Isn’t it about time that we consigned that word “convergence” to the dustbin?

Like fat television screens, mainframe computers and valves, the word served its purpose well, but today it’s well past its sell-by date and much sexier concepts are now upon us.

Indeed, there is the danger that a concept originally applied to technology is now being applied to the business. And it’s bad for business.

The notion of convergence, and its application to technology and communications, first raised its blended head in 1983. Twelve years later, convergence received a big boost when tech guru Nicholas Negroponte promoted the concept as the logical blending of telephony, television and computing.

OK. That’s reality now. And the parallel reality is how to make convergence a success.

Buying convergence

Have you ever met a consumer who buys “convergence”? No. He buys the medium for the message.

Advertisers’ communications strategies may be integrated but they are far from converged. Each part of the marketing mix has a role to play, and these roles are increasingly differentiated and not similar.

Every craftsman knows there is a tool for the job, and the more flexible the tool, the worse it is at the average task.

As digital media reach maturity, evidence is emerging that the totality of convergence simply does not work.

Underpinning any media concept are three key pillars: technology, content and marketing, to which one must add people, the rogue element of any strategic argument.

Technology is settled. The merger of media has happened and now we are simply witnessing its evolution: better devices, faster channels and more powerful processors.

Negroponte may have been talking convergence, but the legacy is actually divergence, reflecting different media concepts and contexts in time and place.

Rather than everything coming together, fragmentation is the name of the game. One device for the home. Another for the car. A third for the eye and ear on the move. Each versioned to its context. Each delivering absolutely different requirements depending on the need at the time.

More confusing

The content issue is more confusing. Yes, today’s newsrooms produce across a range of platforms. And the media world is now multidirectional, with readers acting as writers and interpreters while the newsroom aggregates, interprets and categorizes.

But this is not about convergence. It’s about enabling media consumers and commentators to exploit the differences among various media. And this is where the classic disciplines of marketing supercede the hokum of convergence.

OK, so a few media consumers may pay for a service across different platforms, but in truth they will pay for one brand to supply one service and may use other media channels as an extension.

The idea that media consumers will pay for a branded multichannel experience is unproven. Yes, readers will blog, participate in forums and contribute to online debates. But will they pay for the privilege? Not in a million years!

Digitalization is driving a stream of new brands across different media experiences. Each is extremely focused and the role of the general brand is diminishing. This is as true for newspapers as it is for TV or music. It is the age of the long tail. Convergence today is a tall tale.

Advertising support

Multimedia advertising is a more serious issue. Too many newspaper companies are introducing “integrated” or “converged” advertising sales because they think it is the right thing to do. Time and again I witness over-defensive advertising departments trying to shore up plummeting revenues and advertiser counts by offering so-called upsells while competitors are coming along and stealing their trade with alternative business models.

The only solution is for newspaper companies to establish market-leading competitors and encourage the migration from the old to the new. Through this approach they will not only exploit their strong contact with advertisers but also accelerate the growth of their media options and advertising base.

The net result, as Norwegian publisher Schibsted is proving, is a growth in total business that far outweighs what can be achieved through integrated marketing.

Shying away

Even as consumers shy away from buying convergence, so do advertisers.

Most of the proponents of convergence in a commercial sense have little or no experience of media commerce in a practical sense.

Consider multimedia management. Convergence’s ultimate failure played out in the Time Warner-AOL debacle. What should have been a value chain partnership of convenience turned into a value-destroying nightmare.

One pundit at the time the merger was announced in 2000 had it pegged perfectly. Why, he asked, was Time Warner merging with AOL when Time still hadn’t merged with Warner?

The lesson is that multimedia companies that develop their media separately are far more effective at value creation than those who seek synergies across their media channels.

As was the case with TWAOL, the issue is as much about people as it is about strategy. At the end of the day, the theory of convergence in the commercial world is a good one. In reality, in real life, people want something else.
 

Jim Chisholm is joint principal of iMedia, Ifra’s joint venture advisory service. He can be contacted at jim.chisholm@imediaadvisory.com.