no shit

Jones, Candace
2006
From Technology to Content: The Shift in Dominant Logic in the Early American Film Industry

195
The history of cultural industries is littered with successful incumbents who, failing to see or respond to dramatic shifts in their competitive landscapes, were replaced by newcomers. In essence, cultural industries showcase how one dominant logic – the means and practices for achieving desired goals (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 1996; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) - is replaced by another dominant logic. For example, early technology firms, which dominated the film industry from 1895 to 1911, dismissed the importance of films containing stories and stars, only to be replaced by content firms that focused on stories and stars and attracted larger audiences (Jones, 2001).”

195f
“In short, dominant players were unable to see the value of resources and alternative strategies that newer entrants brought into the industry and how these resources and strategies shifted the basis of competitive advantage.”

196
Why is it that dominant players are unable to see and adapt to shifts in their environments, opening the door for new players who eventually replace them? Manage- rial attention is a scarce resource (Ocasio, 1997), creating competitive blindspots or judgmental mistakes (Zajac & Bazerman, 1991), when attention is restricted to existing competitors and practices. Two conditions are likely to focus incumbents’ managerial attention on existing resources and practices: intense rivalry among dominant firms and shared career backgrounds of top decision makers.”

The more similar the dominant players’ backgrounds, the more likely they are to interact in industry forums, build overlapping social networks, and develop taken-for-granted rules of competition, creating an industry macroculture that may be maladaptive (Abrahamson & Fombrun, 1994). When tacit rules are shared among dominant players, alternatives are neither seen nor imagined (Scott, 1995).”

199f
“Because immigrants did not share a common language (the three largest immigrant groups came from Germany, Russia, and Italy), they needed an easily understandable form of story telling, which is a narrative.”

202
“Technology entrepreneurs did not at- tend sufficiently to content entrepreneurs until they competed head to head as producers, moving into greater resource similarity (Chen, 1996).”

When entrepreneurs and top decision makers restrict their focus of attention to either technology or content, this provides an opportunity for smaller or newer competitors to exploit this restricted focus of attention. Ironically, the bit player among the content firms was Warner Brothers, who by developing sound technology in 1927 revolutionized and consolidated its place in the film industry.”

In today’s media environment, technology and content are finding new ways in which they may live off of and extend one another, requiring that top decision makers attend to both technology and content.

Windeler, Arnold
Sydow, Jörg
2001
Project Networks and Changing Industry Practices: Collaborative Content Production in the German Television Industry

Related to Starkey et al and Ebbers et al and Robins, J. A. 1993 and Storper, M. 1989 and Storper, M et al 1987 and Jones, C. 1996. Quote all together and mention that international phenomenon across film and TV (USA, UK, Germany at least)!

Hodgson, Geoffrey M.
2002
Darwinism in Economics: From Analogy to Ontology

259
Darwinism is “a broad theoretical framework for the analysis of the evolution of all open, complex systems, including socio-economic systems.”

278
“In short, Darwinism provides a compelling ontology, it is a universal metatheory in which specific theories must be nested, and it is a rich but optional source of analogy. If the arguments here concerning ontology and Universal Darwinism are correct, then on some of these questions the social scientist has no option but to be Darwinian. However, Darwinism does not provide complete explanations of socio-economic phenomena. Something more is required. The social cannot be reduced to the biological. Darwinism may be universal but economics should not be abandoned to biology.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva
2003
Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity

The 2001 version is identical with the 2003 version, even page numbers are the same, except for the additional afterword or something.

Anderson, Chris
2008 (2006)
The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More

92

Pine, B. Joseph
Gilmore, James H.
1999
The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre & Every Business a Stage

Business Consultant BS! Can’t read.

After industry and services we’re not moving towards information but experience => hence Experience Economy

Gayer, Amit
Shy, Oz
2006
Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Era in Illing, G et al ~ Industrial Organization and the Digital Economy

Economists can’t decide whether file sharing has a negative influence on the music industry or artists or not.

Shane, Scott Andrew
2003
A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus

4
Definition-entrepreneurship:
“Entrepreneurship is an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, processes, and raw materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed (Venkataraman, 1997; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).”

8
“the entrepreneurial process requires some form of innovation. By innovation, I do not mean that all entrepreneurial efforts require the grand Schumpeterian (1934) innovations that result in new combinations that spur creative destruction. [...] the entrepreneurial process can involve a type of innovation that is much milder, such as placing a restaurant on a different corner of an intersection from existing restaurants, or using different recipes or employees in a new restaurant in the same location as an old one. [for example Venkataraman, 1997] pointed out that this milder form of innovation is often associated with Kirznerian (1997), rather than Schumpeterian, entrepreneurial opportunities.
However, even Kirznerian opportunities involve innovation. By definition, entrepreneurship cannot involve the perfect imitation of what has been done before. The simple fact that it involves the recombination of resources into a new form according to the judgment of the entrepreneur means that entrepreneurship involves some innovative activity.”

10
“The conceptual framework that underlies this book is quite straightforward. Because the economy operates in a continual state of disequilibrium and change, situations arise in which people can transform resources into a form (new goods and services, new ways of organizing, new methods of production, new markets or new materials) that they believe will have greater value than their cost to create (Venkataraman, 1997). The entrepreneurial process begins with the perception of the existence of opportunities, or situations in which resources can be recombined at a potential profit. Alert individuals, called entrepreneurs, discover these opportunities, and develop ideas for how to pursue them, including the development of a product or service that will be provided to customers. These individuals then obtain resources, design organizations or other modes of opportunity exploitation, and develop strategies to exploit the opportunities.”

Varian, Hal R.
1992
Microeconomic Analysis

414f
Definition-public good
Definition-club good
Definition-private good

Johnson, Mark W.
Christensen, Clayton M.
Kagermann, Henning
2008
Reinventing Your Business Model

52
“a recent American Management Association study determined that no more than 10% of innovation investment at global companies is focused on developing new business models.”

52f
Definition-business model:
“A business model, from our point of view, consists of four interlocking elements that, taken together, create and deliver value. The most important to get right, by far, is the first.”

  1. Customer value proposition (CVP). A successful company is one that has found a way to create value for customers – that is, a way to help customers get an important job done. By “job” we mean a fundamental problem in a given situation that needs a solution.
  2. Profit formula. The profit formula is the blueprint that defines how the company creates value for itself while providing value to the customer.
  3. Key resources. The key resources [not all, just the important ones] are assets such as the people, technology, products, facilities, equipment, channels, and brand required to deliver the value proposition to the targeted customer.
  4. Key processes. Successful companies have operational and managerial processes that allow them to deliver value in a way they can successfully repeat and increase in scale.

53
“These four elements form the building blocks of any business. The customer value proposition and the profit formula define value for the customer and the company, respectively; key resources and key processes describe how that value will be delivered to both the customer and the company.

54
“The most important attribute of a customer value proposition is its precision: how perfectly it nails the customer job to be done – and nothing else.”

56
“Rules, norms, and metrics are often the last element to emerge in a developing business model. They may not be fully envisioned until the new product or service has been road tested. Nor should they be. Business models need to have the flexibility to change in their early years.

Pursuing a new business model that’s not new or game-changing to your industry or market is a waste of time and money.

58
“Creating a new model for a new business does not mean the current model is threatened or should be changed. A new model often reinforces and complements the core business [...].”

59
“Successful new businesses typically revise their business models four times or so on the road to profitability.”

“We recommend companies with new business models be patient for growth (to allow the market opportunity to unfold) but impatient for profit (as an early validation that the model works). A profitable business is the best early indication of a viable model.”

Bob Higgins: “”I think historically where we [venture capitalists] fail is when we back technology. Where we succeed is when we back new business models.”"