La catastrofe della bolla speculativa non risparmia la new-economy, perché? Il fallimento del paradigma dei portali, già annunciato, dovrebbe far riflettere quanti pensano di poter semplicemente travasare una azienda o idea decotta direttamente sulla rete.
Gli attori della tragicommedia sono spesso i guru improvvisati, i neolaureati con in tasca l'MBA senza un filo d'esperienza (rigorosamente con meno di 32 anni), a cui si è voluto affidare la fase delicata dell'innesto del proprio business nella rete. Non si è voluto capire che per passare al nuovo, bisogna conoscere ed avere toccato con mano il vecchio. E anche avere competenze che difficilmente si acquisiscono sui libri, in Bocconi o alla Luiss. (Ricordo un corso in SDA dove ad un certo punto si parlò di come fare per acquisire commesse pubbliche nell'area dei sistemi informativi, parlarono di tutto dimenticando la cosa principale: occorreva pagare le tangenti. Anno: 1989).
La stessa idea di portale (Jumpy, Ciaoweb, etc.), cioè di costringere l'utente a passare per un passaggio obbligato, è antitetica con l'essenza stessa della rete che ha avuto successo proprio per i percorsi di assoluta libertà che offre. Per attrarre gli utenti, non bastano i contenitori, ci vogliono soprattutto i contenuti. Ed i contenuti devono essere user-oriented, non imposti dall'alto della piramide. L'approccio deve essere rigorosamente bottom-up.
Internet non è un "videogioco". Ed è inutile piangere sul latte (lattice-C) versato...
Ecco allora emergere inattese opportunità. Potrebbe nascere una nuova professione da affiancare allo start-upper: l'end-upper. Di che cosa si tratta? E' una specie di task-force che si incarica di gestire le crisi delle aziende che hanno investito troppo e male sulla rete (ce ne sono parecchie). Una sorta di unità di rianimazione, di pronto soccorso per new-economies in difficoltà. Di ciambella di salvataggio per il parco buoi.
Il motto potrebbe essere: Lo start-upper vi ha portato sull'orlo dell'abisso? Chiamateci e farete un passo avanti ! ;-)
(Chi
si salverà? Forse Tiscali, se riesce in tempo ad espandersi ad Est...
)
Excerpts
From Full Text of Remarks by
GINA
NIERI
Executive
Director, Mediaset Group
Made
as a speaker in the roundtable “Social Advocacy:
Will
convergence upgrade television’s role in social development?”
at
the United Nations World Television Forum 2000
16 November 2000
>> the views expressed are those of the speaker <<
Television has historically been a major catalyst for social change, what will be the impact of the next generation of interactive digital television on the political culture of democracy and civil society?
More than interactivity in itself, the really significant change that will result from the shift to digital is the end of radio-spectrum scarcity. Let us not forget that only 30 years ago 90% of the frequency spectrum was controlled by 10% of the world’s population. In this sense digital changes everything.
The development of commercial television, firstly in the US and then around the world, resulted in an increase in choice and a plurality that was beneficial also in terms of encouraging democratic participation.
The advent of interactive, digital terrestrial, free-to-air, commercial television will not only lead to an explosion of choice and competition but will demand colossal efforts, particularly creative, to establish quality as the determining added value and to ensure that more doesn’t mean worse.
How will television’s convergence with the Web affect the dynamic between cultural policy and communications technology?
At Mediaset, we are developing a business model for digital terrestrial television that will complement internet-based activities. We have learned from recent experience that television works as a highly effective bridge towards establishing the Internet as a genuinely mass medium.
While schools and government-sponsored initiatives will be primarily responsible for developing computer-literacy and combating techno-exclusion, there is an enormous potential role for commercial broadcasters in attracting a mass audience to new media, for both entertainment and interactive services.
What is the likely impact of the current consolidation of media business ownership and heightened competition on open societies, national identity and cultural values?
The policy maker’s goal of an ‘information for all’ society is most likely to result from genuine market liberalization and full competition. But what is fundamental is that there is equal treatment for all the players involved. We cannot have a situation in which former state-owned monopolies, with the advantages that derive from long-standing incumbency, are permitted to establish a dominant position in contiguous sectors. If open access is the deal then it must apply to all.
In this sense the WTO’s working group on competition will provide a useful framework to enable national authorities to put in place and maintain a genuinely multilateral system.
There is some persisting prejudice in Europe concerning both the private ownership of news media and advertising. Like all prejudices they must be fought, also because they are two of the main pillars on which a flourishing media business depends. And it is only in a flourishing and competitive media market that national identities and cultural values can be promoted.
Is there a heightened role for public broadcasters in fostering a sense of social cohesion in the face of digital convergence?
Public service broadcasters have an immensely important role to play in exploiting the fact that public funding allows them to undertake experimental and educational activities that market logic makes impossible for commercial operators.
Just as in the 50s in Italy, RAI, the state-owned broadcaster, facilitated and promoted the use of a common language, rather than a wide variety of dialects, so today, RAI can contribute to ensuring continuity and consonance with national values.
If, on the other hand, state-owned broadcasters attempt to ape commercial operators, we could easily end up in a situation where even the finest expressions of the national culture, let’s say a film by Fellini, become premium content in a niche market for the happy few who can afford to pay for it.