Slashdot Mirror
CEO Calls For AOL Paradigm Shift
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is reporting that Jonathan Miller, AOL's chief executive, is calling for the effective dismantling of marketing for their dialup service. In a new plan to be presented to the Time Warner board in a couple of weeks, Miller outlines a new direction for AOL which moves towards using advertising as the main source of revenue while offering most everything they have (software, AOL.com email addresses, etc) for free."
Disable the log-out button.
Yes, you can dance to Radiohead.
My god, I hope they still give away CDs! I may never finish decorating my dorm now...
FTFA: Under the new plan, almost everything AOL offers -- its content, software and AOL.com e-mail addresses -- will be available to any Web user free.
Even my mother who has had broadband for only a year now knows user@aol.com == newbie. She knows better than to pay attention to mails from there declaring "Important, new email virus alert!!!" as these people are still wet behind the ears.
Given the number of CDs AOL has sent out, and the negative response to their bloated dial-up software, I don't think people will be scrambling to aol.com to get their hands on the latest.
So why would anyone go to AOL.com? The article leaves me unconvinced. About the only thing I can agree with is the CEO's statement about it is going to get worse (before it gets better, but there is no guarntee of that)
More like refocusing on what actually makes AOL profitable. We knew this was coming when we saw AOL ad-words on superbowl commercials, and REALLY knew it was coming with the 10% Google aquisition. Can you really blame them for no longer competing in the sub $25/month dialup when FIMUX and muni wi-fi networks easily bring in close to 2X that per month for broadband after taking out TCO?
Just stop using it, it's free, you won't notice the difference.
You cancel services when you dont want to continue paying for them.
As someone who works in publishing, this seems symptomatic of what is a very disturbing trend to me. Somebody has to pay for content. Popular wisdom is that the consumers of that content won't pay for it. There's only one other place to go for the money, it seems, and that's advertisers.
I don't know how to feel about it. I'm somebody who hates ads. I watch a lot of PBS, tend to rent shows on DVD rather than watch them when broadcast on commercial television, or if I do watch them, I skip the ads in my DVR. Likewise, I run AdBlock and an aggressive set of filters in Firefox. My goal is to see no advertisements at all. Ironically, however, those same ads are my livelihood. Am I cutting my own throat?
Even scarier is the fact that all the movie and TV studios are aware of this behavior and are taking steps to correct for it. Product placement, for example -- it's no coincidence that guy is drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi, or that there's a big RSA Security logo on that video monitor in that episode of "24."
So if we don't want to pay for our content, and we refuse to be receptive to traditional advertising messages, how long before that kind of influence gains a foothold in other kinds of media? I work in the trade press, so we're right on the cusp of that -- some people will never believe that a story in my magazine is meant to be impartial, no matter what it says. But does anyone really think the mainstream news media -- even something like the New York Times -- is completely impervious?
I really, really do not want to live in the kind of world where every flat surface is paved with an ad, every movie is a sales vehicle, every TV show is a survey, every newspaper article is corporate public relations. But is it avoidable, given the direction our society is going?
Breakfast served all day!
All I can say about this "Jonathan Miller" is that he's an incredible visionary and way ahead of his time.
For those unfamiliar with his vision for the future, Mr. Miller would replace our telephone modulator-demodulators with an "Ethernet" entering the home over thick black cables -- or perhaps even copper telephone wiring!
Anyone the world over could view America OnLine's pictures through an interconnected "Web" of compters independent of the company. They could even manipulate America OnLine's own computers to "search" this "Web!" How very generous!!
This new vision for inter-networking has already caught on with the kids, who have crowned it "CyberWeb 2.0" or somesuch.
I would explain further, but I must telegraph my stockbroker posthaste, to see if we can't convince this America OnLine to detach itself from old Time Inc. and sell off its own shares! It's growth potential is simply ex-plosive!
Posting via dictaphone,
Charles Fornwall Huston XII
They can start by avoiding the words "Paradigm Shift".
They are just now relying on ads as their main source of revenue? Back when I used AOL, their ads were pervasive to the point of being annoying. Everyone I know that uses AIM thinks the number of ads are annoying.
So, what they are saying is that it will only get more annoying as they bump off dial-up. Great plan, AOL.
If AOL wanted to swap from service revenue to an ad revenue, they shouldn't have been shoving as many ads down people's throats before the switch.
"AOL Paradigm Shift"
How did that letter 'f' get in there?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I strongly disagree...
AOL has some really good properties under its belt. Namely, i'm talking about Winamp. Let's not forget about all the Time Warner stuff they have access to as well.
With Winamp and it's shoutcast technologies, they have a good platform for content delivery, a really smart user base that constantly provides free features for Winamp through plugins. Since the 5x series Winamp has moved beyond just being a mp3 player, it has live streaming content, access to tons of Time Warner properties (Animaniacs/Freakazoid anyone?) and there's a ton more stuff planned on the horizon.
Recently a job for Music Director has popped up. Part of the description talks about things going towards social networking in the Winamp microchasm. As we know, Nullsoft is sort of the place where new AOL technologies are being developped, so it stands to reason that the social networking on the horizon for AOL and Winamp is going to include some aspects of both communities, myspace with NSV video is my guess.
The AOL client isn't completely suck ass either. Now before I get boo's from the peanut gallery let me explain... I run my own consulting company, and today I had to do some work at a lawyers office, and she's been using AOL as her email for years. She got a new PC, wanted me to transfer files from her old PC to her new PC, then hand-me-down her old PC to her assistant. I walked in thinking "OH noes! PST and outlook!" Since the AOL email client stores all the emails on the server, it was pretty painless. It wasn't *that* bad. They just logged in with their screen names, and like magic, all their stuff was there.
The AOL client isn't too shabby for reading news or other things either. Sure you can fire up Moz, but it's really not that bad... If AIM was so terrible, why do so many people use it?
About the only thing that has been bad with AOL is their dialup. Even there, not that bad. AOL has always had the biggest banks of blade modem banks. Dial up numbers just about anywhere you can think of.
It's a shame so many people judge AOL on what it was 20 years ago. Sure, it was crap then, but over the years AOL has been pretty good about responding to customers outcries about the bad, and then AOL has always moved quickly to resolve it. Remember when folks complained about busy signals? AOL took care of it. Hard time cancelling your account? AOL fired the person who got recorded, then told all their staff to not give customers a hard time. Despite all outward appearances of AOL being a hard company to deal with, force feeding their customers what they want, in reality the opposite is true.
Anyways, I have no beef against AOL. It's made the internet easier for some people, which is a good thing in my opinion. It takes a corporation with deep pockets to accomplish what AOL has, and my hats are off to them. Money well spent.
--toq