Fear. Addiction. Paranoia. Blindness. Time for a check-up?

This is based on an Idea Lab article by Dan Pacheco, “How Fear, Brand Addiction and Paranoia Block Innovation.”  Take a few minute and read it – you will find it relatively objective and not so nearly focused on newspapers as you might first suspect.  Go ahead…read it.  Here some mood music for you, too.

 

I thought Dan’s post challenging to all the sub-cultures, egos and personas that exist in our lives; those that loath change; those that refuse to relenquish any ounces of Draconian control; those that just don’t know how to change; those that see change as an indictment on the past; etc.

I couldn’t help but try to mentally grade our progress and, more importantly in my mind, our readiness to make bigger, wider and more dramatic changes going forward.  I know some won’t visit the article link above, so here’s the recap of the criteria:

1) Fear.  Dan is verbose in his description and his real focus is on clutching to formerly successful paradigms.  Mine is simpler: accept those paradigms as dead or dying.  Publicly declare yourself to be a Young Turk of the new age of media.  Commit to crossing the Rubicon.

2) Brand addiction.  Dan’s focus is on newspapers’ focus on the existing customers, not their potential customers. We actually know this – we’ve heard it, discussed it.  We have to facilitate communities, not build them…they already exist.  Just imagine what a supreme failure the Cash for Clunkers program would be if we all viewed the value of our vehicles like some view the value of their products.  Kill off the weak and let the rut begin.

3) Paranoia.  I actually thought Dan missed a huge point on this one.  Media companies should have a decent balance in the community’s “trust bank.”  The media company should represent a trusted source and that alone is an extremely powerful position from which to operate.  It might be a scary proposition for some, but Sun Tzu nailed it when he said, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

4) Business blindness.  Dan’s point is simple and needs no commentary: don’t forget the revenue stream when it comes to innovation. 

Once again, this was a good article and one I encourage everyone to consider as a basis for personal and organizational introspection.

 

ViewPass just another paywall

Still tracking the trail of paywalls and other schemes for charging for content (mostly out of curiousity…sort of like watching a demolition derby), this explanation came to my attention from Chuck Peters. 

The falacy of print news believing any form of a paywall (and, yes, ViewPass is just another form of a paywall) would provide long-term encouragment to consumers to fork over their money is so apparent.  I won’t repeat myself here, but I will make the prediction that the average consumer will care no more or less about ViewPass as they would if newspaper made the collective decision to erect their own individual paywalls. Ladies and gentlemen, it is the exact same effect on the consumer – that being money out of their pocket for something that was free and, GASP!, will still be free on plenty of other non-newspaper sites.  Call it what you want, band together like a bunch of dodo birds, but it is still a pay wall and it is short-sighted.  Face it, the consumers have allies in this situation and they take the form of all the television news sites, the independent news sites (including some newspapers), and a host of new aggregation services.  Your flanks are exposed and, no matter what you call your defensive tactics, your are already in enfilade.  Doubt me?  Ask the telephone companies about the measurable bit broadband telephone has taken out of their revenue pies and then ask yourself why the consumers have taken that path.  Hint: believing your hold an audience hostage when you do not.

So, here it is – my prediction.  A pay wall will go up and it might be called ViewPass or just Bill.  It matters little because it will only go down in history as the self-chosen cyanide through which a large number of newspapers killed themselves.

 

What’s black and white and evolving?

Image via Wikipedia

 It has been near impossible to miss the onslaught of information recently about secret newspaper meetings, strong opinions on paying for content and the undeniable pressure on the media industry, particularly newspapers.  I was honored to participate in a conversation this past weekend that likely ranks as the #1 most engaging dialogue I’ve had this year.  Of course, I’m a techno-geek by trade, but I keep my head out of the keyboard quite often enough to listen and learn about the industry.  That doesn’t make me an expert…quite the opposite.  I certainly not gifted for crafting editor-proof prose nor am I astute at the business end of newspapers.  I struggle to capture bits and pieces (notice I didn’t say “bytes”) wherever and whenever I can, often times resorting to analogies and metaphors in mind to create a lasting impression.  One such impression is apparently not complete, because it keeps resurfacing and spurring me on to learn more.  It has sent my mind off on some tangents with the hope of finding some context and perspective.  I landed on evolution.  Disclaimer: this implies no position for or against creationism or the Big Bang theory.  It’s just an analogy produced by media industry neophyte.

 

 

Our wonderful world of nature teaches us things all the time.  Notice I didn’t say we learn everything that nature could possibly teach us…just that we do learn some things from nature.  The media industry is and always has been subject to evolution.  Sometimes a meteor accelerates the process in the blink of an eye, sometimes it is the slow creep of a polar ice cap over several centuries.  Nature clearly teaches us that evolution happens by a variety of causal factors and speeds.  Newspapers have end-of-the-spectrum forces right now in play.  The slow creep factor is the generational dynamics of today’s youth and young adults being less avid readers of print products.  Deny it and you are a fool.  The blink of an eye factor is the recent economic downturn.  Deny that and I want the name of your financial advisor!  It’s important to note that nature teaches us that while evolution is most often exhibited by the examination of a species over time, it must be put into the context of an ever-changing environment.  This context is usually the key to understanding the actual changes in the species.  How else are you going to explain a horse with black and white stripes?  Just call it a zebra and be done with it?  Maybe the black and white stripes cause confusion with certain predators?  Closer.  Guess what?  Lions are color blind…it is the pattern that is the key to that characteristic, not the colors.  Don’t ask me how in blazes it happened; I don’t know.  An important point of order, though, is that the zebras didn’t have an explicit choice in the matter – it just sort of happened over time.  I submit it likely involved thousands of zebras becoming lion food and maybe we shouldn’t forget that.  This teaches me that the zebras would have been much better off if they would have rapidly prototyped some camoflague schemes, developed some new herd dynamics and tested this all out.  Minus the ability to reason, they were stuck relying on chance, luck, stray DNA mutations and time.  If you doubt the ability for a species to incorporate deliberate changes, you no further to look than America and other developed countries where the average human height has risen several inches over the past couple hundred years.  Diet, exercise, health care and other factors we have deliberately invoked all have spawned semi-localized herds of humans that just tend to grow taller.

Back to newspapers.  Somewhere, somtime down the road of evolution, print newspapers will be no more.  Oh, I fully expect a need for and an industry to gather and package content to some degree, but the economic downturn has accelerated things just a bit.  Let’s not forget that newspapers do not hold a position such that they can band together and expect to rule the content landscape.  There are already too many alternate sources out on the plains to place any long-term hope in a group decision to enforce pay walls.  What’s exciting is that we have the ability to do what the zerbras never could.  We can change ourselves, tinker around with new interaction dynamics and possibly find that right pattern that sustains the species.  Maybe, just maybe, we might be so bold as to consider figurative dental implants so we can turn the tables and start figuratively eating the lions (read: stop being prey).

More content charge logs on the fire

So the NAA hosts some meeting last night (5/28) of numerous executives…plenty of intrigue as to whether is was a secret, supposed to remain a secret, the intended agenda, the agenda after the fact, etc.

I noticed Editor and Publisher rolled out an article that centered on paid content and it having potentially been a topic.  It was only midly interesting to read, in so much of raising the question of anti-trust laws if newspapers were to put everything behind a pay wall.  So, this strikes as a boring question on two counts.  First, what, my, oh my, were to happen if all newspapers were to charge for their printed products?  Yeah…see what I mean?  Secondly, the concept of anti-trust in a scheme where all newspapers go behind pay walls is…well, flawed.  Completely choking off the entire supply of all free news of interest to consumers by newspapers charging is a falacy.

This topic will, I believe, continue to surface for some time to come.  When does it finally and conclusively go away?

Murdoch myopic?

 

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Rupert Murdoch put forth an interesting prediction during a recent conference call.  CNN has a nice rollup to read.  Murdoch’s hypothesis is that “online advertising revenues are not enough on their own” and the current free access business model favored by most content providers was flawed.  The translation is that Murdoch and the empire that is News Corporation is eye-balling some form of a model that charges for newspaper websit content.

 

Rupert Murdoch I am not…so says I with vastly more joy than disappointment, by the way.  I do boldly contend, however, his approach is flawed by way of myopia.  Specifically, a gaping hole exists in the net they might cast and it is simply this: there are other choices for news on the internet.  To be fair, I am confining that judgment to just news – not feature and opinion piece work.  Without delving deeply into nauseating detail, just consider several categories: international news, national news, sports, weather and business.

While the following list is far from inclusive, it is thrown together quickly to demonstrate that in a space of a few minutes a consumer could easily identify numerous sources for content: CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, Bloomberg.com, ESPN, SportingNews, Weather.com, Accuweather, and the list goes on.  Oh, there’s even gocomics.com for the lover of comics.  Again, none of these are what would fit the definition of a “newspaper website.”  An interesting argument might center around content of a local nature since, after all, newspapers have long represented a majority voice in covering local news and events.  That’s a tangent worth exploring, even though local and hyper-local content is of relatively minimal bearing on Murdoch’s specific plan.  It is, of course, of great bearing to us. 

Take the Gazette here in eastern Iowa.  Gazetteonline.com is no-fee today and we connect daily with an ever-growing piece of the community.  Our value to the community is largely embodied in the local content, local context and convenience of delivery to the customer.  In short, they have access to content of a local nature in local perspective in one spot.  So, let’s assume we go “Murdoch” on our community and only provide our content on a subscription basis.  What is the average area resident going to do when faced with such a choice.  They do have a choice and it is more than either pay and get the content or don’t pay and go without.  There are local television stations and local radio stations in the area that already provide online content ranging from international to local.  Let’s also not forget the groundswell that is social networking.  If you don’t think venues such as Facebook, Twitter and others to be conduits for news and developing events, you might want to reconsider.  In short, most local newspapers web sites are not positioned such that they can view the community as hostages to paying for content.  I freely concede there is some content such as features and opinion pieces that are lock, stock and barrel proprietary to a newspaper.  Is that enough?  No.  This may be Iowa (and some are pretty convinced it is at least heaven on earth), but newspapers charging for the online content is like plowing your corn under and building a baseball field.  Remember Field of Dreams?

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

They’ll turn up your driveway, not knowing for sure why they’re doing it and arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past.
“Of course, we won’t mind if you look around,” you’ll say.  “It’s only $20 per person.”
And they’ll pass over the money without even looking at it.

 

Good luck with that, Mr. Murdoch.

You’re doing WHAT?!

It never ceases to amaze me how a concept can be explained multiple times yet be welcomed with reactions ranging from misinterpretation to mockery. I’m not sure if it is resistance to change, dismissal of clear indicators of changes in public news consumption or just those who make up the “what I heard you saying” sect of our society?

The industry reaction has ranged from those who factually reported our actions (layoffs, newsroom transformation, etc.) all the way to a few who have scoffed at our actions. There are plenty of objective accounts of our recent actions and those are to be appreciated for their factual merit. There is also a sprinkling of industry folks laying out extremely personal interpretations of our actions, some of which are patently misinformed. A case in point is the article in the Iowa Independent. “I know that adjusting a newsroom from a print-only model to a print-and-online model can be difficult…” DING – no, but thanks for playing. This has nothing to do with going from a print-only model to a print-and-online model. The Gazette has been online for years already via a web site, an e-edition, a mobile version and text alerts. A critical piece to understanding the name and role of Information Content Conductor is that person is not acting specifically towards one product, print or online. That person and their staff are product agnostic. It just goes to prove the old saying that if you are going to make a mental leap, make sure you can at least see the other side!

Interestingly enough, I have found the public consumer reaction to be more aligned to the concepts of content and information. I would reference a KGAN article as proof the consumer is highly attuned to the content and information. Run a quick article search on “content” and you get 3 very pointed uses of the word content. Do the same with the word “information” and you will get 13 hits on that word, most singing the praises of the breadth and depth of information. These are words being used by the public, not by us. Heck, KGAN is not even on one of our company sites – it’s a competitor’s site! On a side note about the article, I wanted to note many respondents to KGAN mentioned the Gazette by name, even though “newspaper” was the only term used in the question. Thank you, loyal community members!

Whether they realize it or not, the public provides us a mandate, that being they desire content that is convenient, timely and can be trusted. Some want it in print. We are there already and will continue to be there as we have been for now 126 years, providing the region’s premier and evolving print edition. Some want it electronically and we are taking bold steps to reinforce and expand our current electronic offerings. The key here is that we are retooling ourselves to create and gather content with no specific product-based agenda, make that electronic journalist’s “notepad” publicly available and still create the region’s best array of packaged news products, whether they be print or electronic.

In case you think I am just a kook, you might want to check out this article – another vote for the “upstarts, new players, that build the successful news products of the future.”

Content! Read all about it!

As we continue as a company to close in on target models for information content gathering and packaged product delivery, one thing is very clear. We still have some distance to cover before a clear path is laid for gathering or packaging content. I don’t expect and don’t need anyone to concur with that statement…I’ve seen and heard enough to know it needs to be said. Steve Butty has just recently laid out an outstanding explanation of the changes taking place in his organization. It is a great read and of interest to employees, customers and others in the industry. Steve hits a key element in his post:

For all of those 126 years, our success has been tied to a packaged product, a newspaper. Even though our customers like that packaged product and many even love it, they aren’t buying it because of the package but because of the content: stories, photographs, columns, graphics, editorials, obituaries, calendars, box scores, lists of information, advertisements.

Watch and see this information content transformation take place in front of your eyes. Even at the electronic delivery end of the spectrum, there are changes and some undiscovered territory (some of which we are just blazing through alone because no other news organization has ever attempted it). We might be creating industry best practices, we might be slightly off the mark. One thing is for certain, it is not just corporate leadership that is wrestling with the changes and not just a few who are championing the “content” focus. Tom Altman provides a good case in point. Tom, one of my web developers, is spot on when talking a technical point, but notice how quickly he draws things back to the fundamental killer-trait when it comes to information:

This is very cool and it is letting the WebDev geeks get some kung-fu going, but that is not the part that has me worried.
It’s the content that worries me.

I can imagine a few raised eyebrows right, amazed slightly that those technical dweebs are yakking about content, it’s accessibility, it’s usability, etc. That’s okay…we aren’t your Dad’s newspaper IT group, so I can understand.

What is so tremendously exciting about this transformation is the disparity between where we are headed and where most people have grown used to news organizations being centered. Here’s the old way: staff journalists gather the news, the staff packages it and carriers delivery it. Here’s the new way: content comes from every available source (staff and public), it is aggregated publicly and open for real-time discussion and some of that makes it way into packaged products. Think about that for a second. Does that mean that you could actually WATCH as the applicable content is gathered, linked and semantically woven into the fabric of an actual story. Yep. Read all about it!