Where the good content can be found

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Most of the material I read in a newspaper today is either out of date or does not offer an interesting perspective or angle.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).

$1 million a week?

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.

Fogey

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.

The spike in attention was also prompted by Caroline Giuliani's recent episode with Facebook. Katie Couric also weighs in with a post from one of her interns. (If Katie Couric is on to this then maybe it is old news.) He outlines several of the key rules to Facebooking:

- 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?

Recent reads -- Never Eat Alone

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:

1. Don't keep score. It's about helping others. You will benefit in the end but don't look for immediate (or even long term) payback.
2. Be the connector between networks. We all have groups we are part of. That's easy. The real power comes from introducing those two groups.
3. Stretch. It never hurts to try to reach high to meet with people you think would never want to associate with you.
4. Be yourself. Nothing is worse than coming across as an opportunist.

Clear thinking

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.

Ouch.

Magazine subs -- an experiment

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.)

Travels -- SF/Palo Alto

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.

I did have an offer to go sailing yesterday but balked due to work commitments. What's the matter with me?

Also noticed the early rush hour. Was out for a 430 walk (jet lag) and astounded by the traffic. Everyone getting up early to meet the East Coast market openings