A nice summary of the challenges that continue to haunt the newspaper industry from Mark Potts. (Link to post here.)
Excerpts:
Wikinomics
Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams
I'm a big fan of the concept and the book is basically an overview of how this works. If you're already sold on the idea, then I am not sure how much this book will help you.
While I am 100 percent convinced collaboration will work in some sectors (high tech for sure) I am less convinced about other sectors. And the book did not convince me that this will be a global phenomenon.
Two reasons:
It's also not clear to me how incentives will keep up. There are countless projects mentioned in the book where people go to huge lengths to collaborate. The response to Katrina is awe-inspiring. But in the normal course of business, people want compensation for their ideas. So any system that involves collaboration is going to have to have an equally innovative way to compensate people.
Update: I saw Don speak this week in Atlanta. Very compelling and interesting. Brings to life much of what is in his book. I am still skeptical about this idea working in every sector. (He used the example of the Boeing 787 being a collaborative effort, the same day Boeing announced a six-month delay in delivery due to issues with suppliers.) I also mentioned to Don the thought about compensation. My sense is that his examples, where people help others for only a fraction of the total benefit, will be exceptions. In the future the playing field will even out a bit. He agreed. Don also painted an interesting picture of why companies used to be closed -- transaction costs. Before the proliferation of information it was hard to find experts. Now it's easier to find them all over the world. There's less incentive to keep them on your payroll.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried a front-page article on Capt. Denn Flanagan, a United pilot, who is very good at something we call customer service.
And when unaccompanied children are on his flights, he personally calls parents with reassuring updates. "I picked up the phone and he said, 'This is the captain from your son's flight,' " said Kenneth Klein, whose 12-year-old son was delayed by thunderstorms in Chicago last month on a trip from Los Angeles to see his grandfather in Toronto. "It was unbelievable. One of the big problems is kids sit on planes and no one tells you what's happening, and this was the exact opposite."
When pets travel in cargo compartments, the United Airlines veteran snaps
pictures of them with his cellphone camera, then shows owners that their animals
are on board. In the air, he has flight attendants raffle off 10% discount
coupons and unopened bottles of wine.
I saw this a while ago but only got around to posting something about it.
Since I'm not a numbers person and it's hard to argue with someone like Henry Blodget, who often knows what he's talking about, I was intrigued by his argument that newspapers, even if they shift over to the Web, are doomed. (Link to Blodget's full post here.)
In short:
OK, it's hard to argue with the numbers but I'm still convinced that those who can create compelling, relevant content in a way people find usable will find great success. Perhaps not the degree they did before but there will always be a need for information and people willing to fund some part of it (the info itself or access to the eyeballs.)
I have this theory that with the ubiquity of data it's hard to remember most of it. At least that applies to me.
I find that I come across a lot of good information but because I know I can look it up in the cloud I don't exert myself much and in the end forget the data and forget where to find it. (You can only bookmark so much.)
Stephen Baker's recent post on BusinessWeek.com made me realize I may not be the only one. (Link to full post here.) An excerpt:
Our machines these days maintain and transmit most of our numbers. We don't need to memorize many of them anymore. But since we do still maintain memory capability in our brains, even if it's vestigial, which numbers should we store up there? I'd say a phone number is a good start. People ask for it occasionally. Forms demand it. Social security number would be useful too. Maybe we'll work on that one today.
For the past several months I've been dabbling with Facebook, mostly to just better understand it.
One thing that has struck me is the platform and the ease of sharing information. Thus, I've wondered aloud why this, or something similar, couldn't be used inside corporate firewalls among groups of people who need to share information.
The U.S. government apparently agrees.
The Director of National Intelligence, in December, will open up something called A-Space, basically a Facebook or My Space for spies. (Link to Financial Times article here.)
An excerpt:
Thomas Fingar, the deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, believes the common workspace – a kind of “MySpace for analysts” – will generate better analysis by breaking down firewalls across the traditionally stove-piped intelligence community. He says the technology can also help process increasing amounts of information where the number of analysts is limited.
Notes from A Small Island
Bill Bryson
I am becoming more and more enchanted with his books. I am not big on travel books but Bryson's sense of humor is contagious. He's one of the writers I wish I could be like. And not just because he travels and gets paid for it. But his way of describing things is impressive.
There's an example I constantly use when people ask me how local newspapers could improve. In short, I tell people that local newspapers could publish more, get this, local news. And it should be something they're truly interested in. And it should be something that they can post in print and online. And the online version can be open so people can contribute and participate. The specific example I use is gas prices. There's something everyone in town cares about. Print a list on the front page every morning based on whatever was on line the night before at 11 p.m.
goFirst off, I have a great admiration for those who are effective communicators, particularly those who can stand up and present to a group of people. I have long thought that if you can do that (while also having something interesting to say) you would have a great chance of success.
That's why I am particularly fascinated by PowerPoint and its misuse. The fundamental problem with PowerPoint is that people underestimate how effective they can be. Instead, many people make PowerPoint the show and make themselves and added thought.
Seth Godin recently rehashed an old post which brings up some sensible guidelines. (Click here for full post.)
Some helpful excerpts from Seth:
Here's one of those news stories that just amazes me. Seems it has taken a study at Harvard to come to the conclusion that news organizations are threatened by the Web. (Link to full story here.) I kid you not. Here's the actual headline: "Web threatens traditional news organizations."
It gets better. Here's the lede:
The Internet is a threat to traditional news organizations, which no longer have
the advantage of being the first to report breaking news online, according to a Harvard University study released yesterday.
A recent article on Business 2.0 jumped out at me. It's a short profile of Jim Benson, founder of SpaceDev, a company that wants to send tourists into space. (Link to full article here.)
A recent post (maybe more of a rant) by Alan Meckler of Jupitermedia over how his company is portrayed on Wikipedia reminds me that I've long thought that it's almost impossible to be objective. (Link to post here.)
Alan's beef is that the entry is innaccurate. I have no way of judging if he's right or not, nor do I really care. But it seems that every institution that tries to be "objective" from the New York Times to Wikipedia needs to realize that anything a human writes is by definition not objective. Just providing both sides of the story and trying to stick to facts is not enough. Because in the end it depends on what facts you include, in what context they're portrayed.
In the case of Jupitermedia Alan is taking offense at some controversy he says never occurred:
Then read the next controversy. There is reference to something about social networking at JupiterResearch. First of all we do not own JupiterResearch anymore and secondly as far as I am aware there was never a controversy about social networking, JupiterResearch and Jupitermedia. Clearly whomever added this "controversy" was promoting a book or service or something that has nothing to do with facts or history.
Off on a four-day weekend to Maine. Have not been here in a looong time but used to come her frequently in a previous job. Heading to Monhegan Island tomorrow. Visited it once, about 15 years ago, and am looking forward to a return visit. Not sure I could live there, but visiting is sure inspiring.
I've long contended that most customer hotlines and online help tools are not there for the benefit of the consumer. Instead, they are barriers used to ward off pesky customers who take up a company's time.
Ms. Funk is one of 200 customer service representatives at the Netflix call center here, 20 miles west of Portland, where she is on the front lines of the online movie rental company’s efforts to use customer service as a strategic weapon against Blockbuster’s similar DVD-mailing service.
I am always a bit amused when I read a profile of an editor who refuses to speak to the reporter or only answers in an email.
From Michael Calderone's New York Observer profile of Portfolio and Joanne Lipman: (Link to full article.)
Ms. Lipman would only respond to questions by e-mailing a statement, which presented the Roth piece ..."
This strikes me odd for several reasons:
I remember the first time I was interviewed by a newspaper reporter after working on newspapers for many years. What I thought I said and what appeared in print were vastly different. Stupid me for not being smarter.
Thus, I commend those who are rightfully cautious. But at the same time don't ask of others what you won't do yourself.
Mark Thompson sent a note to Romenesko recently commenting on the definition of an obituary. He took umbrage at someone calling a "paid obituary" an "obituary." A brief excerpt:
As newspapers have stopped producing obituaries, they have begun soliciting faux articles written by the deceased relatives or the funeral home. These are not cheap; I recall a relative's "obituary" that recently ran in the Providence Journal for the tidy sum of $700 (only could people on the business side be so stupid as to wring money from those in mourning and then wonder why they are falling in public esteem). However, these should not be called obituaries. They are ads, plain a simple. They generally don't include less savory aspects of a person's past -- a divorce, for example -- and are crafted by the sensibilities of the survivors.(Link to full letter.)
The news that Google will start to allow sources in news articles to comment on the final article has yielded all sorts of comments, most about how this is potentially going to harm the integrity of the articles. (Other commentators wonder if Google really knows what it's getting itself into arbitrating disputes and verifying the identify of those who claim they've been misquoted.)
Be that as it may, it's in my view a commentary on how the world feels it has been treated by the media. Traditionally it's been very hard for those quoted in articles to set the record straight. (I am not talking about disagreements over the intent of the story but over basic facts. The former is something that will always happen.)
Now quoted sources have a chance to publish their comments (supposedly unedited) for the world to judge for themselves.
Until now someone who felt they had been wronged had to contact the publication and convince a defensive editor that the reporter had erred. It usually ended with no resolution. If pushed, the newspaper would print a correction or would tell the aggrieved party to write a letter to the editor, which most times got heavily edited.
In several previous jobs I recall the editor resisting as much as possible the idea to print a correction. (This attitude, thankfully, has changed a bit, thanks in part to ombudsmen.) The New York Times seems to be one of the few exceptions. I also recall several discussions where someone suggested we randomly call subjects in stories to see how they viewed the end product. It was alway dismissed as "not cost effective." Translation -- they weren't interested in finding out.
In addition, it's been my experience that many wronged people who just don't bring up the subject knowing it will not lead to anything positive. (A fellow church member commented how the local paper quoted him and got all the facts wrong. I said I knew the reporter and was sure it was unintentional and that he should call the editor. "What's the point? he answered. "They'll just keep screwing it up.")
Google's experiment encourages more people to bring up corrections knowing the original party is not involved in the discussion and also knowing it will be seen by a much wider audience, the Web audience.
Newspapers, in my experience, have been very reluctant to correct what they term "minor" errors (spelling, title, etc.) but they need to realize it's those little things that set the tone. Errors there make the reader wonder how credible the rest of the report must be.
So you can't help wonder how much newspapers brought this upon themselves.
Update: Kara Swisher seems to agree. (Link to her post.)
Update: Paul Gillin has a similar take on this with an interesting perspective: (Link to post.)
Today, we have a new model. If someone interviews me for a story, I can post my version of the interview on my blog or publish an audio recording. I also think it's reasonable to ask the publication to link back to my comments or recording. After all, neither of us has anything to hide, right? This new approach to reporting would reduce the chance of error and provide readers with the option of reading a more detailed version of the information presented in the story.
I was talking to a reporter from a well-known paper last week and he commented how most of his interesting material goes into this blog, not the paper. I've noticed, too, that most of the interesting reading I come across is on newspaper blogs.
Most of the material I read in a newspaper today is either out of date or does not offer an interesting perspective or angle. However, the material I read on newspaper blogs seems far more interesting.
This reporter commented the material for the blog was decided for him. It was whatever the editor rejected. Which leads me to wonder if some newspapers are so stuck in the past and formula writing they are missing a great opportunity for great content.
Having said that, here's an interesting report from Henry Blodgett about why, even with a strong online presence, many newspapers will still falter:
Put differently, the big problem for newspapers right now is not readers--it's revenue. A "unique user" online generates a fraction of the revenue and profit that a newspaper subscriber or reader does offline. Although the value of a unique user will continue to rise as advertising dollars flow online, it will almost certainly never approach the value that newspapers generate offline (in part because so many of the dollars spent in offline papers are wasted).
A posting from TechCrunch on layoffs at the San Francisco Chronicle. Nothing new there. What caught my eye is the amount of money the paper is losing a week. They point out:
The paper that is losing $1 million per week could fire every journalist it has on staff and still not break even. But that hasn’t stopped them from trying. 80 reporters, photographers and copy editors plus 20 in management will be gone by end of summer.
I've been dabbling with Facebook for the past month or so and have found out that, at least in the view of BusinessWeek, I'm a fogey.
Seems that other people my age have discovered the site and its ability to connect people, according to BusinessWeek:
Lately, an influx of older users—professionals their 30s and 40s, many in high-tech is changing the face of Facebook. Among Silicon Valley executives, journalists, and publicists, Facebook has become the place to see and be seen. And it's not just tech. Consulting company Ernst & Young's Facebook network boasts 16,000 members, Citigroup's (C) claims nearly 8,500.Having also checked out LinkedIn and Plaxo I have say I am starting to understand its appeal. The interface makes updating easy (and addictive.) Right now most of what I do has nothing to do with business but am seeing its potential.
- Never become friends with someone you don’t know. (For example, I really wanted to become friends with Howard Kurtz, but did not. I thought it would be awkward since we have never met.) For the uninitiated: becoming someone’s friend means that there is a little icon on your other friend's profile that shows you two are buds.
- Don't friend someone the second you meet them. Wait a few days, because you don’t want to seem too eager. Chill.
- Never poke anyone. What does “to poke” mean? Don’t worry about it, just don’t do it.
- Don't become friends with your mom or any of her friends. Do I need to explain more?
Never Eat Alone
Keith Ferrazzi
One-word summary -- network. And then network some more.
To be fair (sort of) Keith has made a career of this and has some good tactical advice for those of us (myself the prime example) who like to stand in the corner alone.
Key points:
One of the better pieces I've read recently is the deconstruction of a Deloitte memo. The article, by Lucy Kellaway of the Financial Times, is one of the best critiques I've seen in a long time as well as quite biting.
In her piece she compares the Deloitte memo, written by Jim Quigley, with one written by David Greer, deputy chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.
Now consider the style of the Deloitte memo. "Our identity reinforces the shared vision of our member firms," it says. This is so profoundly meaningless that I doubt if its author could tell me what he meant by it.
The next criterion is that the boss must sound as if he is on the same planet as the people he is trying to motivate. Again, high marks to Greer. He refers to "mutterings" and bad body language of staff at a recent meeting. In other words, he is aware that morale is bad and isn't frightened to discuss it.
Meanwhile, at Deloitte the new chief is oozing platitudes as to the state of the company. "I have never been more proud of who we are?.?.?. we strengthen our brand every day as we deliver value to our clients."
Next, a good motivational message must consider what it is that keeps employees in their jobs. Greer cites three reasons: "To earn a decent living for yourself and your loved ones," self-respect and desire for success. This had me cheering (even though the phrase "loved ones" is not one of my favourites). Most managers like to believe that workers are there for love of the company or, worse, for passion towards the brand. Money and other basics tend to get overlooked.
I get about 10 magazines in the office, most of them related to business.
I have decided to let most of the subs run out for two reasons:
1. I am able to track most of the content online through Google Reader. Since I don't read most of the articles (I just skim to see if there's something I should be aware of) the Reader seems to serve its purpose. The only exceptions are The Economist and The New Yorker. Both, in view, are best consumed in print. Their lengthy articles don't translate well online.
2. I can't keep track of when the subs really expire. This has been going on for years and drives me nuts. I sometimes get renewal notices a year ahead of the expiration date. I finally started tracking expiration dates but seems like a lot of work for something so unimportant. I also don't like the few magazines that offer (is "offer" the right word?) automatic renewal. Feels like a runaway train -- something I have no control over.
As someone who has worked in the magazine industry it saddens me (a little) to do this but it's been a long time coming.
Update: I recently stumbled across this post from Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail and editor Wired. He makes the same point but far more convincingly and with more evidence. (Click here for post.)
Am on the West Coast for two days. (Palo Alto today.) I was told by the boys to get some anti-Bonds posters but I had to explain that this is pro-Bonds country. I need to go to LA to get that stuff.
