The Tagboard thesis: the days of bulky, hardware-based systems must give way to more agile, cloud-based systems that support today’s distributed workforce.

I’ve written previously on new technologies or services in the content distribution space that scream about how disruptive they are, the new found efficiency they bring, or my personal favorite – the “democratization” of content they unleash. Unfortunately, when you strip away the made-for-TechCrunch adjectives, we are (in many cases) simply left with a Rube-Goldberg like contraption built for one thing and one thing only – stealing someone else’s content and monetizing it.

The concept of virtualization at the service provider level is nothing new. We’ve seen this in many instances in the mobile space for example, with Amp’d, Virgin Mobile, Boost and others becoming Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO’s) – albeit with mixed success. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before this trend moved into the cable space.

Over the past four months or so, two companies have literally become household names in the broadcast television industry. While most companies achieve this level of notoriety through the development of a disruptive technology or new consumer craze, both ivi and FilmOn have achieved it through an obvious disregard of US copyright, re-transmission consent and a host of other laws or rulings designed to protect both content owners and consumers.

I believe in the power of iTV (in all of its forms) and the promise it holds for consumers, programmers and carriers alike. I was an early pioneer in this space, having co-founded Broadstream Communications, Inc. Also, I’m not here to pick on Google specifically, but rather what continues to play out in the iTV space.

Ever stare in wonder when you see a strong platform or solid business that fails to read the signs on the wall? Rather than recognize and adapt, they at best pay lip service to the issue and simply shoehorn in yesterday’s business models into today’s evolving marketplace. These thoughts and others always cross my mind when I think of the newspaper industry.

Call it what you want – content delivery, video aggregation, audience segmentation, brand networks, blah, blah, blah. Tons of people have given it a go, but ask any of them about what they do and if it’s working, and only a handful are able to give you a clearly defined answer.

There’s never been any question in my mind that content is King. However, a King’s influence and impact extends only as far as his domain allows. Trumpeted loudly yet kept within a narrow space, content may have wide awareness and desirability but it has little impact if consumers cannot or will not access it. Conversely, wide in reach but marginal in value and the content lacks impact and consumers will engage only for brief periods.

Advertisers should continue to experiment with new approaches to deliver targeted messages to more specific audiences. Understand where your target audience is going to find video content. If approached correctly, the right messaging at the right time could increase both your brand affinity and the ROI of your ad buy.

I applaud content owners who have the courage to stand up and say the rules matter and we’re going to enforce them. It’s time the media and more of the Internet public did the same.

While I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, borrowing the title of one of her books as the theme for this blog is in many ways an anathema to modern day political correctness. And yet, when it comes to media consumption, specifically online video, we’re all guilty of a bit of selfishness. We want media delivered on our terms, to our devices and at times that are convenient for us.