The Wire
Twenty years ago, worked with a system that linked all the newspapers in New Zealand over a modem network. This was a "packet switch network" - what we worked with before TCP/IP changed how most networking works and created the Internet.
There is a continual friction in the evolution of computer software between central control and remote intelligence. Networking wise. You either have lots of intelligent nodes with their own databases interacting, or you have a design where the bulk of the data is held at one or more central locations.
Both have been shoved aside for the client-server model that works for data exchange by building protocols at the correct level of a stack.
But have we lost something in translation? More important for the media industry, is there an answer in news presentation that is a) not expensive and b) instantly more interesting than what passes today as online news.
What distinguishes news from plain old blogging? Factuality.
News is all information, no muddled thinking about it.
Blogging is all muddled thinking about it, no real information.
So the way to distinguish media "you should read" from media "you should ignore" the media giants have formed a sort of closed information cabal where they share propriety information, or IP if you like. Much of what you read in your local newspaper is similar to what is published in a local newspaper half way across the world.
Facts are just facts. Writing is the art however that a newspaper is selling. The best writing should evolve with a news brand instead in award winning news sites we get snips. Like radio news. Skims over the surface.
"The Web is not a medium for long articles because people's attention span is short..." is just marketing bollocks. The web is not a visual medium. It is hardly just for the consumption of idiots. It is ultimately the greatest economic and academic asset we have.
To evaluate business requirements based on human behaviour is the wrong business model and then charging for what drags the most eyes is really how you run a sports channel.
The news is a differentiated media. It employs entertainment (mainly sports) to gather the larger audience. No longer really reading news, we are instead led by an unexpressed desire for a staged entertainment experience while listening to short pithy headline delivery with surface analysis or interviews.
The news media adopts a media player clip approach to video ("as that is what works on the web, its all eyeballs"). Nothing wrong with that. Like the Apple I, it is a stage of media evolution.
On the other side there is youtube.com and thousands of similar user posted video sites. News does not appear to work on these sites.
Mashing the two together to provide public news bulletins will be done wrong hundreds of times badly before an accurate model for public contributions selectively rewards great content capture. Will this mean a vast network of ipod nano carrying part time journalists? Only when something happens while the reporter is there. But too much shaky low grade video, and it loses its edge. Becomes just more blogware.
It is hardly a business model.
But mashing together the idea that contributors are a competing community who have a market with news rooms is a business model.
To enforce copyright to save the "music industry" is deemed impossible as sharing undermines the economic model. The musicians are turning the economics of the industry upside down by being so cheaply visible on the web.
The real need for record companies is to finance large scale tours, large scale distribution/promotion and provide audio upgrades. Technology will make MP3 an obsolete and hated format. Compressing all the art out of music is just criminal. It is like selling thinned down paint. Bad copies of music are the worst disservice to the artist.
Apple have saved the computer audio industry. The FREE iTunes experience means being able to hear the music. Erase all MP3s and use complete music formats!
Delivering news over the web as a business model is not the same as music. Not at all. Both have made evolutionary blunders in the transition.
"Free" is only best if we did not have an economy. iTunes replaced the old music economy with a greater one. Music is an archival medium. If it can be continually improved, over the net, there is still a rational for music companies who respect or buy artist copyrights.
News delivery is a hot instant medium with many archival background accumulations which can be repackaged and sold as for example Time Life books.
The opportunity for the news media is not just becoming a clearing house of public opinion. It is creating the full framework of an accurate, reliable reportage and matching democratic discussions to political trends with a history machine that is far more focused on detail than the television can be and delivering engaging video on the spot within seconds of real time events.
For the sake of the business model the net should spell an end for syndication. The networks of 20 years ago are no longer appropriate. They now produce bland undifferentiated news stories.
Different titles, different content. The iTunes of journalism will be invented and absorb those who believe the way ahead is to charge for content.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Future of Advertising
" The websites we visit, the online links we click, the search queries we conduct, the products we put in virtual shopping carts, the personal details we reveal on social networking pages - all of this can give companies insight into what internet ads we might be interested in seeing."
"While Congress has waded into internet privacy issues before, this measure could break new ground, as the first major attempt to regulate a nascent but fast-growing industry that represents the future of advertising."
Privacy is going to be regulated in the US and that may well affect the internet as we know it. If the likes of doubleclick and other media click measurement is able to intrude into our "privacy" to then work out what to sell to us, we have the philosohphers stone instead of attraction.
There is no magic formula to human interest. It is an instinct. The advertisers (the old school advertising agencies and campaign magicians who can, with a single image, influence a percentage of behaviour) do not crave intimate details of your preferences in order to sell. It is the wrong equation.
It is as though the internet has made everyone forget what drives people. It is not what we did yesterday, our normal habits - that territory is the burnt out old fields we must plough to return value. And when you are marketing "intimately" (selling into the areas already marked "SOLD") and to everyone, are you not risking customers who may not attach themselves to the brand, so much as be made less interested as the more exposure to the common, the more interest is going to wane.
And what is "private" anyway? Which bill board you read as you whisk past them on a train is your own business, but which newspaper you read on line or distinct patterns of habit, how often you play an online game for example, or do things that privacy is there to protect. For example, you become a little curious about a subject and use the internet to dip your toes. Do you want a salesperson on the phone inviting you buy what you are just a little curious about? Of course you do not.
Advertising is attraction.
That is the basic law, and if you forget it it is easy to remember, A = A
Your advertising is bait to attract interest. Interest is instinctive. You show interest in things that correlate to enhanced survival and part of our survival algorithm is being surprised by change.
The secret is to BE NEW. Not to dredge up all those things we are getting bored with. The advertising industry can either FOLLOW what we do, or INNOVATE and SURPRISE.
It is all very well for everyone in the world to hammer on your door with a better dish washing liquid. But that is not the future.
It is new ideas. New ways to wear them. New things to excite and attract interest.
"While Congress has waded into internet privacy issues before, this measure could break new ground, as the first major attempt to regulate a nascent but fast-growing industry that represents the future of advertising."
Privacy is going to be regulated in the US and that may well affect the internet as we know it. If the likes of doubleclick and other media click measurement is able to intrude into our "privacy" to then work out what to sell to us, we have the philosohphers stone instead of attraction.
There is no magic formula to human interest. It is an instinct. The advertisers (the old school advertising agencies and campaign magicians who can, with a single image, influence a percentage of behaviour) do not crave intimate details of your preferences in order to sell. It is the wrong equation.
It is as though the internet has made everyone forget what drives people. It is not what we did yesterday, our normal habits - that territory is the burnt out old fields we must plough to return value. And when you are marketing "intimately" (selling into the areas already marked "SOLD") and to everyone, are you not risking customers who may not attach themselves to the brand, so much as be made less interested as the more exposure to the common, the more interest is going to wane.
And what is "private" anyway? Which bill board you read as you whisk past them on a train is your own business, but which newspaper you read on line or distinct patterns of habit, how often you play an online game for example, or do things that privacy is there to protect. For example, you become a little curious about a subject and use the internet to dip your toes. Do you want a salesperson on the phone inviting you buy what you are just a little curious about? Of course you do not.
Advertising is attraction.
That is the basic law, and if you forget it it is easy to remember, A = A
Your advertising is bait to attract interest. Interest is instinctive. You show interest in things that correlate to enhanced survival and part of our survival algorithm is being surprised by change.
The secret is to BE NEW. Not to dredge up all those things we are getting bored with. The advertising industry can either FOLLOW what we do, or INNOVATE and SURPRISE.
It is all very well for everyone in the world to hammer on your door with a better dish washing liquid. But that is not the future.
It is new ideas. New ways to wear them. New things to excite and attract interest.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Social Media takes over
Social Media is Bigger than you think
This video makes the point that social media has grown more sharply than anything has before and its ready adoption by Generation Y is causing an international revolution.
Brands used to be led by symbolic logos and instant recognition. Now brand managers both in the media and product worlds have to think more clearly about customer service. It is not just hooking a fish anymore. Now people will hear about it - from the fish.
My opinion is that the social media revolution has not finished taking ground. It has crippled news outlets by making their product over supplied. It affects many other things by being intensely distracting!
Barack Obama's election both in the primaries and the presendential elections brought social media into politics for real. It is the democratic equation that is changing countries that seek to restrain their citizens.
For the revolution to take hold, a way to fund the activity of the medium other than advertising, other than subscription, other than trickery - has to be developed.
It is the lifeblood of democracy. Social media has its own rationale. To save the news papers, and the elephant in the corner, television - by using social media is an interesting ploy, more interesting than charging subscription for content.
But it is still not the best idea. Ultimately - the news media will become a different entity, entirely.
My prediction is that since social media was introduced as a commodity that adding charges to it will fail. It is simply oxygen, a carrier wave for information spreading that has no real cost, apart from your time.
This video makes the point that social media has grown more sharply than anything has before and its ready adoption by Generation Y is causing an international revolution.
Brands used to be led by symbolic logos and instant recognition. Now brand managers both in the media and product worlds have to think more clearly about customer service. It is not just hooking a fish anymore. Now people will hear about it - from the fish.
My opinion is that the social media revolution has not finished taking ground. It has crippled news outlets by making their product over supplied. It affects many other things by being intensely distracting!
Barack Obama's election both in the primaries and the presendential elections brought social media into politics for real. It is the democratic equation that is changing countries that seek to restrain their citizens.
For the revolution to take hold, a way to fund the activity of the medium other than advertising, other than subscription, other than trickery - has to be developed.
It is the lifeblood of democracy. Social media has its own rationale. To save the news papers, and the elephant in the corner, television - by using social media is an interesting ploy, more interesting than charging subscription for content.
But it is still not the best idea. Ultimately - the news media will become a different entity, entirely.
My prediction is that since social media was introduced as a commodity that adding charges to it will fail. It is simply oxygen, a carrier wave for information spreading that has no real cost, apart from your time.
Monday, August 10, 2009
inverted pyramid theory
The current trickle down theory of economics is all well and good except that nobody is bothered trickling down. Weath is sticky, and levering it away from the masses in small quantity is the art of becoming a large economic force.
That is what drives the news industry. If they get their circulation figures high enough their real estate is more effective and so goes for a higher price. They do not so much make money selling individual copies - they may even lose if they do not sell most of them. Many Saturday editions may be sold at a loss, if it causes the other 5 editions to be profitable, thats business.
And then along came the internet and a plethora of free indexed content always available and relegating all other news sources as secondary to it. How can journalism survive?
Now that delivery is virtually free, news can be free. But news sources are not free. To finance these a team of specialists are required at every location. American capitalism has produced the news sponsor as a solution to funding such activities. New Zealand does the same. Plus lots of advertising.
The charging of users a participation fee is not that unusual. The assumption that any particular loyalty to a publication is not so present as before as the emporer has nothing to hide that most of the newspaper we pay for is received by lots of news sources and we can see them all simultaneously. So wny pay for it?
That is what drives the news industry. If they get their circulation figures high enough their real estate is more effective and so goes for a higher price. They do not so much make money selling individual copies - they may even lose if they do not sell most of them. Many Saturday editions may be sold at a loss, if it causes the other 5 editions to be profitable, thats business.
And then along came the internet and a plethora of free indexed content always available and relegating all other news sources as secondary to it. How can journalism survive?
Now that delivery is virtually free, news can be free. But news sources are not free. To finance these a team of specialists are required at every location. American capitalism has produced the news sponsor as a solution to funding such activities. New Zealand does the same. Plus lots of advertising.
The charging of users a participation fee is not that unusual. The assumption that any particular loyalty to a publication is not so present as before as the emporer has nothing to hide that most of the newspaper we pay for is received by lots of news sources and we can see them all simultaneously. So wny pay for it?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The fate of Newspapers
It used to be true that establishment and solidity was required to make a newspaper. Where the finance world has Wall Street - the news world had Fleet Street far longer.
Major newspapers are making huge losses. Due entirely to the online availability of fresher competition?
Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News Network - the most powerful news medium he has and one of the most influential in recent American political destiny making.
The rise of the blog - the Huffington Post is in the ascendant - it is taking ground from the liberal voices in the American media. The problem for newspapers is that the way they make 95% of their revenue is the chain about their necks - a declining market for print journalism means their destiny is manifest.
The way for newspapers to make money is to invert their thinking. Their brand is the voice of the journalist and that was lost before the world erupted with inconsequential viral memes.
Value Proposition
What exactly do newspapers make that is of value? Political mediation? How is that valued by taxpayers? It is not. We value the opinions we hold and expect read the journalists we agree with. I prefer to read journalists I disagree with as it inspires thinking. Discussions full of insults are useless.
People never really wanted to think, they have to be bribed, cajoled and tricked into it. Politics requires friction to excite discussion. We need opponents to compete with at the height of our powers and the media is there to stimulate thought by exposing controversy.
We pay the media for making us mad. Of course we do. I am as mad as hell and can't wait to read the morning paper. But we are fed on the soft stuff of television news and the insipid thinking presented by "in depth" reportage that is frankly less than surface level mush that attempts to excite prejudice.
The media is led around by its hunger. It is trying to play the same game in the vapid world of internet communication as it does on paper. The rules are so different. Establishment and fixity are not helpful in the age of broken attention spans.
The problem is that there is an inverted value equation at work here. The better the online version is, the less need there is for the paper version. It is a question of market aging. Like inflation, this is a slow process, a slippery slope. It will be harder to fix next year.
Companies who have not embraced the obviousness nature of this equation will fritter away their assets.
And some of the more established and most successful Newspaper websites (NY Times, Guardian) still "lose money". These criticisms do not apply - they have some of the most well read and intellectually stimulating journalists around. Is there a way to make money from the journalistic art?
Do we prefer to be herded by an increasingly unbelieved democratic choice or would we prefer to keep an active and vigilant press? We choose to be sheep.
Purposeful Enterprise
Some enterprises are simply not there to make money today, but to enrich the future. Like education. These are the focus of a progressive agenda. If objectivity is not present in our world, it is not just as damaging as closing down schools?
There is a future for good journalism, because it is necessary. But it needs to be a different product and not a subset of the print edition. The real enemy online is not the bloggers. It is sites like craigslist - it devalues online advertising past the point of commodity. It is deconstructive - and perhaps governments should define the playing field for information a little more intelligently. There is no value if the potential for trade is obliterated.
Free == Gimmick
It is a mistake to think that "free" is a term of trade. It is always a gimmick or a trick. It is also where progress points. And newspapers that can not outsmart college kid projects may not survive. They call this "disruptive media" - its sole purpose seems the undo-ing of the establishment. The establishment mimics this with its own free services but they have costs. Therefore Murdoch's equation seems simple. Focus on a smaller audience for paid content.
Would you pay for his content? No? But someone who wants it may, because it embraces a point of view, loudly. Online media can be too "objective". The common wisdom is "brand". His successful brands are market focused brands.
Old school journalism loved the big printed edition, the authority, the centralised economics that make one big brand. A masthead. It has to be balanced, show all views in proportion for its broad reach audience.
Online the dynamics are entirely different. It is crowds of people agreeing with a point of view and opposing others. It is unbalanced. The opportunity for a media organisation is huge and untapped. By splitting the "balanced media" into many unbalanced media faces that actively oppose one another, by building lots of brands they can engage more readers.
Creating a symbiosis with a future based on the democratic values of news, instead of hunger for the same advertising dollars requires online news departments to employ their own journalists and more locally. Then they would develop their own brands/audiences and increase their cachet of value. And that is simply their audience.
Major newspapers are making huge losses. Due entirely to the online availability of fresher competition?
Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News Network - the most powerful news medium he has and one of the most influential in recent American political destiny making.
The rise of the blog - the Huffington Post is in the ascendant - it is taking ground from the liberal voices in the American media. The problem for newspapers is that the way they make 95% of their revenue is the chain about their necks - a declining market for print journalism means their destiny is manifest.
The way for newspapers to make money is to invert their thinking. Their brand is the voice of the journalist and that was lost before the world erupted with inconsequential viral memes.
Value Proposition
What exactly do newspapers make that is of value? Political mediation? How is that valued by taxpayers? It is not. We value the opinions we hold and expect read the journalists we agree with. I prefer to read journalists I disagree with as it inspires thinking. Discussions full of insults are useless.
People never really wanted to think, they have to be bribed, cajoled and tricked into it. Politics requires friction to excite discussion. We need opponents to compete with at the height of our powers and the media is there to stimulate thought by exposing controversy.
We pay the media for making us mad. Of course we do. I am as mad as hell and can't wait to read the morning paper. But we are fed on the soft stuff of television news and the insipid thinking presented by "in depth" reportage that is frankly less than surface level mush that attempts to excite prejudice.
The media is led around by its hunger. It is trying to play the same game in the vapid world of internet communication as it does on paper. The rules are so different. Establishment and fixity are not helpful in the age of broken attention spans.
The problem is that there is an inverted value equation at work here. The better the online version is, the less need there is for the paper version. It is a question of market aging. Like inflation, this is a slow process, a slippery slope. It will be harder to fix next year.
Companies who have not embraced the obviousness nature of this equation will fritter away their assets.
And some of the more established and most successful Newspaper websites (NY Times, Guardian) still "lose money". These criticisms do not apply - they have some of the most well read and intellectually stimulating journalists around. Is there a way to make money from the journalistic art?
Do we prefer to be herded by an increasingly unbelieved democratic choice or would we prefer to keep an active and vigilant press? We choose to be sheep.
Purposeful Enterprise
Some enterprises are simply not there to make money today, but to enrich the future. Like education. These are the focus of a progressive agenda. If objectivity is not present in our world, it is not just as damaging as closing down schools?
There is a future for good journalism, because it is necessary. But it needs to be a different product and not a subset of the print edition. The real enemy online is not the bloggers. It is sites like craigslist - it devalues online advertising past the point of commodity. It is deconstructive - and perhaps governments should define the playing field for information a little more intelligently. There is no value if the potential for trade is obliterated.
Free == Gimmick
It is a mistake to think that "free" is a term of trade. It is always a gimmick or a trick. It is also where progress points. And newspapers that can not outsmart college kid projects may not survive. They call this "disruptive media" - its sole purpose seems the undo-ing of the establishment. The establishment mimics this with its own free services but they have costs. Therefore Murdoch's equation seems simple. Focus on a smaller audience for paid content.
Would you pay for his content? No? But someone who wants it may, because it embraces a point of view, loudly. Online media can be too "objective". The common wisdom is "brand". His successful brands are market focused brands.
Old school journalism loved the big printed edition, the authority, the centralised economics that make one big brand. A masthead. It has to be balanced, show all views in proportion for its broad reach audience.
Online the dynamics are entirely different. It is crowds of people agreeing with a point of view and opposing others. It is unbalanced. The opportunity for a media organisation is huge and untapped. By splitting the "balanced media" into many unbalanced media faces that actively oppose one another, by building lots of brands they can engage more readers.
Creating a symbiosis with a future based on the democratic values of news, instead of hunger for the same advertising dollars requires online news departments to employ their own journalists and more locally. Then they would develop their own brands/audiences and increase their cachet of value. And that is simply their audience.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The End of Free?
Rupert Murdoch announces the end of free access to news sites, the UK Times, The Sun as well as the WSJ and New York Post. He believes that by his charging for access to the news, the rest will follow suit.
Online news media is dominated in New Zealand by two players. Stuff.co.nz and NZHerald.co.nz. Both have won awards for content presentation. They represent two distinct divisions in media interests in New Zealand - the Herald is an Auckland based but nationally focused paper with a big circulation and that includes online. Stuff accepts feeds from various local papers. Both are free, presently. However the online content is abridged versions of what is published in the paper.
Online advertising has going through many hoops trying to find a business model and NZ Herald has used banner advertising as well as google. Stuff does the same.
What is wrong with Murdoch's idea? It is a reaction to a huge loss. If he had changed things a year ago, that loss would not have been. So why wait?
Because the competition is continuing to give the same news, the same vital stories that we read newspapers for, they are free elsewhere. This makes selling it online difficult unless you add value.
There is considerable antipathy in the online media world for the old world dictating conditions. For this reason it is doubtful that Murdoch will lead the world by charging for content. His brands have compelling content for its audience, so adding value to it seems natural.
The UK Guardian has added new lines of business - including a dating site - and paying for the print edition as online PDFs, and an excellent online discussion community. The NY Times has interesting social networked discussions. I even have a NYT follower. I can see a summary of all my posts. I would not mind paying a periodic subscription for either of these papers - but if the subscription was a barrier to involvement, maybe not. It is what other people write that is interesting.
The NZ Herald has a similar reader response zone - full of rants that are usually partisan anger that reduces the value. Contributions usually hide behind a web non-de-plume. That also reduces their value. The blogs carry zero comment icons too often. Stuff blogs seem a little more connected with their audience possibly due to attracting a younger set and more perceived balance in discussion? (Disclaimer - I have previously worked for the company that publishes the NZ Herald).
For a news site to charge it has to deliver something other than just re-blogging the news wire services. You can read the same stories in every paper. It is a long standing cabal - journalists share the news and thus appear to have far more to offer. There are a few journalists that are really worth reading.
Part of the reason is the business strategy of devaluing online content so the newspaper sells. The other reason is the devaluation of the art of discourse. It is impolite to say much more than a paragraph these days.
The "brand" is the current focus. The newspapers maintain an identity. The online version reflects the identity of the print version as that is where the advertisers are. They relied upon printing as the cost of entry but now suddenly have a million competitors. The online version has to have more value than the print version, but "social" networks they are not. Their forums should be democratic thermometers but social mediation occurs elsewhere.
The way for newspapers to make money is ... [sealed section]...
Online news media is dominated in New Zealand by two players. Stuff.co.nz and NZHerald.co.nz. Both have won awards for content presentation. They represent two distinct divisions in media interests in New Zealand - the Herald is an Auckland based but nationally focused paper with a big circulation and that includes online. Stuff accepts feeds from various local papers. Both are free, presently. However the online content is abridged versions of what is published in the paper.
Online advertising has going through many hoops trying to find a business model and NZ Herald has used banner advertising as well as google. Stuff does the same.
What is wrong with Murdoch's idea? It is a reaction to a huge loss. If he had changed things a year ago, that loss would not have been. So why wait?
Because the competition is continuing to give the same news, the same vital stories that we read newspapers for, they are free elsewhere. This makes selling it online difficult unless you add value.
There is considerable antipathy in the online media world for the old world dictating conditions. For this reason it is doubtful that Murdoch will lead the world by charging for content. His brands have compelling content for its audience, so adding value to it seems natural.
The UK Guardian has added new lines of business - including a dating site - and paying for the print edition as online PDFs, and an excellent online discussion community. The NY Times has interesting social networked discussions. I even have a NYT follower. I can see a summary of all my posts. I would not mind paying a periodic subscription for either of these papers - but if the subscription was a barrier to involvement, maybe not. It is what other people write that is interesting.
The NZ Herald has a similar reader response zone - full of rants that are usually partisan anger that reduces the value. Contributions usually hide behind a web non-de-plume. That also reduces their value. The blogs carry zero comment icons too often. Stuff blogs seem a little more connected with their audience possibly due to attracting a younger set and more perceived balance in discussion? (Disclaimer - I have previously worked for the company that publishes the NZ Herald).
For a news site to charge it has to deliver something other than just re-blogging the news wire services. You can read the same stories in every paper. It is a long standing cabal - journalists share the news and thus appear to have far more to offer. There are a few journalists that are really worth reading.
Part of the reason is the business strategy of devaluing online content so the newspaper sells. The other reason is the devaluation of the art of discourse. It is impolite to say much more than a paragraph these days.
The "brand" is the current focus. The newspapers maintain an identity. The online version reflects the identity of the print version as that is where the advertisers are. They relied upon printing as the cost of entry but now suddenly have a million competitors. The online version has to have more value than the print version, but "social" networks they are not. Their forums should be democratic thermometers but social mediation occurs elsewhere.
The way for newspapers to make money is ... [sealed section]...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)