Wikipedia Didn't Kill Brittanica — Encarta Did

rudy_wayne writes "The end of Encyclopedia Britannica has been widely reported and its demise has been blamed on Wikipedia. However, this article at Wired points out that the real reason is something entirely different. 'In 1990 Britannica had $650 million in revenue. In 1996, long before Wikipedia existed, it was bankrupt and the entire company was sold for $135 million. What happened in between was Encarta. Even though Encarta didn't make money for Microsoft and Britannica produced its own encyclopedia CDs, Encarta was an inexpensive, multimedia encyclopedia that helped Microsoft sell Windows PCs to families. And once you had a PC in the living room or den where the encyclopedia used to be, it was all over for Mighty Britannica. It's not that Encarta made knowledge cheaper, it's that technology supplanted its role as a purchasable 'edge' for over-anxious parents. They bought junior a new PC instead of a Britannica. When Wikipedia emerged five years later, Britannica was already a weakened giant. It wasn't a free and open encyclopedia that defeated its print edition. It was the personal computer itself.'"

Comments

not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft first plan was to produce a digital Encyclopedia Brittanica, but the guys at "Encyclopedia Brittanica" declined, therefore they Brittanica killed Birttanica.
Source: I'm old and I remember that happening.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy it.

Encarta was my first introduction to "how to get information on the computer". It seems really silly now, but "back in the day" when everyone was talking about how computers where this new source of limitless information, "ok, but how do I get at it" was a real question.

Either way, Brittanica totally had this coming. Their origional attitude when Encarta came out was similar to the (now also Bankrupt) Kodak. It was an almost cocky "that's just a fad, we are a serious publication" thing. Sure eventually they finally got it (way too late of course) .. but some times dinosaurs really can't change.. they just have to die and something has to spring from their ashes.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have switched to Borg Balmer when he took over as CEO

I mean, he's bald like Picard, and he's the second (Next Generation) CEO, and the image probably would have stuck. /. missed a wonderful opportunity

Re:And brittanica did not see the threat

[billcopc]

That's not selection bias, that's educated wisdom.

Anyone in 1996 had to be quite the luddite, to not see where this computer "fad" was headed. I'll even say that if a Britannica rep saw Encarta, and did not immediately shit bricks, that person was infinitely dumber than their own gullible customers.

For myself, growing up, Britannica was the most vibrant example of informercial-style deceptive marketing. Corny actors, offers for a "free promotional booklet", a big dumb 1-800 number with repeated commands to "Call NOW!", and some bullshit gift for ordering in the next 15 minutes, because the one thing you really want when buying a shelf of useless books is even more useless books to litter your coffee table.

I really cannot think of any occasion where the two-paragraph overview from a printed encyclopedia ever helped me accomplish anything. If I needed to study something specific, I went to the library and borrowed a few books on the topic. I didn't need to spend $1500 on a bunch of superficial books edited by non-experts, just as I wouldn't spend a penny on Wikipedia today. Encyclopedias are what you read when you don't really care all that much about the subject.

Consider this thought experiment

[djl4570]

Find some old encyclopedias, A set from each of the following years: 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960 and so on
Look up the following in each set:
Israel
Communist
Transistor
Ku Klux Klan
Nazi
Steel

Re:Encarta killed Brittanica

[k6mfw]

http://xkcd.com/978/

Sometimes I don't know if xkcd works like The Onion or The Daily Show or something else (or all of the above) but it makes perfect sense how wikipedia should never be a definitive source. OK for a starting point (is Neil Armstrong a trumpet player or a test pilot?) but need to do more research (but then many other webpages reference off wikipedia). I guess need to go back to 20th century technique of using the feet and the telephone.

Selling computers

[spudnic]

This article is very true. At the time Encarta came out I was working for a company that sold PCs. We were located in an area where there were many affluent African American families. Not being raciest by any means, but typically all we had to do was bring up the article on Martin Luther King and start the "dream" speech video and they just had to have that for their kids. Encarta sold the computer.

Re:Disagree.

[TheRaven64]

You obviously don't remember the '90s very well. Multimedia was the selling point. Remember the MPC1 and MPC2 specs? Every computer came with a CD ROM drive and a sound card. A lot didn't come with a modem. Windows 95 even shipped without a web browser, but you can bet most computers from the time were bundled with Encarta, Thompson or similar. In 1993, you could probably have put most of the contents of the web on a single CD.

Re:Overpriced CDROM

[DerekLyons]

I tried to by Britannica CD in 90s. They were charging almost as much as paper edition.

Ah, the common consumer fallacy - it's "just" a CD, so it should be orders of magnitude cheaper... Notwithstanding the fact that printing and distribution of the hardcopy was only a very small fraction of the total cost.
 

They could have sewn up the encyclopedia market but their high price was unjustifiable in the light of substantially cheaper offerings such as Encarta. Sure, Encarta is not as good as Britannica but it's good enough for most kids. This is the key point: good enough is the enemy of perfect.

Well, if by "good enough" you mean "just barely useable at all", then sure. Once again [the generic you] heaps praise upon the subcompact for being cheap, while handwaving away the fact that it won't do what the pickup truck you actually need will do.
 
This is why Sears (a name that once stood for quality) is on the ropes, and Sam Walton died a very rich man. (Ray Kroc too...) Nobody goes broke who bets on the willingness of the American public to place more importance on price than on value.

Re:Well I disagree with you...

[powerlinekid]

Agreed. We bought a new PC back around '95 which came with Encarta. While we did have internet, I have fond memories of browsing through Encarta just looking through the articles. The one that most stands out in my mind was the moon landing page which had the actual video footage of Armstrong first stepping down. Brittanica couldn't compete with that.

Re:Finally

[jdgeorge]

No, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. is going strong, because it's a diversified publisher that targets the lucrative education market with nearly all of its products.

There is little evidence that the digital Britannica encyclopedia is selling AT ALL, because Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. is a privately held company that doesn't have to tell you anything about where it's making money.

Wikipedia: moral idiots.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Regardless of what the founder believes, Wikipedia should have monetized the website with the "subtle" use of advertising which would have generated billions in revenue over the past decade.

Wikipedia could have then bought Brittanica/Encarta and re purposed the authors and developers to write decent articles, perform fact finding research, and moderate articles to help improve the site. It would have been win-win for both: Brittanica would have entered a new era of real time information and Wikipedia would have gained valuable resources to improve content.

Instead, Brittanica is now bankrupt and the founder of Wikipedia begs for change yearly to run his website.

I don't find Wikipedia particularly good. It lacks rich content and interactivity, is woefully poor on facts and most articles are purely subjective. Its a glorified blog, period. The website is run on a dollar store budget and lacks any real innovation and the website has been stagnant for a decade.

Bottom line is, someone had a good idea 10 years ago and has done nothing since to expand, improve, or re-invigorate that idea.

I don't care for what moral purpose the founder of Wikipedia chose not to monetize Wikipedia; Google never charged people a dime and provided what today would be considered essential services to the Internet. So why the hell couldn't Wikipedia? Even if the founder gave all his money away (and honestly, isn't giving millions to charity BETTER then begging for change?), just keep enough money to run your website and re-invest back in evolving and innovating.

When I see those stupid beg "ads" and long diatribes about what wonderful service Wikipedia provides to the world it is just a reminder to all that an idiot with morals is still an idiot.

I think if you look up "clown" in Wikipedia, the founder's face should probably be shown. He killed the competition full of rich, "factful" content in place of a dollar store product that won't evolve because of cheap and lazy development and a founder that has tunnel vision. He is a one hit wonder that has taken far to much credit and not given anything back.