Original Draft – August 25, 2011: There can’t be many Canadians who, in a week that saw us embracing the reality of Jack Layton’s passing, aren’t receiving the news of Steve Job’s resignation as a finality. Jack, too, resigned suddenly citing health reasons generally known but specifically mysterious. Steve is still with us, and long may he enjoy a contented private life. Still, the blogosphere and trad media outlets are all twitterpated with praise for Steve. Almost two days into the delirium and we’re also starting to see the inevitable counterpoint from the punch abstainers at the wake. In Jack’s case, this came from Christie Blatchford who punched holes in the hysteria of the myth builders with her National Post article. The first detected swipe at the edifice that is Steve comes from Ken Wheaton in his AdAge article entitled, “Counterpoint: Steve Jobs isn’t THAT Awesome” in which, among other things, he mentions the overlooked flops in the Apple juggernaut. In fairness, Ken notes that those missteps are necessary on anyone’s walk to glory and that it is only in the fullness of that acknowledgement that he is comfortable citing them. And let’s be clear, Steve Jobs was singularly instrumental in changing (numerous times) how we function and communicate in the world. What he didn’t invent he appropriated and made useful.

If your company is stewing over whether to throw your marketing efforts behind an advertising or subscription model, there’s probably good reason to believe either could work. Solid market research and conscientious due diligence may show one to be foolhardy by comparison with the other, but sweeping it aside will as likely result in the dull “thump” of wasted opportunities falling off the table. Consider how the two working in tandem might build your company. Let’s call it the Adverscription Model.

The first rule of adverscription is to never operate the two sides as hedges against the other’s failure or underperformance. They should run as an integrated whole. Increased subscription will fill your advertising coffers, and your advertisers can be leveraged to increase the benefits they provide to your subscribers – many of whom are also advertisers. With this dynamic in mind, campaigns emphasizing growth in one should be explicitly tied to how they can grow the other.

The trick comes in being able to evaluate the contents of two storehouses: one labeled “Abundance” and the other, “Scarcity”. No secret here. Any effort to sell by subscription that which is abundantly available is doomed to fail. Equally, discerning the nature of what you truly control is invariably obscured by layers of uncertainty. What is certain, however, is that any attempt to force control over something that limits market access to others will end in tears – your own most likely. Instead, identify proprietary qualities such as expertise, convenience, resource access, personal networks, etc. and use them as value-adds to your products or services. Exchange that value for subscriptions and as pass-alongs to your advertisers.

The New York Times is taking another run at charging a subscription fee for access to its online content. For many this is hubris, tinged with wafts of arrogance. What makes the New York Times more worthy than, say, The Times of London, The National Post, el Pais, or any other international broadsheet? The short answer would be, Nothing. That is, the choice to charge is anyone’s; the propriety or legitimacy will be decided by the market.

There was a time when the subscription model was a given. Closely held information streams of specialty (if not societal) interest were salable. There was value in the content and an appreciation for quality packaging and ease of delivery. But that all dissipated with scarcity giving way to abundance and the build up of universal entitlement. Why should I pay for something now when I can get it – often in an identical form – elsewhere at no apparent cost? The beating of a butterfly’s wings on the other side of the globe no longer has to generate a tornado in Kansas to be recognized. In a digital, connected world, insignificance can travel unchanged at lightspeed and the subscription model just gets in the way.

So it is with the Times’ latest attempt to put lightning in a bottle. The quest to determine where scarcity truly lies has become our latest Klondike. As with every gold rush, the victors are few and the tales of the hopeful become the stuff of questionable fiction. But let there be no mistake: there is a point, a time, and a place where value can be recognized through commercial exchange. This is the separation of abundance, which should be given freely, and the scarcity peppered within and around it. The next challenge for those panning the silt churning out of the information cloud is to determine if the nuggets of scarcity are sufficiently valuable as to fund the occurrence and availability of the abundance? Again, a market decision.

The Times should not be ridiculed or vilified for the attempts it is making in assigning a market value to its content. Certainly it is valuable. The quality of its journalism (not unlike many other sources) holds undoubted merit. The expenses associated with making it possible are deserving of revenue offsets. In going to the market for compensation through subscription we must allow for there being flawed rationales – if only because the content’s value is a moving target, fleeting in its legitimacy. If the Times chooses to charge for some content and not for others, or draws seemingly arbitrary lines in the sand as to who can access, through which door, the market will inevitable instruct the proprietors in what is deemed fair. Adjustments will inevitably be warranted, and so we will arrive eventually at an equitable understanding.

What would be wrong is if efforts to compensate for quality were not explored and we lost the content altogether. That would be regrettable. Let us take heart from the fact that subscriptions are only one element in a broader mix of revenue possibilities. Let the business models shift; communication will out.

Designer Sagi Haviv has produced an engaging tribute to the trademark work of the highly respected Chermayeff & Geismar, where he is a principal partner.

“A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.”
- Plutarch

There are those among you who will emerge as inspired originators of ideas, concepts and projects, while the majority will exhibit an arguably greater condition. You will be the technicians who make the ideas of others sing. In either case, beware of that most beguiling but pernicious fair-weather friend, mediocrity.

There is an expression that says inspiration is for amateurs. This is at odds with the naïve belief that genius simply comes naturally to champions. The contemporary painter, Chuck Close, explained the concept further when he said, “The rest of us just show up and get to work and the belief that things will grow out of the activity itself and that you will, through work, bump into other possibilities and kick open other doors that you would never dream up if you were just sitting around looking for a great […] idea.”

Waiting for inspiration may net you some possibly good products, the overwhelming majority of which will require significant work before their value (or lack thereof) can truly be assessed. More than this, it will culture in you your single greatest bad habit as a professional: the belief that quality falls from the sky, untouched by trial and error, humility, or the expectations of your audience. It is a humbling realization that success is best measured by the weight of ones trash. If you throw away enough, what remains may actually have value. Mediocrity is the stuff you failed to discard.

Make your learning count; make habit your greatest asset.