David Parker Consulting

Increase Licensing, Generate Access Models, Grow Publishing Output

Access Models

Lived Places Publishing: Our Founding Mission

Affordable Course Readings, Library-Friendly Access, and Giving Voice to Social Identity in Context and Place

By David Parker, Publisher and Co-Founder

Lived Places PublishingLived Places Publishing launched in April 2021, guided by the belief that our team of editors and authors can innovate both in terms of content and with regards to access and affordability. Our enterprise is committed to delivering curriculum-ready content that allows students to engage with global author voices exploring the intersection of social identity and place or context. And we are developing a library-first purchasing model that supports unlimited user access without restriction, interlibrary loan, and open access.

What do we mean by the intersection of social identity and place or context? Our co-founder and Black Studies Collection editor Chris McCauley says it best:

“Lived Places Publishing is guided by the belief that story-sharing can both shorten the distance that separates us and increase our collective efforts against thinking and policies that penalize and exclude far too many people for simply being who they are. By “Lived Places” we mean more than geographical or physical locations, but also the social and institutional ones that we have been forced to inhabit and those that we have claimed and embraced.”

During the summer of 2020, when the world was ablaze with awareness, we began asking how the global higher education curriculum is representing the voices at the intersection of location and lived experience. We did in depth analysis of dissertation and theses publishing and course reading lists and syllabi across the social sciences. And we discovered that scholarship is especially focused, through the lens of discipline or interdisciplinary study, on social identity and place. And as we dug deeper into assigned readings and materials we saw that instructors explore these themes with students most often through scholarly readings, journal articles, and their own writing. Our insights empower collection editors to build disciplinary or interdisciplinary collections of course readings that can be assigned weekly, written by academics and activists across the globe who are concerned with the intersection of social identity and lived places and spaces.

With our content vision and mission in place, we turned to the question of pricing, access, equity, and affordability. Every Lived Places title will be available as a single title in print and digital formats at affordable price points. While some students will choose to purchase individual titles, we decided to focus especially on building an annual collection of titles that institutions can purchase for a set price tied to the local budget and economic context. Our model will provide access to every title in the collection at a fraction of the single title price and delivered without digital rights management restrictions and perpetual ownership. In addition, for libraries that wish to support interlibrary loan, the Lived Places collection will include an option to upgrade to single title interlibrary loan rights for all titles held with unlimited access. In other words, unlimited institutional access for the purchasing library and simultaneous single title loan rights to another institution.

We believe in and support open access and open educational resources. And we believe in returning a high royalty to our authors and editors. 35% of each sale will be allocated to royalty and funding for open access. Individual authors will be given the option to choose publishing open access or earning a royalty. Equity, in our view, requires fairness in royalty, support for open publishing, pricing that allows every global institution to purchase and, by extension, support the Lived Places mission to support open access and author royalty.

And if you just want to connect and learn more, you can reach me here directly.
And if you want to follow our blog and learn what our collection editors and authors are up to, please subscribe here.

Peace to you,
David Parker, Publisher

P.S. You can also follow our progress on Medium and Substack.

This post was originally published by David Parker on the Lived Places Publishing blog.

IMAGE CREDIT: Michael D Beckwith, used under the Unsplash License

Developing Content-Based Products for Learning and Research Part 7: Go-To-Market

In part six of this series the concept of Product-Market-Fit was presented as a “market ready” product; that is a product that has the minimum necessary set of features and attributes required for a customer to begin using and/or begin paying. Of course this is not the end of product development (product improvement is iterative as will be discussed in part eight of this series), but it is the beginning of active go-to-market. 

The very best product managers are the chief executives of their products, and this means working as closely with the marketing and sales team as with the finance, user design and engineering teams. At launch, a successful go-to-market effort, guided by the product manager and product marketing manager, will have detailed the follow through with the development partners and the many potential customers and reviewers who offered feedback along the way. The go-to-market plan will include clear sales messaging based on the solutions designed into the product and the role of product management in training and supporting sales. And the go-to-market plan should include a content marketing communication plan designed to leverage industry publications, conferences, blogs and other forums to amplify the new product messaging. 

Engaging the Development Partners and Other Customer Contributors

Your team is launching a new product to solve meaningful challenges your customers face. You know you are launching a new product that will achieve the customer acquisition and revenue targets you set  because you have sought constant learning and validation. The development partner panel – between six and 10 partners – has committed to working alongside your product team across the entire new product process. Development partners join into a partnership with the entire organization because they feel the pain that you have proposed a product solution to address. These are your early advocates and first customers. Your first job at launch is to ensure that your entire development partner panel is on board to use the product and supports the claims of the marketing message and sales approach.  The successful product manager will have been in weekly and often daily communication with development partners so there should be no surprises. These are your first buyers, first users, first advocates and best source for lifelong product feedback.

Development partners are a special breed and are discovered in the ongoing outreach and customer engagement process. Over the course of early product discovery and as a function of the daily role of being a product manager, you will speak with hundreds of prospective buyers. These many interactions will occur as  structured interviews, user feedback sessions, surveys, and  focus groups. Each of these sessions must be catalogued with important comments, questions and observations noted for later follow up with the customer that provided the feedback and insight. As the product team nears launch with the product-market fit,  the product team should return to these many providers of intermittent feedback with an update on the impending product launch and with detail on how their individual questions, comments and observations are or are not addressed. This level of interaction will enable a powerful first sales call by the account manager and, more importantly, will be received by the customer as proof that his or her earlier interaction with the product team was meaningful.

Sales Messaging and Sales Support

I want to make a bold statement: The new product sales message must include solutions framed as questions to which a prospective customer will respond positively. In other words, the discovery process, if legitimate, will have unearthed real problems in need of solutions. And the product launch will address these problems head on. The product manager, working with the product marketing manager, will convert these product features into sales collateral and messaging centered on the original problems that drove the entire product development process. It is an unfortunate reality that many products are launched with superficial product messages that do not resonate with customers. Every salesperson you know will vividly recount the many new products they were asked to promote that fell flat with customers. Follow the process described in this series and you will launch products customers need and salespeople are pleased to promote for having done real and meaningful good in the customers’ life. 

It is not enough, however, to have developed a solid product with reliable and validated sales tools and customer-facing sales questioning tools designed to highlight the product solution; the product team needs to get on the road, or on the video call, alongside the account manager, to model the effective sales call and the manner in which the focus is directed to the new product solutions. Immediately after ProQuest acquired Alexander Street, the product team responsible for the streaming video product, Academic Video Online, went on the road with each of the 30+ ProQuest account managers to model solution selling. The product team proved that the sales tools and tactics worked and that the problems the product was designed to address were real and meaningful. Academic Video Online quickly became one of the fastest growing, most popular products in the ProQuest portfolio.

Content Marketing

The final piece in an integrated and long-running new product go-to-market plan is content marketing. In much the same way that the new product development process reveals the challenges and needs of the customer that ultimately inform the sales tactics and tools, the customer discovery process will yield abundant qualitative and quantitative data to underpin valuable content marketing. 

Content marketing is synonymous with the sharing of product research data, processes and results. It is “marketing” only in that the desired outcome is advocacy for the uptake and use of the new product. In this sense content marketing is unabashedly biased, but it is a bias informed by real and validated customer feedback developed across the new product development process, launch and subsequent refinement and improvement of the product solutions, and supported by legitimate data.

Content marketing can take many forms, but in the context of content-based products for learning and research, I suggest focusing on industry publications, white papers, conferences, blogs, and online discussion forums. The very best of these outputs will be jointly authored/presented by a member of the product team and a customer or customers. The backbone of the report or presentation will be data collected in product discovery amplified by broader, contextual industry data. For example, the product manager and a development partner will present data on the search efficacy/accuracy of a new search tool grounded in industry data on the need for general improvement in search efficacy.

Please subscribe to get a simple notification when new posts publish. I invite you to read the complete series here: New Product Development for Content-Based Products.

If you want to work together on your new product development strategy, contact me directly.

Published by: on
Read more about: New Product Development Process

Photo by fauxels from Pexels

Developing Content-Based Products for Learning and Research Part 6: Product Market Fit and Minimum Viable Product

In part five of this series on new product development for content-based products for learning and research, I focused on the management of the road map. The overriding objective of carefully managing the road map is to ensure the delivery of a product that meets the most basic and essential requirements of a paying or using customer audience. If the road map expands because of scope creep, or if the road map is delayed for competing priorities, delivering the product as defined in the business case suffers. With this in mind, part six will discuss, differentiate and contextualize the two terms used in product development that capture the essence of delivering a most basic product a customer will support: Minimum Viable Product (MVP) and  Product Market Fit (PMF)

Minimum Viable Product:

A MVP is a product release that is fully functional, with all features presented in the business case as essential to launch available for use by the customer. The MVP is the most basic product that can be released to early users, lead users, or development partners with the objective of learning as much as possible for as little time and effort invested as possible. A well-designed MVP will accurately represent the feature set and user experience described in the business case for product launch. The early users or development partners will have a high fidelity product experience and be able to offer the product team validation that the promise of the business case can be achieved. The purpose of the MVP test with the lead user group is to validate the confidence of the business leaders and the product team in the development of the business case product concept. A successful MVP will trigger added investment, marketing and sales attention and focus for the coming product release and will validate the standing product roadmap. 

An MVP can be a very early release of a fully-functional product, or it can be a wireframe or other mechanism for delivering a high fidelity experience to the development partner panel. This is a critical distinction. The MVP does not have to represent a saleable product, ready to integrate across platforms, acquisition models or library or university workflow solutions. The MVP must give the lead users a “true” product experience but it does not have to be market ready and it is not a product to be sold.

Product Market Fit:

A PMF is market ready. The MVP validation process triggers the “full steam ahead” of the product team and the drive to deliver the product to the market; the product-market fit (PMF). In the business case the features that differentiate the product will have been described and the market sizing and opportunity will have been stated. The PMF is the meeting of the ready-to-sell product with the target market and the product features fully developed that differentiate the new product from the competitors’ products. A PMF that has achieved its mandate will resonate with the target market. The intended customers will be able to describe its differentiated features from the product they are currently using. And, further, customers in the target market will be willing to, if not eager, to learn more about and trial the new product. The hallmarks of a successful PMF are an energized sales and marketing team, customers advocating for the product with peers, and, critically, lead generation, trial usage and lead conversion in line with that promised in the business case.

Product Market Fit is not the end of the story. The PMF launch is a ready-to-sell product inclusive of the most basic user experience and set of requirements a customer will pay for. The product roadmap will assume iteration toward functionality and user experience that is critical to the success of the product but is not required to launch and generate sales and usage. This is a critical point. The launch of the PMF is further validation of that achieved with the MVP, but done in the context of delivering value and utility to customers. With the PMF in the market being used, the product team is receiving daily, real-time user feedback that allows for correction and adjustment to the product and prioritization of the features and enhancements to release in the iterative product development process.

Across my career in new product development and product management, I have heard the terms minimum viable product and product market fit variously and, at times, incorrectly used. Precision in terms is important if the true value of each step is to be derived along the new product process. The MVP is a full-fidelity representation of the product intended for launch that lead users and development partners can test and evaluate; but it is not a ready-for-market, saleable product. The PMF is ready for market, saleable, and inclusive of the feature set and user experience validated in the MVP. In both cases, the product team is focused on the core feature and user experience necessary to launch and generate sales and usage. Of course, this is only the beginning of an iterative process that will refine, improve and enhance the product across its life-cycle.

Please subscribe to get a simple notification when new posts publish. I invite you to read the complete series here: New Product Development for Content-Based Products.

If you want to work together on your new product development strategy, contact me directly.

Published by: on
Read more about: New Product Development Process

Photo by fauxels from Pexels

Developing Content-Based Products for Learning and Research Part 5: The Management of the Roadmap

Congratulations! The senior leadership team and the product leadership group have approved your business case and you are now ready to engage the product team, including engineering, user design and product ownership who, with your leadership, are responsible for delivering on the product concept. In your approved business case wire frames, mock-ups, product requirements, and sprint estimates were presented and approved. Now, with your product team, it is time to turn to the road map and prioritization of the schedule and the product build. Three factors will impinge upon and determine your success in delivering on your successful product launch: 1. Competing priorities, 2. Scope creep and 3. Pressure to meet a deadline.

Competing Priorities

Successful product teams are always managing a product portfolio and the ongoing and iterative process of maintaining and improving existing products. Newly approved products must find space on the road map unless you find yourself in the rare circumstance of being part of a newly formed team created specifically to launch a major new product; this is a rare event and consider yourself extremely fortunate if you are so blessed, but know that the scrutiny that comes with such good fortune will be significant. In the majority of cases, however, product managers and product teams are navigating competing priorities. There are many ways to organize and manage the product road map including, Kanban, Objectives, Features, Now-Next-Later and more. In the specific context of content-based products for learning and research delivered to libraries and learning institutions, my preference is a road map organized to address user groups: patron interface, librarian/administration interface and content provider interface. Patron interface/user experience will include the majority of the critical product requirements that will define your successful launch. That said, the librarian or higher education administration users of the product and the publishers and content providers that fuel the product will have specific product requirements from admin controls to usage dashboards that will be critical to the success of the product. Engineering teams may be divided to address each of these users’ sets of product requirements, or work intermittently across these requirements. And, often, the requirements will merge as with, for example, usage dashboards that will be adapted to satisfy the product requirements of librarians and publishers. The successful product manger will need to manage engineering resources to meet critical product launch requirements of multiple product users while managing an existing product portfolio.

Scope Creep

Offering  a warning against succumbing to scope creep in managing the product road map is a bit like admonishing a friend to engage in healthy eating and exercise to stay healthy; it feels obvious and perhaps unnecessary. But, across my 20+ years in product management, I have seen far more scope creep than fidelity to a core set of features required for a successful launch. This is not to say that critical launch features cannot and should not change after a business case is approved; the purpose of a discovery partner panel of leading customers is to test and refine the releases and product requirements leading up to launch, and this often means adaptation and change.  Scope creep, however, most often comes from outside the controlled environment of the product team and the discovery partners. The most common source of scope creep is influential customers and influential sales people finding a sympathetic ear with senior sales leadership. Another frequent source of scope creep is unexpected feature and product releases from competitors. Finally, from within the product team and, especially from engineering, great ideas will emerge in the creative process of building the product. A critical responsibility of the product manager, as leader of the product team, is to digest all of these possible new features and product suggestions, consider the source, and then take decisive action. Decisive action means pressure testing the proposed added feature against the business case. Does it increase the first year revenue estimate? Does it mean moving an assumed required feature for launch to a post launch enhancement? Or does it mean tabling the idea or placing it in the “nice to have” category; a place I often refer to as the road map parking lot. In the end, great product strategy, like great strategy in general, is what you DO NOT do. 

Pressure to Meet a Deadline 

As a general rule, I believe high performing product organizations should define optimal product launch windows in terms of months or quarters and avoid specific deadlines. For example, commit to launching a new library subscription database in the fall so that decision makers can trial and assess for at least 90 days before making a commitment at the end of the fiscal budgeting period in May/June in North America. This approach allows for considerable latitude in estimating sprint releases and assessing the success of those releases with discovery partners and lead users. However, organizations and leadership teams often ask product managers to commit to a launch date based on key events, such as annual sales meetings, investor calls, board meetings or major industry conferences and events. This is stake-holder driven roadmap management and it is often a recipe for disaster or, at minimum, a subpar product launch. There will be exceptions where the product team must commit to a specific launch date to meet a very high level commitment for the organization. High level commitments will be rare and will come with the unwavering support of those most senior people in the organization; meaning, if you are the product manager leading the product team that is making the high-level commitment to launch to a specific date, then you should be doing so with the knowledge that the CEO and her team have made your new  product priority one for the entire company. In all other cases, avoid all pressure to meet deadlines over delivering to the set of features and functionalities described in your business case necessary for a successful product launch.

I started this eight part series on new product development practice by noting that new product development is hard. It is difficult work for many reasons, ranging from running an effective discovery process, to building organizational support for the new product, to defining and sticking to a set of core features that the new product development process has identified as required for a successful launch. Manage the competing engineering priorities, the risk of scope creep and the pressure to meet externally-imposed deadlines and you will have overcome the hardest bit of all in new product development.

Please subscribe to get a simple notification when new posts publish. I invite you to read the complete series here: New Product Development for Content-Based Products.

If you want to work together on your new product development strategy, contact me directly.

Published by: on
Read more about: New Product Development Process

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels

Developing Content-Based Products for Learning and Research Part 4: The Components of a Business Case

We have arrived at the moment we need to sell our new product concept to senior leadership. We have completed customer discovery and established a concept that satisfies a significant unmet need  for our customers. We have established with a representative mix of our publishing  partners a model they will support  with licensed content. Finally, we have considered the strategic, technological and go-to-market context of our business and we know our new product concept is aligned with our companies’ strengths and growth objectives. A well-constructed business case, presented with confidence, is the critical next step to take our proposed product from conceptual to development. The components of a business case will vary at the discretion of product management leadership and company culture, but I recommend the following 10 components:

1. Brief description of the customer pain point and the proposed product solution

Think of this as the elevator-pitch. Can you communicate in one slide, in one or two sentences, the core customer problem and your proposed solution? For example: “Librarians need a predictable annual cost combined with selected ownership of highly used titles. Build-by-Choice, as a benefit of an Academic Video Online subscription, will provide a predictable annual subscription cost with a single-title ownership benefit tied to the value of the subscription.

2. Brief summary of the customer discovery process

Provide a brief summary of the number of customers interviewed, their geographic and other segmentation, such as community college versus Ph.D. granting, the timeframe interviews were conducted and the core questions posed to those interviewed. 

3. Brief summary of content partner concept validation process

This is very similar to the summary of the customer discovery process. Detail the publishers interviewed, the reason for their selection (e.g., major partner, innovator, new model skeptic), and the critical questions posed to your content partners.

4. Wireframes/Mock-Ups

 A wireframe or “click through” brings your proposed product concept to life, allowing your audience of decision-makers to “see” how the product will function in the common user experience and design of the company’s product infrastructure. 

5. The Market Opportunity

 Is this a product for the global library market? Will it serve only top-tier, research-oriented institutions? Is this a product that builds on a required supporting product being in place? The business case must offer a reasonable representation of the revenue opportunity by customer segment and probable total revenue generation over a defined time period.

6. Product requirements and preliminary engineering personnel/sprint estimates

In the first five slides of your business case you have defined a problem and a solution, validated your discovery process with customers and content partners, provided a visual experience of a proposed product, and given a reasonable view of the revenue opportunity and market segments to be served.  Now the business plan must turn to the critical questions that will inform the potential profitability of the solution. First among these is a first-pass engineering estimate based on your product requirements that includes a view on the number of engineering personnel required and a timeline to launch.

7. Required content set for launch

 This is as simple as how many titles, pages, minutes, etc. of content the customers will expect to see at launch, the mix of genres or categories of content and the key publishers and content brands that must be present at launch. 

8. Tentative timeline to launch with key milestones 

It is important to provide a timeline to launch that represents the best possible window to introduce the new product. For example, a new subscription product should be launched at least six months ahead of the typical cycle your customer engages with renewals aligned to institutional budget cycles. The timeline must include key milestones established to validate the successive releases with your development partners.

9. Development Partners

 In the Market Opportunity section described above, customer segments and probable revenue generation is listed as necessary. The development partner panel must represent these assertions in actual representative customers. The development partner panel should be every bit as invested in the success of the proposed new product as is the product manager, perhaps even more so as they feel the need, know the pain point and are working with the product team to craft the product they are likely to use at launch.

10 Financial Modeling

This is a basic P&L that captures the expected revenue over a three to five year period post-launch. The modeling will include production and engineering estimates, royalty and publisher payment estimates, and larger promotion and marketing spending tied to the new product roll-out that stands apart from already budgeted marketing costs. Most businesses will provide a template for what is expected from product management in generating financial modeling for a new product proposal.

And that is it! Or is it? I am often asked why I do not include a competitor analysis in my 10 components of a business case. The answer is simple if not a bit idealistic. My view is the big problems and pain points that our customers face that are worthy of new product development and investment are without a current offering. To be sure, there will be products in the market that our new offering will “compete” with, and we will need to provide our sales team with our positioning and differentiation. But a truly meaningful and winning new product will introduce something wholly new that will inspire imitation; leave it to your competitors to describe how their imitation matches your innovation.

Please subscribe to get a simple notification when new posts publish. I invite you to read the complete series here: New Product Development for Content-Based Products.

If you want to work together on your new product development strategy, contact me directly.

Published by: on
Read more about: New Product Development Process, Publishing

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels

Developing Content-Based Products for Learning and Research Part 3: Publisher and Content Partner Discovery

Content is the lifeblood of the educational technology products faculty, learners and researchers rely on to do meaningful work in higher education institutions. The momentum of investment in the educational technology space toward companies building software as a Service (SaaS) products should not confuse the critical point that original published content is the foundation upon which most EdTech tools and services operate. Publishing and content creating businesses may not get a lot of attention from venture capital, but they are bedrock providers nonetheless. Building new products that leverage content in ever more meaningful ways for higher education library patrons demands we celebrate the role of publishers and content creators and that we build their perspective into our products. But we must also challenge and refine the publisher perspective when an opportunity to broaden access, improve affordability or enhance research outputs is in the balance. In short, new product development in the higher education space must be done in a give-and-take partnership with publishers and content creators.

To deliver publisher and partner-supported products to market we must:

  1. Be certain that we are bringing a concept to our publisher partners that is fully validated with customers AND informed by a clear sense of what publishers should accept as was discussed in part 2 in this series: https://parkerthepublisher.com/developing-content-based-products-for-learning-and-research-part-2-customer-discovery/
  2. Build a publisher/partner discovery panel that has the appropriate diversity of market perspectives needed to solve for the majority of publishers: Market Leaders, Business Model Innovators, and the Skeptics.
  3. Provide financial modeling that is well advanced and with thorough consideration for the possible scenarios publishers will raise.

Presenting a Concept informed by what Publishers Should Accept and is Customer Supported

Higher education institutions and libraries in particular are in a perennial budget squeeze. And the volume of content relevant to the research and learning communities on campus grows. The tension between restricted budget capacity and ever-growing content sources has spurred business model innovation from aggregators and publisher-direct options. New product concepts emerge from the known business models, the joy and frustration expressed by customers, and the landscape of solutions being offered by direct competitors and publisher partners with publisher-direct offerings. In part 2 of this series I stressed the importance of maintaining awareness of possible and prevailing business models before beginning a customer discovery process. I am revisiting this point in this discussion of publisher and content creation partners as it is foundational to delivering on the possible. I am advocating for creative compromise in the new product development process and this could be viewed as too restrictive by those seeking more fundamental change. I believe fundamental business model change is possible and I believe publisher partners should and will embrace new models that expand access. Great product managers in the higher education space will navigate the customer and publisher divide in endlessly creative product pathways when guided by a wisdom of boundary-pushing compromise.

Building a Publisher Discovery Panel: Market Leaders, Innovators and Skeptics

In product discovery and development product managers ensure all segments of the customer landscape are represented. This typically takes the form of geographic representation, institution type representation, and known budget capacity. In seeking publisher and content creator feedback into a product concept product managers need to ensure three perspectives are represented:

  1. Market Leaders: These are your largest and most highly-used content providers. In streaming video examples would be Sony Picture Classics, PBS, BBC and The Criterion Collection. In ebook distribution example publishers would include Taylor and Francis, Wiley and Princeton University Press. Other examples are Harvard Business Publishing, Nature and the American Psychological Association.
  2. Innovators: Product managers who have been active in the higher education space know who the innovators are amongst publisher partners. These are publishers and content creators that are eager to participate in pilots, new initiative discovery projects and, often, are pushing the boundaries with their publisher-direct business models and offerings.
  3. Skeptics: These are most often the partners with a deeply entrenched product with broad market uptake and brand recognition that borders on “must have” in the mind of the customer. But, just as often, this is a mindset shared across the publisher broadly or within the publisher’s content licensing group specifically that requires a lot of convincing before even engaging in a discussion about new business models and new products.

A mix of all these voices and perspectives vetting your customer-validated product concept will result in adjustments to your product concept. These adjustments will refine and improve the concept and will ensure broad partner participation as you move to licensing and launch.

Provide Financial Modeling and Scenario Analysis

When taking a customer-validated concept to your publisher partners in the discovery process, the product manager will need to do so with financial templates and models that allow for “on the fly” scenario consideration. And, in fact, the product manager, working with the broader product team and colleagues in finance, should be prepared with likely publisher-defined scenarios and counter-scenarios already modeled. For example, modeling based on changing royalty rates, allocation of product revenue to different content pools (e.g., allocations of product revenue to front-list versus back-list), changing rates of usage where usage models prevail, and, consideration for how a new model will impact revenue flows through an existing model; be it in aggregation or publisher direct. In the end, a publisher’s decision to participate in a new model is primarily an economic decision balanced against a confluence of access and perception concerns. The product manager who comes to the discussion having thought through financial modeling will be in a better position to advance the new product concept to launch with engaged and on-side publishing partners.

Please subscribe to get a simple notification when new posts publish. I invite you to read the complete series here: New Product Development for Content-Based Products.

If you want to work together on your new product development strategy, contact me directly.

Published by: on
Read more about: Licensing, New Product Development Process, Publishing

Photo by Charles Forerunner and Unsplash