{"id":9053,"date":"2019-03-03T21:24:56","date_gmt":"2019-03-04T02:24:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digital.hbs.edu\/platform-digit\/submission\/bye-bye-britannica-ok-google\/"},"modified":"2019-03-05T15:46:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-05T20:46:51","slug":"bye-bye-britannica-hey-siri","status":"publish","type":"hck-submission","link":"https:\/\/d3.harvard.edu\/platform-digit\/submission\/bye-bye-britannica-hey-siri\/","title":{"rendered":"Bye-Bye Britannica, Hey Siri"},"content":{"rendered":"

Britannica\u2019s Age of Dominance<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Encyclopedia Britannica\u2019s entire business was built around print media, from mechanical tools and a release cadence that matched the production timeline of paperback books, to a direct sales force of more than 2,000 people at its peak. The sales force sold the multi-volume pack to households at a break even price and made money on the \u201cyearbook\u201d, their annual single volume full of updates. The sales model focused on going door to door with the pitch of giving a family an information source in their living room. Not only was an encyclopedia a very visible sign of education and wealth in a home, but also gave parents the comfort of supporting their children\u2019s education by giving them a physical wealth of knowledge. [1]<\/a><\/p>\n

In 1990 Britannica was thriving with more than $650M in revenue and selling more than 100,000 volumes of their encyclopedia a year.[2]<\/a> By 1994 their print volume had dropped to 3,000 units and by 1996 the company was sold for a mere $135M.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

What Happened?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Many are quick to conclude that Wikipedia killed Britannica however Wikipedia wasn\u2019t founded until 2001. In reality, the rise of the PC and the digital age was the true threat to the encyclopedia giant. Families increasingly introduced a PC to their living room, opening the door to CD ROMs full of content, and an alternative single source of information in the home. Bookshelves were replaced with a monitor and competitors entered the market to provide the wealth of knowledge that Britannica previously held a monopoly over.<\/p>\n

Ironically, Microsoft pitched Britannica on a digital version, but they rejected, so Windows made Encarta. Encarta became the most threatening competitor, not because their content was better, but because Microsoft was willing to bundle the product as a loss leader to sell more PCs.[4]<\/a> In Britannica\u2019s defense, they responded relatively quickly to the threat and offered a digital version by 1994, but the competition was stiff.\u00a0 Britannica faced a tough sell with their offering at $1,200 and Encarta offering a \u201cgood enough\u201d product for free. Britannica watched their paper sales plummet while their digital growth was weak and unable to make up the difference. After a rapid downfall they sold to Swiss investor Safra in 1996 and shifted their focus to educational products for schools. [5]<\/a> They returned to profitability in 2003 with a new business model focused on e-learning and instructional material for schools, with 55,000 U.S. Subscribers as of 2012[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Wikipedia\u2019s Rise <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Wikipedia was first proposed by Stallman in 2000 as a \u201cfree-as-freedom\u201d online encyclopedia and was officially founded in 2001. Its core tenant was that there would be no central authority controlling the content, which was in stark contrast to other digital encyclopedias including Britannica and Encarta, and online encyclopedia predecessor Nupedia. Wikipedia quickly overcame all of their competitors to be the largest online encyclopedia. Today it is the 5th<\/sup> most popular website in terms of overall traffic with monthly readership of 495 Million and 15.5 Billion page views per month.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Wikipedia\u2019s value proposition is incredibly clear \u2013 instant information on almost any topic. While the quality may not be sufficiently high for academics, it has proven adequate for almost any other use. The connection to a global wealth of knowledge and the sheer volume of a platform with virtually unlimited size, gave Wikipedia a strong advantage over conventional encyclopedias. Although there are some potential downsides to the \u201copen\u201d model in the short run, namely mixed research on the quality of Wikipedia results, constant changes to controversial topics, and biased content, in the long run the platform has shown to have unique benefits. For example, the potential for Wikipedia\u2019s model to reduce bias through each revision is an encouraging outcome in an increasingly divided media landscape.[8]<\/a>[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Here Come the Giants<\/strong><\/h3>\n

While Wikipedia is clearly a winner in the digital transformation of the encyclopedia, their non-profit business model opens the door to further winners in the space. \u00a0Google, Facebook, Amazon and even Apple have utilized Wikipedia\u2019s vast database of knowledge to also become \u201cwinners\u201d in this transformation:<\/p>\n