I don’t want 300 channels. I only want 18 channels. OK, the average person wants 18 channels. I really only want six. Why can’t I have just six?

I know, I know, it’s the economics of the industry. But industries change, don’t they? I mean, look what has happened to the music industry. I used to have to purchase an entire CD just to get the one or two songs I want, but now I can buy and build my own playlists song by song. It’s funny, but I’m sure I spend more on music now than I used to.

You should know I just bought an Apple TV box. That’s not your fault–since the Blockbuster Video stores near me closed (and RedBox, while cool, doesn’t exactly offer a huge selection) I didn’t really have a good option for renting movies. So I thought it was worth a try. Now I can select from a huge selection of movies and TV shows, and when I’m not in a buying mood I can use it to watch YouTube on my HDTV. I’m beginning to think of YouTube as the ultimate TV network–there’s so much on-demand entertainment there. (Hmm. You might want to make a note of that.)

Speaking of entertainment, I’ve held off on getting a Kindle because I knew Apple was coming out with a similar device. I’m excited to get my iPad, not only to check my email and surf the web but to download books. I guess Apple is shaking up the book publishing industry just like it did the music industry. “Saving it” is probably a more accurate description; I’m sure my book purchasing behavior will mirror my new music buying habits. I wonder if they’re thinking along the same lines when it comes to TV. I guess time will tell.

So if you don’t mind, I’d like to subscribe to individual cable channels. For that matter, I wouldn’t mind subscribing to individual programs. I know you won’t get as hefty of a monthly fee from me, but I’d be willing to pay more per network than you’re getting now. And I suspect other people would be too.

Anyway, it’s something to think about. But no pressure. If you don’t do it, I’m sure I can find other things to do with my time and money.

I don’t know if two instances signify a trend, but I’m pretty sure in this case they mark at least a fad.

Catching up on my newspaper reading over the weekend, I noticed two advertisers using social media soundbites to boast of their products. The first was Motorola, which incorporated into its ad quotes pulled from Facebook, Twitter, and a site called Phandroid.com (“The first independent website dedicated to delivering Android news”), among others. The second was for Trident’s new Layers chewing gum, sticking strictly with Twitter (headline: “The people have Tweeted”).

I don’t know whether or not these advertisers sought permission from the quoted to feature their testimonials, but imagine how excited @mattchew03 and @amybites must be to see Trident put their “names” in print. And suspicious Twitter handles (-chew? -bites?) aside, I have to believe that they are legitimate endorsements (as opposed to planted reviews, which no advertiser would be dumb enough to employ in the age of social media).

There has been a flurry of news lately about Barnes & Noble’s new e-reader, the Nook. It will compete head on with Amazon’s Kindle and Sony’s Reader, offering additional features such as limited book sharing and newspaper subscriptions. If successful, of course, those features will be matched by the Nook’s competitors, just as Barnes & Noble has matched their price points.

It’s fascinating to watch these three powerful companies–the dominant bricks-and-mortar bookseller, the dominant online bookseller, and a long-dominate electronic industry player–compete in this new arena. And word is that Apple’s e-reader isn’t far behind, which will further mix things up (and will be good for us all).

I couldn’t help noticing, however, a little aside in a recent Wall Street Journal article about the Nook. The article was talking about how Nook users would be able to receive discounts and other special offers when they walk into the store, a smart use by Barnes & Noble of its one true competitive advantage over Amazon. But the piece went on to say this: “Eventually, the company says, customers will be able to read entire e-books for free inside the physical store.”

Read entire e-books for free? Why would Barnes & Noble want to give away content? How’s this for a reason: the company may have up its strategic sleeve the idea that it can become the other Third Place.

Starbucks has always been an appealing place to linger, and many people go there to enjoy a good read as they nurse their lattes (most Starbucks locations sell a handful of newspapers and books to encourage just such behavior). While Barnes & Noble has in recent years been adding coffee bars to many of its locations, they have always seemed to be somewhat of an afterthought and secondary to the company’s primary purpose of selling books. But by offering free in-store content with the Nook, Barnes & Noble seems to clearly be saying that this is they place they want people to linger. And Since none of us can be in two places at one time, Starbucks and Barnes & Noble may increasingly butt heads.

It’s a fascinating world in which we live, where two previously unrelated companies can wake up and find themselves arch-competitors, and it’s fun to watch such changing dynamics unfold. Keep your eye on Barnes & Noble as it continues to take advantage of its physical locations (the one thing its current big competitor, Amazon, can’t match). In combating one foe it may have just picked a fight with another.

We’re in the middle of another exciting college football season, and two programs that have struggled of late are doing better this year. I’m speaking of Michigan and Notre Dame, the two winningest programs in college football history. Their recent experiences can serve as a lesson to us all.

Both schools have proud traditions, terrific facilities, and rich and powerful alumni. Yet both schools lost momentum in recent years. You might even say that with respect to their win-loss records, growth stalled. They had to question all of their assumptions, adjust their style of play to the changing dynamics of the college game, and once again find their nerve. But while they were willing to re-examine all of the non-essentials, some things they were unwilling to change.

Way back in 1969 new Michigan head coach Bo Schembechler hung a sign in the locker room that read, “Those who stay will be champions.” The sign was meant to reflect the fact that living up to the proud Michigan tradition wouldn’t be easy, but it would be worthwhile.

Similarly, every Saturday as the Notre Dame players exit the locker room to take the field, the last thing they do is touch the sign that says, “Play like a champion today.” Nobody knows the exact origin of the statement, but legendary coach Lou Holtz had it put up to remind his players what was expected of them.

Those who stay will be champions–a reminder to all of us that while business can be brutal at times, perseverance will pay off. Play like a champion today–encouragement that no matter how difficult things get, our job is simply to do our absolute best.

Sports are a great metaphor for life, and both Notre Dame and Michigan have proven their staying power over generations. I’m confident that both will again be at the top of their games soon. Perhaps by following their advice, our companies can be as well.

I love reading the newspaper. I like the feel of the broadsheet in my hand, the anticipation of turning each page to see what’s next, and the sense I get of being plugged into the world through the rhythm of daily reading. I am a newspaper loyalist, and I’m an endangered species.

That, of course, is not news. Newspapers are shrinking and their circulation shriveling, like a mirror reflecting the Internet’s growth and expansion. Politicians and pundits (including many newspaper editors and publishers) who aren’t schooled in business don’t recognize the absolute and inescapable law of creative destruction. They wring their hands as if what’s happening is a tragic thing. I see it simply as the way of the world.

To a news consumer, the Internet offers many advantages over ink and paper, from timeliness to portability, affordability to dialogue. And for a generation of readers spawned in the wake of the Web, getting their news online is not only better than in print, it’s more natural. Even old guys like me who love the sound of the thump on the driveway in the morning increasingly turn to our Macs and Blackberrys to keep up with breaking events.

But while the Internet is rapidly replacing ink, paper and newsstands, the Web is to news as an aluminum can is to Coke—a terrific way to deliver the product but not the source of its value. Newspapers are struggling because newspapers are confused—they forgot they were in the business of building an audience and focused instead on selling the audience (to the advertisers who increasingly bore their cost of operating). That was fine as long as they had a monopoly on distribution, but it led them to spend their limited resources on adding more ink colors rather than more color to their ink. Now that advertisers have (ultimately) infinitely more choices, newspapers are stuck.

But the answer isn’t so difficult. The key to the future of the newspaper industry lies in its past. There will always be a market for news, and newspapers still have core competencies in gathering, reporting and interpreting what’s important to their readers. If they do their job well, they’ll continue to be able to provide the exclusive content for which readers will pay, regardless of whether or not it results in ink-stained fingers.

The more the newspaper industry focuses on “news” rather than “paper,” the better off it (and we) will be. That will enable it to embrace evolving distribution opportunities and find new sources of revenue and competitive advantage. Just like every other industry must do.

One of the three market tectonics I discuss in When Growth Stalls is the phenomenon I call changing industry dynamics. Nowhere are changing dynamics more evident these days than in the magazine industry.

According to Horizon Media and the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the number of paid subscriptions to digital versions of consumer magazines has nearly doubled in the past two years. That’s not a surprise, given the fact that the average U.S. adult has nearly doubled their time spent using the Internet since 2006 (from 2.1 to 3.8 hours per day).

Since there are still only 24 hours in a day, something has to give, and the print world has been hardest hit. The rapid decline in newspaper readership has been well documented, and even the most successful print magazines are cutting back. In a cost-cutting move, the New York Times Magazine recently trimmed its size by nearly ten percent, and Reader’s Digest (perennially among the top three in circulation of all magazines) cut its frequency from 12 times per year to 10 and will dramatically trim its rate base from 8 million to 5.5 million early next year.

It’s creative destruction in action. But not all magazines are sitting still. Horizon also reports that Men’s Health is introducing an iPhone app that will distribute paid content, a first for the industry. If it’s successful, no doubt others will follow. Even good ol’ Reader’s Digest is getting on board, planning to plow some of its savings into mobile apps and topical digital editions.

Rapid change can be both fascinating and disconcerting at the same time, like suddenly being able to see the secondhand moving on your watch. But these media companies are simply responding to a changing world, and it’s changing because we’re changing.

As always, what works will stick, and what doesn’t, won’t. As it should be.

Kodak is one of the featured companies in When Growth Stalls, for good reason. The company has been through the wringer over the past decade due to the evolution towards digital photography (the speed of which Kodak greatly underestimated), the decimation of travel (and the picture-taking that goes with it) after 9/11 and hordes of aggressive competitors.

The company took drastic steps to right itself, and was making good progress when the current economic mess hit. Despite its most recent woes, it looks like Kodak will make it after all–but not without change. Kodak announced last month that it will no longer make Kodachrome film. While anyone could predict that was coming, there’s something sad about it–like Simon & Garfunkel breaking up all over again.

Kodak, like every other company, must respond to changing dynamics in order to stay relevant. While it may be ditching Kodachrome because, well, nobody uses it anymore, Kodak is introducing a new line of printers that moves the expensive silicon technology off the ink cartridges and onto the machine. Which makes the printer cost a little more, but the ink cartridges a lot less (>50 percent less in many cases). Which means we won’t be getting robbed every time we hit Staples or Office Max to buy new ink. For that alone, Kodak deserves high praise.

Let the world keep turning. It’s good.

Like a well-maintained engine, a well-managed brand can keep a company moving steadily forward. But every brand, like every engine, suffers wear and tear, and sometimes even the best-kept ones require an overhaul. That’s what happened to Fram.

Fram is a 75 year-old oil filter brand with a storied history. Who can forget the famous TV commercials featuring crusty old mechanics saying, “You can pay me now, or pay me later?” Those spots built the Fram brand into semi-iconic status.

Of late, however, Fram has run into a problem. Seems its historical target audience of do-it-yourself (DIY) amateur auto mechanics are a dying breed, especially when it comes to oil changes. It’s just too easy to pop into the quick lube down the street rather than crawling under a filthy car to risk bloody knuckles and second-degree burns. In fact, Fram discovered that 70 percent of oil change occasions now fall squarely in the DIFM (do it for me) category. Not good for a DIY brand.

At that point, Fram had a choice. The company could have given in to the internal dynamics that tend to plague struggling organizations, sticking its head in the sand, living in denial, and being hampered by finger-pointing and internal divisions while its market continues to degenerate. Or it could face facts, deal with its issues and rejuvenate its brand.

Fram chose the latter. Recognizing the changing dynamics of its industry, Fram used sophisticated consumer research to identify a new core target–one that didn’t begin by separating DIYs from DIFMs (a hard habit to break, no doubt). Based on that analysis, the company has reoriented its positioning so it will resonate with a new consumer sweet spot.

That’s easier said than done. Fram’s task not only included new advertising, it involved a redesign of over 1,100 SKUs and an entirely new approach to distribution. Being easily found on the shelves at automotive aftermarket stores is no longer enough; now Fram also has to meet the needs of quick lube operations and independent auto mechanics. That’s a whole new ball game.

Will the new strategy work? Time will tell. But Fram is off to a good start, having been both intelligent and deliberate in its approach to a very real challenge. With the economy in tatters, other companies may be seeing fissures in their foundations that represent similar existential threats–and will require courage to address.

Some will muster the will, and some won’t.

In my industry, the past ten months or so have been mostly about fear and loathing. Most marketers are just trying to somehow make their way through the economic mess. Some are slicing and dicing their budgets, while others are merely nipping and tucking. But they’re all feeling the pain.

Despite this, I tend to agree with UCLA professor Richard Rumelt when he said, “A structural break is the very best time to be a strategist, for at the moment of change old sources of competitive advantage weaken and new sources appear.”

This time in history certainly qualifies as a “structural break.” And since very few companies are acting normally, there’s no such thing as “the norm” right now. Which spells big opportunity.

Take the banking industry. Most of us wouldn’t even think to go near it these days, except perhaps to withdraw cash to stuff under our mattresses. Yet Fortune’s Jon Birger offers an interesting take on the opportunity in the magazine’s May 25 issue:

“Launching a bank in this economy may sound insane, but star bank analyst Meredith Whitney has been saying since last year that the timing couldn’t be better. First, a new bank starts out with a nontoxic balance sheet. Second, its earnings are juiced by a steep yield curve that allows for a healthy spread between the interest the new bank is paying depositors and the rate it’s earning on its loans. And best of all, it is competing with established banks that don’t want to lend – they’re focused more on plugging leaks in their balance sheets than on making new loans.”

Birger and Whitney make a good point. The lesson here is that no matter the sector, opportunity awaits. As crazy as things are out there, people still have needs that must be met, and with so many aspects of their lives up in the air they may be more open than ever to new options.

Think about it in terms of your industry. There may be opportunities for growth just beyond your normal field of vision that can be tapped with little more than imagination, a willingness to try something new and a little bit of courage. Find some time to set aside the pain and pressure of the moment to explore what the future might look like.

It may be coming more quickly than you think–and if you don’t bring it, someone else will.