things. So I thought it would be interesting to solicit your input on how you think media -- both news and entertainment -- will look different (from a consumer, technology, or industry POV) in, say, 3 years, then maybe I can try to tease out the legal issues from there.

Cool! I think things like Readability and Longform are interesting bc they are disintermediating the traditional aggregators of content. This causes lots of interesting legal issues as you know. But at a high level people aren't using magazines as taste makers in the way they did previously. This will continue.

Similarly over the top will continue as a distribution paradigm for video disintermediating channels and further weakening their brand power.

Yep, the unbundling/disintermediation of content is for sure a huge issue.

One thing I'm not totally clear on is whether it really makes sense to think of "mobile" or "tablets" as a meaningfully distinct media platform. Reading the post-mortems for The Daily, I tend to think maybe not, but I'm very curious to hear others' views on that one.

It's a really really tricky landscape to try and predict, even three years out. I think one helpful way is to look at the big bets the players in the space have made:

Apple by all accounts are trying to build a television, and build a store into it that will allow them to bypass networks entirely.

Netflix are trying to produce original content themselves. Amazon are (quietly) also funding original content, and in general just seem to be trying to out-Netflix Netflix, so not too interesting strategically.

Comcast bought NBC: this can be interpreted as trying to buy content to deliver, making them less vulnerable to people who stop paying for cable and buy video online instead.

So I think vertical delivery/creation combos seem likely.

Sticking w/ video, let's assume that we both see more vertical delivery/creation combos, as well as a move towards on-demand/a la carte programming: what effect do you think that will have on what kinds of programs are made readily available?

For example, will NBC continue to make the niche sitcoms I like when they're no longer being cross-subsidized by Sunday Night Football and The Voice? And if NBC doesn't make them, will anyone else?

Is it really true that NBC are making unprofitable sitcoms for the sheer love of the art right now? I can only believe that if these things made money before, they will continue to do so.

I think the niches will be even better served bc pretty much everyone has accepted that no one is going to beat the MASH season finale ever in terms of unique viewers. It's niches all the way down. I think the folks who will have power are those that power discovery in this new world.

In answer to the tablet question I think there's a post-mortem to be written for things like Newstand or magazines doing their own iPad versions of offline content.

Jason, can you expand on that last part? Not totally sure what you're getting at there.

Like the New Yorker Newstand app for iPad I don't think has been a winner. It was attractive to the publishers but I don't think what folks were looking for bc they were getting content not just through channels anymore.

The Economist's iPad app is outstanding; a much better experience than merely browsing the website. But I think that says more about the quality of their web design than it does about dedicated tablet experiences. All the other magazine apps I've tried have been wastes of time.

More broadly, the publishing industry as a whole has a lot further to fall. In 3 years expect a lot fewer "professional" news publications, and a corresponding concentration of power. But I don't think that's news to anyone.

We are also just beginning to see the hype cycle for content-discovery engines pull out of the trough of disappointment. Apps like Prismatic are genuinely finding content I love that I would not have otherwise seen. Somebody who nails this has the potential to make a ton of cash.

Switching gears for a moment, are there any companies out there that you think are uniquely well-positioned to weather/capitalize on the changes in the next few years? Or others that you think are doing something especially noteworthy and forward-looking?

HBO Go is by all accounts an excellent service. I think if HBO makes any kind of move towards cutting its ties to cable and delivering subscription or on-demand video over the internet without a cable subscription, that would probably change the industry. I think that's inevitable, but very very unlikely to happen in the short term.

My position on Amazon is now one of near-superstition. Bezos has repeatedly done apparently weird things that only made sense 5 years later. So I don't understand the play with Amazon Prime Video, but I'm sure whatever it is, it's brilliant.

Rdio and Pandora are also well-positioned if consumer tastes shift (even if not entirely) towards a subscription model for music, as seems likely.

Googles YouTube strategy seems incredibly long term focused and I think it's a winner. They will continue to acquire content and build a viable alternative to traditional distribution. Google getting into broadband means they are a better positioned/smarter alternative to Comcast.

I agree with Laurie on Amazon as well.

Uh ... I'm bullish on Twitter as a partner to media and means of discovery and distribution. But you know, biased.

On a different note about video, I think you'll continue to see folks play around with GIFs. They are so awesome for mobile/sports.

twitter.com

Laurie -- your argument about news organizations strikes me as in some conflict with your argument vertical delivery in video. The latter is premised on the idea that it makes more and more sense to have final goods providers, from Comcast to Amazon, own content providers. Why don't you think the same thing might happen in the print space? Bloomberg buying the FT, if it happens, strikes me as a pretty good analogue. Lots of moves in the media space broadly defined have this flavor, from Apple's development of its own maps to Google's continued production of content like Places, maps and Youtube. Is a world where Apple owns the New Yorker or where Google or Samsung owns the New York Times that far-fetched?

David: I think consolidation of news brands is extremely likely to happen, and simultaneously the number of actual news organizations is likely to decline. Think of every town's local newspaper, operating under their own local brand, but all owned by the same two or three companies, publishing substantially similar content off the same technological platform, with a sprinkling of genuine local news provided by 1 or 2 local sub-editors (this is hardly a stretch).

I think acquisition of news organizations by non-publishing companies like Apple or Samsung is unlikely simply because the margins in publishing are so terrible; they have better things to do with that capital.

On the second point, I'm not sure I follow -- the goal of these content plays isn't to sell books or magazines, it's to sell phones (just as Amazon wants to sell prime memberships, not videos). It may not be likely to happen, but it shouldn't be driven by whether margins are low in publishing today -- the question is whether exclusive ownership would goose sales of the end product, no?

I think music and video are a different beast from text. It's very hard to re-shoot the same movie or cover a song, but it's very easy to write an article about the same news event and have it be equally useful, so I think "exclusive" content is much harder to come by in text -- the FT manages it, and so does the Economist, and even the NY Times seems to be having some success with their paywall, so maybe I'm wrong. But short-form text content -- especially news -- seems to be a commodity to me.

Very hard? Tell that to the people who remade Footloose! :)

As a media outsider (I'm a law professor), I have another question -- What are your thoughts on the (to my eyes) success of Pro Publica and the future of not-for-profit media companies?