Spal re: I think in the long term, those who ultimately produce and own the content, will be the most valuable players in the space. By owning the content you can then sell/rent it to multiple end users, and with the internet mass distribution capability, truely experience the financial leverage this medium enjoys. The key however, is to have proprietary content.
I totally agree. This is the strategy that, for example, Hoover's Online is employing. Perhaps you can educate me on how INSP's deals give it sufficient proprietary content ownership to help justify the current valuation?
Put another way, I don't see too many originators of said proprietary content giving INSP exclusive long-term ownership rights. The key being exclusive, and long-term.
If it is not all of "proprietary," "exclusive," and "long-term" there is no sustainable competitive advantage, and INSP will be ultimately valued along the lines of the broker, repackager or wholesaler model, which is a low margin execution game (as opposed to say, a high margin gorilla game). The "publisher" model is a little higher margin, but still not anything to crow about.
Read Naveen's press releases carefully. Maybe you can see a theme that I am missing.
But it seems to me that if you carefully look at the content end of the deals, one or more of the three necessary conditions are almost always missing. Believe me, if it were there, Naveen would make sure it was in the PR. |
