Had a great presentation out at William and Mary the other day. Talked about NIXTY, social media strategy, and search engine optimization with their MBA graduates. Very creative group of students and faculty. Looking forward to working with them in the future!

There is a phenomenal new book out that brilliantly captures how the Web will reshape education in the next 6 years. Christensen, Horn, and Johnson outline how “computer-based learning” provides several advantages over learning in a physical classroom. These advantages include: increased curriculum (more AP classes, broader spectrum of courses), greater ability to tailor learning to the individual student, increased access for students (eg., rural areas, overseas), and dramatically decreased costs.

They define, “Disruptive innovations tend to be simpler and more affordable than existing products. This allows them to take root in simple, undemanding applications within a new market or arena of competition.” Another key component of a disruptive innovation is that it provides a product or service to people that currently do not have access to a product or service (eg., homeschoolers, lifelong learners).

These guys are no slouches. They are some of the brightest minds applying the innovation model to the educational sphere. Straight out of Harvard, they have provided significant innosight into how we can collaborate and solve the educational crisis we currently face.

You can read Terry Anderson’s summary here and an overview article here.

On a personal note, this book is particularly comforting to me because it captures much of what our team has been working on for the last year and a half. One of the challenges of being an entrepreneur is that there isn’t much external validation pre-launch. This book provides a bit of encouragement that we are indeed on the right track.

Stephen Downes, Martin Weller, Tony Hirst, and Gary Lewis have all been having an intriguing discussion on the business of education. Martin started it off with a great post proposing different business models (advertising, affiliates, sponsorships etc.) to support free eLearning. Stephen responded by suggesting that eLearning should be free and should not be monetized. Gary Lewis summarized things and asked them both to add more detail. I’m jumping in now because we have been struggling with this very issue for the last year.

We finally decided that you need multiple streams of revenue to be able to support a system that can ultimately empower education for everyone. The overhead is just to high to be able to do it for free without advertising or some other type of monetizing strategy. Many people don’t realize it, but running a web-based business is pretty expensive, especially if that business scales so that even a fraction of the people on the planet utilize it. Moore’s law does help with storage costs, but, still, in an increasingly video intensive context, storage and bandwidth costs are very, very, high. Additionally, if you want to provide a service that is reliable and one that educators and academic institutions feel comfortable using, then you have to make sure you can offer a decent SLA (guaranteed 99% uptime etc.). That means you have to have reliable datacenters, co-location, and people on hand to help if the site goes down or gets hacked (eg., slideshare.com with its recent bouts of denial of service attacks). These are just the basic costs and don’t even begin to cover design and engineering costs, particularly if you want to do something really innovative.

So, I guess I’m adding my thoughts to the mix. I’d love to see a platform that provided free education for all, but I just don’t see how it can happen without advertising or other revenue generating strategies. I’m with Martin in that I “don’t have the imagination” to visualize it occurring. The overhead is just too high.

That said, monetizing strategies are not inherently bad. There is much good that occurs through business processes. Paul Graham has a phenomenal video here where he talks about the brilliance of being a benevolent business. He uses several illustrations, but perhaps the most poignant is his Google example. He rhetorically asks something like, “Would Google be as good as it is if it were a ministry or non-profit?” The answer is no. It wouldn’t be such a great resource if it were a non-profit. So, even though Google is a business that uses advertising as its sole monetizing strategy, it provides an amazing amount of value to people everyday. It uses that revenue to provide new services that really help people (think Gmail). I, for one, am happy to use Google’s services and I don’t mind the advertising in the least, because I see it in the larger context. They are providing great tools for me for free. Graham’s hypothesis is that this model is ideal for both users and companies. It is a true win/win. We certainly think so.