Go for a Web3 protocol: Forbes’ use of a simple revenue split for co-branded third-party newsletters could be missing a huge opportunity
Today it was reported that Forbes magazine will be extending their brand to third-party writers or “content creators” who wish to publish through the Forbes brand and channels, but remain independent. Undoubtedly this announcement is a positive thing for many content creators who have a wide audience, produce fantastic content, but were previously unable to access the benefits of being directly employed by a major media brand with massive reach. This announcement is no doubt a great example of what good can come from the democratization of access to something previously reserved as exclusive.
What else could have
been done? Could Forbes have pushed the democratization envelop a little further?
I believe that Forbes is currently overlooking a chance to create and monetize a
decentralized media protocol that it co-owns along with their selected
third-party content creators. Forbes has millions of readers world-wide and
surely, as many have said with Facebook and Diem (formerly Libra), if Forbes
were to create a decentralized protocol for this type of media network, it could
have overnight adoption and legitimacy.
Drawing a parallel…
Imagine an early-stage Web2 startup issuing stock options to early employees, for the purposes of this post, Forbes’ third-party content initiative is the company, the early content creators are the early employees, and the protocol tokens (which “own” the protocol) are the stock options. Translating this from Web2 to Web3, the people generating the value (employees à content creators) are still capturing the value (options à protocol tokens). By giving content creators ownership in the network, you are exporting the same type of dedication early-stage employees have for their Web2 startup’s success to an entire network of users thereby combining a sense of ownership and viral network effects all at once.
How could this
work?
Forbes could create a Web3 protocol where certain business/technical parameters of the network could serve as an immutable and autonomous foundation (credible neutrality) for content creators to build on over time. The protocol could even achieve this while retaining governance-controlled parameter flexibility to ensure upgradability should it be needed. Perhaps most valuably, the protocol could be programmed so that as the network grows in value, distribution, quality, and size, so do the economic incentives between Forbes and their content creators to build and maintain a top-quality media content network/protocol. These economically aligned ownership incentives between the content creators and Forbes could then theoretically become results of one another, introducing a flywheel.
My argument…
The ownership alignment
between Forbes and content creators, along with other growth,
NFT programmability, and liquidity Web3 primitives could have the power to create
far more favorable economics for all parties compared to setting up a
traditional revenue share agreement.
One more piece to add…
Nothing says that Forbes’
proposed decentralized media protocol must start and stop here. Forbes could go
even further by using their brand and distribution to export the core immutable
and autonomous protocol to other types of media thereby creating a media network
of networks all owned, in part, by Forbes and respective content creators.
Who knew giving up control could be so profitable?
Daniel Zider,
daniel.g.zider@gmail.com
----------------------------
Disclaimer(s): The contents
above describe
theoretical ideas and are to be used for illustrative
purposes only. The contents
above are not to be used,
in any way, as legal,
technical, financial, and/or
professional advice and as
such should be thoroughly
reviewed by appropriate
parties prior to any decision
making. The contents above
are provided “as is” and
without warrant to their
accuracy or general viability.
All contents described are
done so at a high-level
and require further due
diligence, testing, research,
Comments
Post a Comment