Should Content Producers Ignore Apps Because They're Not 'Content'?

Some major content producers appear to have a problem with the applications that are the basis of the iPhone’s App Store. Part of that is the kind of apps that people download, but another part is simply the format. “There is the realisation from a number of key industry leaders that mobile is perceived and used by consumers almost like a utility rather than an entertainment medium…When you are talking about something like applications it is clear a lot of that is being driven by people wanting to access very functional things like social networking sites, train timetables or weather forecasts” Buongiorno (BIT: BNG) UK MD Luca Pagano told C21 Media. Of course, there are a lot of completely useless apps selling a lot of units, such as the iFart, but the point is taken.

Can pure entertainment providers profit from the App Store? Peter Cowley, MD of digital media at Endemol UK, doesn’t think so: “The iPhone has made things better, or at least shown the glimmer of hope for the future, by having a nearly open apps network. But in many ways the slightly depressing thing about it is it shows that phones are about apps, not necessarily about content…On TV, everyone says content is king but I get the sense that on mobile it’s a device where apps are the most important thing, whether that’s a game, a map, an email client, or a virtual Zippo lighter. You can’t quite call that content in the same way that we do on TV or even the web.”

That’s true, although there are some content producers looking at ways to sell content via applications, such as the Presidents of the United States of America. In fact, I think most applications could be considered entertainment content, and I cite Pinch Media in this CNet article: “Just 30 percent of people who buy an iPhone application actually use it the day after it was purchased, according to Pinch Media, which analyzed over 30 million downloads from Apple’s App Store. And the numbers plunge from there: after 20 days, less than 5 percent of those who downloaded an application are actively using it.” This is leading people to ask whether the applications just are’t that compelling? While I’m sure some of them aren’t, I think the bigger picture is being missed…is anyone really surprised if someone stops using the iFart application after a few days? I mean, the joke’s got to wear thin at some point. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth buying the app — a lot of people would consider several days of flatulence-related hilarity for a measly dollar a fantastic deal. So leaving aside the various business models for delivering video through applications, creating applications related to a show could be a big business — although I think “cheap and funny” would win over “expensive and compelling”.

Comments have been disabled for this post