CEO Calls For AOL Paradigm Shift

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is reporting that Jonathan Miller, AOL's chief executive, is calling for the effective dismantling of marketing for their dialup service. In a new plan to be presented to the Time Warner board in a couple of weeks, Miller outlines a new direction for AOL which moves towards using advertising as the main source of revenue while offering most everything they have (software, AOL.com email addresses, etc) for free."

It's AOL...

Free is still too expensive.

AOL's new technique for retaining customers:

Disable the log-out button.

Hmm AOL For free?

That will seem very enticing....until they start flooding the internet with more of their spam. They are using the existing setups to beat google to the free internet punch. Oh well call this AOLs deathsong. They are pretty much on the way out with a declining userbase. Poor product being made free? It's like putting a cherry on a pile of crap. The cherry may taste good but the crap wont :P

Cancellation?

You think cancelling AOL is hard when they charge for services?

Think how much harder it would be to "cancel" when it becomes free.

Re:Cancellation?

Just stop using it, it's free, you won't notice the difference.

You cancel services when you dont want to continue paying for them.

No more cds?!?!

My god, I hope they still give away CDs! I may never finish decorating my dorm now...

This makes absolutely no sense

FTFA: Under the new plan, almost everything AOL offers -- its content, software and AOL.com e-mail addresses -- will be available to any Web user free.

Even my mother who has had broadband for only a year now knows [e-mail] == newbie. She knows better than to pay attention to mails from there declaring "Important, new email virus alert!!!" as these people are still wet behind the ears.

Given the number of CDs AOL has sent out, and the negative response to their bloated dial-up software, I don't think people will be scrambling to aol.com to get their hands on the latest.

So why would anyone go to AOL.com? The article leaves me unconvinced. About the only thing I can agree with is the CEO's statement about it is going to get worse (before it gets better, but there is no guarntee of that)

Paradigm Shift?

More like refocusing on what actually makes AOL profitable. We knew this was coming when we saw AOL ad-words on superbowl commercials, and REALLY knew it was coming with the 10% Google aquisition. Can you really blame them for no longer competing in the sub $25/month dialup when FIMUX and muni wi-fi networks easily bring in close to 2X that per month for broadband after taking out TCO?

Just a thought

AOL sucks. We all know this. So they think that providing their services for free, in an advertising based model will help them. It probably will. I think it misses the point, though. How many stories have we heard about their terrible support, lacking features, and inability to change with the market? They should probably focus on providing a great product before they make it free. Free crap is still crap.

Re:Just a thought

AOL sucks. We all know this. So they think that providing their services for free, in an advertising based model will help them.

I strongly disagree...

AOL has some really good properties under its belt. Namely, i'm talking about Winamp. Let's not forget about all the Time Warner stuff they have access to as well.

With Winamp and it's shoutcast technologies, they have a good platform for content delivery, a really smart user base that constantly provides free features for Winamp through plugins. Since the 5x series Winamp has moved beyond just being a mp3 player, it has live streaming content, access to tons of Time Warner properties (Animaniacs/Freakazoid anyone?) and there's a ton more stuff planned on the horizon.

Recently a job [winamp.com] for Music Director has popped up. Part of the description talks about things going towards social networking in the Winamp microchasm. As we know, Nullsoft is sort of the place where new AOL technologies are being developped, so it stands to reason that the social networking on the horizon for AOL and Winamp is going to include some aspects of both communities, myspace with NSV video is my guess.

The AOL client isn't completely suck ass either. Now before I get boo's from the peanut gallery let me explain... I run my own consulting company, and today I had to do some work at a lawyers office, and she's been using AOL as her email for years. She got a new PC, wanted me to transfer files from her old PC to her new PC, then hand-me-down her old PC to her assistant. I walked in thinking "OH noes! PST and outlook!" Since the AOL email client stores all the emails on the server, it was pretty painless. It wasn't *that* bad. They just logged in with their screen names, and like magic, all their stuff was there.

The AOL client isn't too shabby for reading news or other things either. Sure you can fire up Moz, but it's really not that bad... If AIM was so terrible, why do so many people use it?

About the only thing that has been bad with AOL is their dialup. Even there, not that bad. AOL has always had the biggest banks of blade modem banks. Dial up numbers just about anywhere you can think of.

It's a shame so many people judge AOL on what it was 20 years ago. Sure, it was crap then, but over the years AOL has been pretty good about responding to customers outcries about the bad, and then AOL has always moved quickly to resolve it. Remember when folks complained about busy signals? AOL took care of it. Hard time cancelling your account? AOL fired the person who got recorded, then told all their staff to not give customers a hard time. Despite all outward appearances of AOL being a hard company to deal with, force feeding their customers what they want, in reality the opposite is true.

Anyways, I have no beef against AOL. It's made the internet easier for some people, which is a good thing in my opinion. It takes a corporation with deep pockets to accomplish what AOL has, and my hats are off to them. Money well spent.

--toq

Good Price Point

So...AOL users will finally get their money's worth?

Maybe it's the content?

"In May 2006, 14.8 billion pages were viewed on AOL's branded service -- by both paying users and others -- down 27 percent from a year earlier, according to comScore MediaMetrix. In the same period, Yahoo's page views increased by 10 percent, to 38.1 billion."

Here's a clue: try improving the quality rather than lowering the price. Actually, chances are that AOL's stuff isn't that bad (/. bashers aside) but just the fact that it says "AOL" on it gives people a certain predisposition against it. So, a second clue: try honestly rebranding yourself to improve market perception. If McDonald's can do it, AOL can too.

Sad News

No More AOL CDs [nomoreaolcds.com], while they may accomplish the goal of stopping CDs from being sent out, may not be able to achieve that goal of rolling up to AOL HQ with a million CDs.

Disturbance

Today, I felt a great disturbance in the force...

It was as if millions of mail carriers suddenly cried out, then, peaceful silence.

An ad for every surface on earth

As someone who works in publishing, [infoworld.com] this seems symptomatic of what is a very disturbing trend to me. Somebody has to pay for content. Popular wisdom is that the consumers of that content won't pay for it. There's only one other place to go for the money, it seems, and that's advertisers.

I don't know how to feel about it. I'm somebody who hates ads. I watch a lot of PBS, tend to rent shows on DVD rather than watch them when broadcast on commercial television, or if I do watch them, I skip the ads in my DVR. Likewise, I run AdBlock and an aggressive set of filters in Firefox. My goal is to see no advertisements at all. Ironically, however, those same ads are my livelihood. Am I cutting my own throat?

Even scarier is the fact that all the movie and TV studios are aware of this behavior and are taking steps to correct for it. Product placement, for example -- it's no coincidence that guy is drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi, or that there's a big RSA Security logo on that video monitor in that episode of "24."

So if we don't want to pay for our content, and we refuse to be receptive to traditional advertising messages, how long before that kind of influence gains a foothold in other kinds of media? I work in the trade press, so we're right on the cusp of that -- some people will never believe that a story in my magazine is meant to be impartial, no matter what it says. But does anyone really think the mainstream news media -- even something like the New York Times -- is completely impervious?

I really, really do not want to live in the kind of world where every flat surface is paved with an ad, every movie is a sales vehicle, every TV show is a survey, every newspaper article is corporate public relations. But is it avoidable, given the direction our society is going?

Re:An ad for every surface on earth

I agree that advertising alone is an outdated business model. I mean, newspapers and radio are really hot right now, NOT. The fact of the matter is, however, that's exactly what Google is doing, and they seem to be doing just fine with advertising providing their only revenue.

Web 2.0 has been a big buzzword for the last year, and the technological achievements and potential are impressive and exciting. But name me one Web 2.0 business that is actually a successful business! And even if there are some (MySpace?) that are generating non-trivial revenue, they are doing so through advertising.

Paying for content online has some serious hills to climb because ultimately customers want something concrete for their money. If you buy a newspaper for 50 cents, you get dozens of pages of content (and full-page bra and panty ads if it's the Washington Post), so what would be a analogous price for a single article (let's forget for a minute that most Web-based news articles consist of about two paragraphs and are barely a summary leave alone an actual article)? Would you pay to post on /.? Micropayments are certainly a possibility, but after years of "all you can eat", who's going to want to suddenly start paying per page, even for good content?

For people who aren't selling actual objects and services, whether it's Amazon selling books or iTunes selling MP3 files (which are still concrete enough to make feel like you are "getting something") or Everquest selling some Chinese slave laborer a change to farm gold, who is actually making money on the Internet without relying mostly or even solely on advertising?

In other words, if the customers aren't shopping and there's no advertising, how exactly is someone going to make money on sites like /., Digg or IMDB? I go to IMDB almost daily, but I have to admit I'd balk at having to pay to access it. AOL's past success was in providing content their customers couldn't get anywhere else, but now they can't do that any more because relatively few people are still accessing the Internet through AOL and its client.

Ultimately, I don't think the post-advertising/non-subscription business model has been discovered yet. So I don't think you can criticize AOL for doing the only thing I think they possibly can do, at least for now. My biggest criticism would be that they took too long to figure this out. But the company is too big and has far too many resources to just disappear; it just won't be the AOL we've come to know and joke about.

Unappreciated genius.

All I can say about this "Jonathan Miller" is that he's an incredible visionary and way ahead of his time.

For those unfamiliar with his vision for the future, Mr. Miller would replace our telephone modulator-demodulators with an "Ethernet" entering the home over thick black cables -- or perhaps even copper telephone wiring!

Anyone the world over could view America OnLine's pictures through an interconnected "Web" of compters independent of the company. They could even manipulate America OnLine's own computers to "search" this "Web!" How very generous!!

This new vision for inter-networking has already caught on with the kids, who have crowned it "CyberWeb 2.0" or somesuch.

I would explain further, but I must telegraph my stockbroker posthaste, to see if we can't convince this America OnLine to detach itself from old Time Inc. and sell off its own shares! It's growth potential is simply ex-plosive!

Posting via dictaphone,
Charles Fornwall Huston XII

AOL stands for something new

"Dismantling of marketing" "towards using advertising" ?

AOL = Advertisements On Line
10.0 Free Advertisement Edition
[as opposed to Advertisement Free Edition]
Brilliant!

cities rejoice

as they no long have to build a new landfill just for AOL cds and packaging. As least with the disks I could use them. How much more would CD-RW have cost?

Paradigm Shift?

They can start by avoiding the words "Paradigm Shift".

Wait A Sec...

They are just now relying on ads as their main source of revenue? Back when I used AOL, their ads were pervasive to the point of being annoying. Everyone I know that uses AIM thinks the number of ads are annoying.

So, what they are saying is that it will only get more annoying as they bump off dial-up. Great plan, AOL.

If AOL wanted to swap from service revenue to an ad revenue, they shouldn't have been shoving as many ads down people's throats before the switch.

It's about time

I find it amusing how it took the behemoth of a company this long to realize that charging nearly 25-dollars-a-month for dial-up access is ridiculous. Of course, they tried to up-sell their "premium content" all of which could be had for free elsewhere on the world wide web. This was a prime example of executives lagging on meeting consumer needs/desires in the name of greed.

Typo

"AOL Paradigm Shift"

How did that letter 'f' get in there?

good idea, look out Yahoo.

Sounds like a good idea. It could become a serious competitor to Yahoo if it drops its dial up. They have the parts and large customer base, but the execution sucks. This would allow TimeWarner to become the behemoth that everyone was scared of whenthe merger occurred. They can bypass many of the SEC merger restrictions by not offering ISP services at all.

I think they should sell it off or spin out the dial up, rather than shutting it down. LAst thing they need to do is alienate the customers they have left. It's still profitable, and makes lots of money.

New paradigm?

Old paradigm: Charge more for less.
New Paradigm: Charge more for a little less.

Oh yeah, Right!

Next thing you'll tell me the Soviet Union is going to break itself up.

Open source YIM?

I hope this means they make Yahoo Instant Messenger open source! LOL, good luck, I know.

Eternal September

Does this mean Eternal September [wikipedia.org] is almost over? ;)

Don't do anything without a pre-meeting

I hope they remember to leverage their synergies. Don't shift without a clutch.

Maybe they could rename their company to AOL...

...from Assholes On Line. Like how SGI renamed themselves from Silicon Graphics Inc.

Instead of "Don't Be Evil",,,

AOL could adopt the motto, "Don't Suck." It wouldn't help, though.

Profitability and market share

I've been on hi-speed for about 6 years now, so the whole AOL/dial-up thing is sorta moot from where I sit. However, the following caught my attention (from TFA):

Mr. Goldston also noted that dial-up Internet access had become phenomenally profitable in recent years as the wholesale telecommunications costs to providers like AOL have fallen from 45 cents an hour to less than 6 cents an hour.

I see "PeoplePC" and "EarthLink" commercials on TV on a regular basis, and both charge less than half of AOL's $25/mo. Are lower costs/prices the secret to their sucess? How big is the overall market share of dial-up users at this point? How does the profitability of Cable/DSL compare?

How long until we see a similiar "paradigm shift" with consumer high-speed Internet pricing? If prices dropped accordingly, my $50 monthly cablemode/VoIP costs would become a nominal $6.50 per month. Heck, if it was that cheap I might even order a (gasp!) Pay-Per-View movie now and again.

Is it inevitable, or a pipe dream? Verizon and OptOnline have been battling pretty fiercly here in New York over the past few years, but both have maintained the same basic pricing throughout.

Some useful content

AOL has some useful content very much in the way that MSN has some useful content. People already go to AOL.com for the entertainment news, free music previews and such. With free email (not a new concept) people may stop buy more often. It seems that they might be trying to take on Google and Microsoft for the content and search areas of the web market.

The Death Spiral begins

First symptom: CEOs who use nonsensical marketing-speak like "paradigm shift" when what they really mean is "going out of business - everything half price".

Toto, we're not in 1997 any more

In 1997-8, AOL had by far the best dial-up internet service in the US, as well as a very mixed bag of software and content (I'd be even harsher, but at that point the sheer mass of people in chat rooms and so on DID count for quite a bit on the quantity vs. quality scale). It rightly focused its marketing intensely on its virtues as an ISP, probably inspired by at least two very smart consultants (the other one being my partner Linda Barlow, but I digress ...)

At the time, I thought they had about two years to bring their software up to the standard of (ever-shifting) user functionality expectations, or they'd be stuck with a perception and positioning -- well, the nerds' perception would also be adopted by the mainstream. As it happened, despite firing their head of development who was a great networking guy but lousy at UI, they didn't fix the software, and they did become scorned by the mainstream. I thought they'd do better -- but then, I thought Bob Pittman would be unto them as Ray Lane was unto Oracle, and I proved VERY wrong about that.

And now -- well, as everybody says, it sucks. The email client sucks. The general UI is clunky. The collection of "content" and functionality is inferior to Yahoo. There are lots of negative weirdnesses (article headlines changing before you can click) and few if any offsetting postive "Wow!" weirdnesses.

So how do they fix that? Pretty much the only strategy that could work is to do something new, and happen to do it right. The internet does keep evolving, so the opportunity is always there. Another note suggested this should be in multimedia/broadband; that is indeed the obvious place to look, for ta variety of reasons. It matches the current technical opportunity. It matches the strengths of the rest of Time Warner. It's just assumed by the generation even younger than people who post here -- i.e., the generation to young to know or care that "AOL sucks".

AOL will probably live or die on how it evolves in the video generation.

Netscape'd

Looks like Time Warner is going to do to AOL what AOL did to Netscape.

Anyone?!

Anyone get the feeling AOL will be going through serious reorganization soon?

And what would it honestly take for AOL to become a service you would use?

Overall Idea

So basically AOL is going from suck to blow?

History of AOL -- Quantumlink (Qlink)

I discovered my first fake female chatter on Quantumlink.

This is arguably off topic, but I am reminded of Qlink. This was the primordial rich content service offered by Quantum Computer Systems which trumped all others at the time, and it was strictly for the Commodore (C=64) line. Other offerings such as Compuserve and Delphi were text-only.

I found these links, that some of you may find nostalgic:

http://www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/qlink [jbrain.com]
http://internetgames.about.com/od/gamingnews/a/tim eline.htm [about.com] [scroll down to 1985]

And get the Quantumlink client @ http://www.quantum-link.org/ [quantum-link.org]

also.. of course.. the UNBIASED slashdot commentary:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/19/232123 6 [slashdot.org]

Pradigm Shifted

My paradigm shifted, and I shifted to hospitel.

http://dack.com/web/bullshit.html [dack.com]

AOL support

I was working for a client not long ago whos account had been compromised. Aol changed some account settings and made them all create new passwords. My client went on vacation, and charged me with getting all their stuff working again (wireless router, etc...) Well, somehow they also disallowed PPPOE on 1 of their accounts (I'm not sure how / why they did that, but I spent forever trying to figure out what they did, and then proving it to them) Mind you everything worked before they messed with the account settings.

Their solution was to destroy one of the accounts (which happened to be in use), and create one for the router. Technically appropriate, but they should have added an account IMHO, and it came about 13 hours too long.

I just wanted it to work so I could download updates and prepare them for Cable.

Re:Simple question

What does "regardless ... or not" mean?

Re:Advertising?

No, it means I'll have to find somewhere else to put my drink.

Re:OH NO!

Donate them to Ubuntu?