Clay Shirkey argues that our media companies are over-evolved, referring to precedents such as the Romans and the Mayans in "The Collapse of Complex Business Models." and he includes these graphs to refer to the additional over-abundance problem of media today:
About 15 years ago, the supply part of media’s supply-and-demand curve went parabolic, with a predictably inverse effect on price. Since then, a battalion of media elites have lined up to declare that exactly the opposite thing will start happening any day now.
To pick a couple of examples more or less at random, last year Barry Diller of IAC said, of content available on the web, “It is not free, and is not going to be,” Steve Brill of Journalism Online said that users “just need to get back into the habit of doing so [paying for content] online”, and Rupert Murdoch of News Corp said “Web users will have to pay for what they watch and use.”
Diller, Brill, and Murdoch seem be stating a simple fact—we will have to pay them—but this fact is not in fact a fact. Instead, it is a choice, one its proponents often decline to spell out in full, because, spelled out in full, it would read something like this:
“Web users will have to pay for what they watch and use, or else we will have to stop making content in the costly and complex way we have grown accustomed to making it. And we don’t know how to do that.”
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
No protection; no pay
In all of the discussions about the right way to put up paywalls online, the fundamental truth that without protection there can be no pay has been passed over, for the most part.
Here's what happens when a procedure such as metering is put forward as a paywall model, when in fact it's quite susceptible to workaround.
Web developers have made BREAKTHEPAYWALL, which erases the cookies that keep track of reading habits to validate when payment would kick in for a reader.
Here's the story from PaidContent.co.uk:
Remember BugMeNot.com? The site was started in 2003 to let users, peeved by a growing crop of news site registration walls, borrow someone else’s login.
Seven years on - for registration wall workaround, read pay wall hack. Web developers have made BreakThePayWall, a browser extension that helps users overcome part of news publishers’ subscription strategy.
Available for Internet Explorer and soon, Firefox, BreakThePayWall works mainly by deleting cookies sites use to limit the number of stories users can read before having to subscribe. Deleting the cookies means the publisher’s site forgets how close the reader is to the “pay up” threshold.
In theory, it could be a challenge to those that use Google’s First-Click-Free scheme, which publishers can use to let searchers read only up to five articles per month before subscribing. No BreakThePayWall user numbers are available and the hack seems unlikely to severely impact publishers’ strategies because it has not gained widespread attention on the web.
But it is a clear response to the recent re-emergence of paywalls and may prompt proprietors to think of new techniques. It’s basically a sign of the times.
Web users can already employ the same technique by manually deleting cookies in their browser; BreakThePayWall just tries to make it easier.
“The paywall thing came about because of our annoyance at how easy it is to get around them,” BreakThePayWall’s developer, who did not give his name, told me. “Lots of compromises are made and basic security not adhered to. The utility currently uses cookie and referrer techniques - we have not come across any other techniques… yet.”
BreakThePayWall is thought to have piqued the interest of FT.com, which uses First-Click-Free to give five free articles per month to Google (NSDQ: GOOG) searchers.
The developer is also working on a hack that lets users more easily claim compensation for train delays.
Here's what happens when a procedure such as metering is put forward as a paywall model, when in fact it's quite susceptible to workaround.
Web developers have made BREAKTHEPAYWALL, which erases the cookies that keep track of reading habits to validate when payment would kick in for a reader.
Here's the story from PaidContent.co.uk:
Remember BugMeNot.com? The site was started in 2003 to let users, peeved by a growing crop of news site registration walls, borrow someone else’s login.
Seven years on - for registration wall workaround, read pay wall hack. Web developers have made BreakThePayWall, a browser extension that helps users overcome part of news publishers’ subscription strategy.
Available for Internet Explorer and soon, Firefox, BreakThePayWall works mainly by deleting cookies sites use to limit the number of stories users can read before having to subscribe. Deleting the cookies means the publisher’s site forgets how close the reader is to the “pay up” threshold.
In theory, it could be a challenge to those that use Google’s First-Click-Free scheme, which publishers can use to let searchers read only up to five articles per month before subscribing. No BreakThePayWall user numbers are available and the hack seems unlikely to severely impact publishers’ strategies because it has not gained widespread attention on the web.
But it is a clear response to the recent re-emergence of paywalls and may prompt proprietors to think of new techniques. It’s basically a sign of the times.
Web users can already employ the same technique by manually deleting cookies in their browser; BreakThePayWall just tries to make it easier.
“The paywall thing came about because of our annoyance at how easy it is to get around them,” BreakThePayWall’s developer, who did not give his name, told me. “Lots of compromises are made and basic security not adhered to. The utility currently uses cookie and referrer techniques - we have not come across any other techniques… yet.”
BreakThePayWall is thought to have piqued the interest of FT.com, which uses First-Click-Free to give five free articles per month to Google (NSDQ: GOOG) searchers.
The developer is also working on a hack that lets users more easily claim compensation for train delays.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Copy rite
The rite of copyright must change to be fair to everyone who isn't digital. I believe as this New York Times Oped contributor points out. that you can reprint and link to sites on line, that are impossible to quote in print. I am in the process of publishing a book from my blogs and although I have quoted at length from many media sources online, I can't reprint them in print without paying, including reprints from The New York Times. So obviously I won't be able to reprint this blog in print. You'll only be able to read it here.
Here's the full story as it appeared in The New York times on April 3, 2010 by Marc Aronson:
TODAY, Apple’s iPad goes on sale, and many see this as a Gutenberg moment, with digital multimedia moving one step closer toward replacing old-fashioned books.
Speaking as an author and editor of illustrated nonfiction, I agree that important change is afoot, but not in the way most people see it. In order for electronic books to live up to their billing, we have to fix a system that is broken: getting permission to use copyrighted material in new work. Either we change the way we deal with copyrights — or works of nonfiction in a multimedia world will become ever more dull and disappointing.
The hope of nonfiction is to connect readers to something outside the book: the past, a discovery, a social issue. To do this, authors need to draw on pre-existing words and images.
Unless we nonfiction writers are lucky and hit a public-domain mother lode, we have to pay for the right to use just about anything — from a single line of a song to any part of a poem; from the vast archives of the world’s art (now managed by gimlet-eyed venture capitalists) to the historical images that serve as profit centers for museums and academic libraries.
The amount we pay depends on where and how the material is used. In fact, the very first question a rights holder asks is “What are you going to do with my baby?” Which countries do you plan to sell in? What languages? Over what period of time? How large will the image be in your book?
Given that permission costs are already out of control for old-fashioned print, it’s fair to expect that they will rise even higher with e-books. After all, digital books will be in print forever (we assume); they can be downloaded, copied, shared and maybe even translated. We’ve all heard about the multimedia potential of the iPad, but how much will writers be charged for film clips and audio? Rights holders will demand a hefty premium for use in digital books — if they make their materials available in that format at all.
Seeing the clouds on the horizon, publishers painstakingly remove photos and even text extracts from print books as they are converted to e-books. So instead of providing a dazzling future, the e-world is forcing nonfiction to become drier, blander and denser.
Still, this logjam between technological potential and copyright hell could turn into a great opportunity — if it leads to a new model for how permission costs are calculated in e-books and even in print.
For e-books, the new model would look something like this: Instead of paying permission fees upfront based on estimated print runs, book creators would pay based on a periodic accounting of downloads. Right now, fees are laid out on a set schedule whose minimum rates are often higher than a modest book can support. The costs may be fine for textbooks or advertisers, but they punish individual authors. Since publishers can’t afford to fully cover permissions fees for print books, and cannot yet predict what they will earn from e-books, the writer has to choose between taking a loss on permissions fees or short-changing readers on content.
But if rights holders were compensated for actual downloads, there would be a perfect fit. The better a book did, the more the original rights holder would be paid. The challenge of this model is accurate accounting — but in the age of iTunes micropayments surely someone can figure out a way.
Before we even get to downloads, though, we need to fix the problem for print books. As a starting point, authors and publishers — perhaps through a joint committee of the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers — should create a grid of standard rates and images and text extracts keyed to print runs and prices.
Since authors and publishers have stakes on both sides of this issue, they ought to be able to come up with suggested fees that would allow creators to set reasonable budgets, and compel rights holders to conform to industry norms.
A good starting point might be a suggested scale based on the total number of images used in a book; an image that was one one-hundredth of a story would cost less than an image that was a tenth of it. Such a plan would encourage authors to use more art, which is precisely what we all want.
If rights remain as tightly controlled and as expensive as they are now, nonfiction will be the province of the entirely new or the overly familiar. Dazzling books with newly created art, text and multimedia will far outnumber works filled with historical materials. Only a few well-heeled companies will have the wherewithal to create gee-whiz multimedia book-like products that require permissions, and these projects will most likely focus on highly popular subjects. History’s outsiders and untold stories will be left behind.
We treat copyrights as individual possessions, jewels that exist entirely by themselves. I’m obviously sympathetic to that point of view. But source material also takes on another life when it’s repurposed. It becomes part of the flow, the narration, the interweaving of text and art in books and e-books. It’s essential that we take this into account as we re-imagine permissions in a digital age.
When we have a new model for permissions, we will have new media. Then all of us — authors, readers, new-media innovators, rights holders — will really see the stories that words and images can tell.
Marc Aronson is the author, most recently, of “If Stones Could Speak: Unlocking the Secrets of Stonehenge.”
Here's the full story as it appeared in The New York times on April 3, 2010 by Marc Aronson:
TODAY, Apple’s iPad goes on sale, and many see this as a Gutenberg moment, with digital multimedia moving one step closer toward replacing old-fashioned books.
Speaking as an author and editor of illustrated nonfiction, I agree that important change is afoot, but not in the way most people see it. In order for electronic books to live up to their billing, we have to fix a system that is broken: getting permission to use copyrighted material in new work. Either we change the way we deal with copyrights — or works of nonfiction in a multimedia world will become ever more dull and disappointing.
The hope of nonfiction is to connect readers to something outside the book: the past, a discovery, a social issue. To do this, authors need to draw on pre-existing words and images.
Unless we nonfiction writers are lucky and hit a public-domain mother lode, we have to pay for the right to use just about anything — from a single line of a song to any part of a poem; from the vast archives of the world’s art (now managed by gimlet-eyed venture capitalists) to the historical images that serve as profit centers for museums and academic libraries.
The amount we pay depends on where and how the material is used. In fact, the very first question a rights holder asks is “What are you going to do with my baby?” Which countries do you plan to sell in? What languages? Over what period of time? How large will the image be in your book?
Given that permission costs are already out of control for old-fashioned print, it’s fair to expect that they will rise even higher with e-books. After all, digital books will be in print forever (we assume); they can be downloaded, copied, shared and maybe even translated. We’ve all heard about the multimedia potential of the iPad, but how much will writers be charged for film clips and audio? Rights holders will demand a hefty premium for use in digital books — if they make their materials available in that format at all.
Seeing the clouds on the horizon, publishers painstakingly remove photos and even text extracts from print books as they are converted to e-books. So instead of providing a dazzling future, the e-world is forcing nonfiction to become drier, blander and denser.
Still, this logjam between technological potential and copyright hell could turn into a great opportunity — if it leads to a new model for how permission costs are calculated in e-books and even in print.
For e-books, the new model would look something like this: Instead of paying permission fees upfront based on estimated print runs, book creators would pay based on a periodic accounting of downloads. Right now, fees are laid out on a set schedule whose minimum rates are often higher than a modest book can support. The costs may be fine for textbooks or advertisers, but they punish individual authors. Since publishers can’t afford to fully cover permissions fees for print books, and cannot yet predict what they will earn from e-books, the writer has to choose between taking a loss on permissions fees or short-changing readers on content.
But if rights holders were compensated for actual downloads, there would be a perfect fit. The better a book did, the more the original rights holder would be paid. The challenge of this model is accurate accounting — but in the age of iTunes micropayments surely someone can figure out a way.
Before we even get to downloads, though, we need to fix the problem for print books. As a starting point, authors and publishers — perhaps through a joint committee of the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers — should create a grid of standard rates and images and text extracts keyed to print runs and prices.
Since authors and publishers have stakes on both sides of this issue, they ought to be able to come up with suggested fees that would allow creators to set reasonable budgets, and compel rights holders to conform to industry norms.
A good starting point might be a suggested scale based on the total number of images used in a book; an image that was one one-hundredth of a story would cost less than an image that was a tenth of it. Such a plan would encourage authors to use more art, which is precisely what we all want.
If rights remain as tightly controlled and as expensive as they are now, nonfiction will be the province of the entirely new or the overly familiar. Dazzling books with newly created art, text and multimedia will far outnumber works filled with historical materials. Only a few well-heeled companies will have the wherewithal to create gee-whiz multimedia book-like products that require permissions, and these projects will most likely focus on highly popular subjects. History’s outsiders and untold stories will be left behind.
We treat copyrights as individual possessions, jewels that exist entirely by themselves. I’m obviously sympathetic to that point of view. But source material also takes on another life when it’s repurposed. It becomes part of the flow, the narration, the interweaving of text and art in books and e-books. It’s essential that we take this into account as we re-imagine permissions in a digital age.
When we have a new model for permissions, we will have new media. Then all of us — authors, readers, new-media innovators, rights holders — will really see the stories that words and images can tell.
Marc Aronson is the author, most recently, of “If Stones Could Speak: Unlocking the Secrets of Stonehenge.”
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Here we go
From Rupert by way of PaidContent.org:
After months of silence, News Corp.‘s UK wing News International has put some details on its plans to turn Times Online paid-only, in a big flagship announcement. We’ll run it in full because it’s so significant.
Update: See exclusive preview of the forthcoming websites.
The key points…
—£1 a day, £2 for a week’s subscription - a compelling argument to go for a week.
—Coincidence? The £1 cost is the same as the daily print paper.
—Customers get access to both sites. Print subscribers get free web access.
—Premium mobile? “New applications” including iPhone apps will also be paid-for. There will also be tablet editions.
—Rebrand? Note, Brooks is calling the new daily site “TheTimes.co.uk”, not “Times Online”.
News International is using the “all for the price of a cup of coffee” comparison. Matching the £1-a-day print price will fuel the fire of those who suspect the aim here is really to drive people back to paper. But the Times is promising plenty of online-native innovation, too.
Guardian.co.uk: “Assuming that only five percent of daily users convert to the paywall system – a standard metric for paywalls – that would bring in £1.83 million if they each buy a £1 daily pass. At a 10 percent conversion, it would net £3.66 million per month for the two papers. If more people of those choose to buy the weekly pass, the revenues would be lower.”
Next stop: a pay-for Sun Online? Surely not? But Brooks says: “This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers.”
The announcement…
London, 26 March 2010 – News International today announces that The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for access to their digital journalism in June using a pricing model that is simple and affordable.
Both titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing, combined site, Times Online. The two new sites will be available for a free trial period to registered customers.
From June, the new sites, www.thetimes.co.uk and http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk, will be available for a charge of £1 for a day’s access or £2 for a week’s subscription. Payment will give customers access to both sites. The weekly subscription will also give access to the e- paper and certain new applications. Access to the digital services will be included in the seven-day subscriptions of print customers to The Times and The Sunday Times.
Rebekah Brooks, Chief Executive, News International, said: “These new sites, and the apps that will enhance the experience, reflect the identity of our titles and deliver a terrific experience for readers. We expect to attract a growing base of loyal customers that are committed and engaged with our titles. We are building on the excellence of our newspapers and offering digital access to our journalism at a price that everyone can afford.
“At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value.
“This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers.”
John Witherow, Editor of The Sunday Times, said: “The launch of a dedicated Sunday Times website is a hugely significant moment for the paper. It will enable us to showcase our strengths in areas such as news, sport, business, style, travel and culture and display the breadth of Britain’s biggest-selling quality newspaper.
“For the first time, readers will have access to all their favourite sections and writers. We will be introducing new digital features to enhance our coverage and encourage interactivity. Every day, readers will be able to talk to our writers and experts and view stunning photographs and graphics. Subscribers will be able to get this brand new site, plus the enhanced Times site, seven days of the week, all for the price of a cup of coffee.”
James Harding, Editor of The Times, said: “The Times was founded to take advantage of new technology. Now, we are leading the way again. Our new website – with a strong, clean design – will have all the values of the printed paper and all the versatility of digital media. We want people to do more than just read it – to be part of it.
“We continue to invest in frontline journalism. We have more foreign correspondents than our rivals and continue to put reporters on new beats – last year we added an Ocean Correspondent and we just became the only British paper to have a Pentagon Correspondent. And we want to match that with investment in innovation.
“TheTimes.co.uk will make the most of moving images, dynamic infographics, interactive comment and personalised news feeds. The coming editions of The Times on phones, e- readers, tablets and mobile devices will tell the most important and interesting stories in the newest ways. Our aim is to keep delivering The Times, but better.”
After months of silence, News Corp.‘s UK wing News International has put some details on its plans to turn Times Online paid-only, in a big flagship announcement. We’ll run it in full because it’s so significant.
Update: See exclusive preview of the forthcoming websites.
The key points…
—£1 a day, £2 for a week’s subscription - a compelling argument to go for a week.
—Coincidence? The £1 cost is the same as the daily print paper.
—Customers get access to both sites. Print subscribers get free web access.
—Premium mobile? “New applications” including iPhone apps will also be paid-for. There will also be tablet editions.
—Rebrand? Note, Brooks is calling the new daily site “TheTimes.co.uk”, not “Times Online”.
News International is using the “all for the price of a cup of coffee” comparison. Matching the £1-a-day print price will fuel the fire of those who suspect the aim here is really to drive people back to paper. But the Times is promising plenty of online-native innovation, too.
Guardian.co.uk: “Assuming that only five percent of daily users convert to the paywall system – a standard metric for paywalls – that would bring in £1.83 million if they each buy a £1 daily pass. At a 10 percent conversion, it would net £3.66 million per month for the two papers. If more people of those choose to buy the weekly pass, the revenues would be lower.”
Next stop: a pay-for Sun Online? Surely not? But Brooks says: “This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers.”
The announcement…
London, 26 March 2010 – News International today announces that The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for access to their digital journalism in June using a pricing model that is simple and affordable.
Both titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing, combined site, Times Online. The two new sites will be available for a free trial period to registered customers.
From June, the new sites, www.thetimes.co.uk and http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk, will be available for a charge of £1 for a day’s access or £2 for a week’s subscription. Payment will give customers access to both sites. The weekly subscription will also give access to the e- paper and certain new applications. Access to the digital services will be included in the seven-day subscriptions of print customers to The Times and The Sunday Times.
Rebekah Brooks, Chief Executive, News International, said: “These new sites, and the apps that will enhance the experience, reflect the identity of our titles and deliver a terrific experience for readers. We expect to attract a growing base of loyal customers that are committed and engaged with our titles. We are building on the excellence of our newspapers and offering digital access to our journalism at a price that everyone can afford.
“At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value.
“This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers.”
John Witherow, Editor of The Sunday Times, said: “The launch of a dedicated Sunday Times website is a hugely significant moment for the paper. It will enable us to showcase our strengths in areas such as news, sport, business, style, travel and culture and display the breadth of Britain’s biggest-selling quality newspaper.
“For the first time, readers will have access to all their favourite sections and writers. We will be introducing new digital features to enhance our coverage and encourage interactivity. Every day, readers will be able to talk to our writers and experts and view stunning photographs and graphics. Subscribers will be able to get this brand new site, plus the enhanced Times site, seven days of the week, all for the price of a cup of coffee.”
James Harding, Editor of The Times, said: “The Times was founded to take advantage of new technology. Now, we are leading the way again. Our new website – with a strong, clean design – will have all the values of the printed paper and all the versatility of digital media. We want people to do more than just read it – to be part of it.
“We continue to invest in frontline journalism. We have more foreign correspondents than our rivals and continue to put reporters on new beats – last year we added an Ocean Correspondent and we just became the only British paper to have a Pentagon Correspondent. And we want to match that with investment in innovation.
“TheTimes.co.uk will make the most of moving images, dynamic infographics, interactive comment and personalised news feeds. The coming editions of The Times on phones, e- readers, tablets and mobile devices will tell the most important and interesting stories in the newest ways. Our aim is to keep delivering The Times, but better.”
Monday, March 22, 2010
Fundamental shifts
At the very core of all discussions about reporting, distribution, technology, even design, of news, is the fundamental question of what has news become. A well-respected professor of journalism in England believes there are fundamental shifts afoot in the nature of news.
Here's the story:
Is news over? – George Brock tackles journalism's biggest question
SharePosted: 18/03/10 By: Alexander Walters
Journalism has become "a word wandering around in search of a definition" according to George Brock, the head of journalism at City University London.
In a speech last night entitled 'Is news over?', the former Times international editor questioned the role of journalists and the very nature of journalism in the digital world. He told the audience of students and media professionals gathered at City University that the rapid development of technology had prised the concept of news out of the hands of traditional media.
"The ability for anyone to produce something called news, circulate it, discuss it and edit it brings an oligopoly to a brutal end," he said.
"Until recently journalists could rest secure in the knowledge that it wasn't easy for anyone to claim to be a journalist unless they were in a position to use the capital-intensive equipment to publish or broadcast. That barrier to entry has of course gone."
Brock told how news, once the binding factor in so many communities in the form of a local paper, was now created by online communities which "form, congeal, dissolve and disperse" at a speed unimaginable to previous generations.
On the inevitable question of how to fund journalism, Brock was candid. "There is no law of economics which guarantees that when one business model fails, a replacement one is immediately available," he said.
Yet he went on to suggest that we should be grateful for "ever cheaper, ever lighter" multimedia devices, which allow stories to be told in the broadest possible form, with both audio and visual dimensions. With the decline of newspapers, however, he stressed the importance of maintaining the role of the written word.
"We have to find a way to make sure that words survive in the equation. Each technology tends to affect the way news is reported on that particular platform and some of the most successful ways of telling stories seem to weave words, video and sound together. I only plead that words, so beautiful and so useful, don’t get squeezed out."
Throughout his address, Brock insisted that journalists, if they are to survive, must begin reassessing how they regard themselves and their place in the new structures of the digital world.
"If journalism is to be valued, and perhaps even paid for, that worth has to be clear to people who are not journalists. Journalists have to start by accepting that they don't automatically hold the powerful place in the new information system that they held in the old," he said.
He concluded by telling the audience that journalism is indeed valuable, but reminded those present that challenging times lie ahead.
"We're entering a new communications age and making the argument for journalism all over again needs a little more critical self-appraisal than we have been used to doing. The worth of journalism is real, and its case will need to be made often in the next few years."
Here's the story:
Is news over? – George Brock tackles journalism's biggest question
SharePosted: 18/03/10 By: Alexander Walters
Journalism has become "a word wandering around in search of a definition" according to George Brock, the head of journalism at City University London.
In a speech last night entitled 'Is news over?', the former Times international editor questioned the role of journalists and the very nature of journalism in the digital world. He told the audience of students and media professionals gathered at City University that the rapid development of technology had prised the concept of news out of the hands of traditional media.
"The ability for anyone to produce something called news, circulate it, discuss it and edit it brings an oligopoly to a brutal end," he said.
"Until recently journalists could rest secure in the knowledge that it wasn't easy for anyone to claim to be a journalist unless they were in a position to use the capital-intensive equipment to publish or broadcast. That barrier to entry has of course gone."
Brock told how news, once the binding factor in so many communities in the form of a local paper, was now created by online communities which "form, congeal, dissolve and disperse" at a speed unimaginable to previous generations.
On the inevitable question of how to fund journalism, Brock was candid. "There is no law of economics which guarantees that when one business model fails, a replacement one is immediately available," he said.
Yet he went on to suggest that we should be grateful for "ever cheaper, ever lighter" multimedia devices, which allow stories to be told in the broadest possible form, with both audio and visual dimensions. With the decline of newspapers, however, he stressed the importance of maintaining the role of the written word.
"We have to find a way to make sure that words survive in the equation. Each technology tends to affect the way news is reported on that particular platform and some of the most successful ways of telling stories seem to weave words, video and sound together. I only plead that words, so beautiful and so useful, don’t get squeezed out."
Throughout his address, Brock insisted that journalists, if they are to survive, must begin reassessing how they regard themselves and their place in the new structures of the digital world.
"If journalism is to be valued, and perhaps even paid for, that worth has to be clear to people who are not journalists. Journalists have to start by accepting that they don't automatically hold the powerful place in the new information system that they held in the old," he said.
He concluded by telling the audience that journalism is indeed valuable, but reminded those present that challenging times lie ahead.
"We're entering a new communications age and making the argument for journalism all over again needs a little more critical self-appraisal than we have been used to doing. The worth of journalism is real, and its case will need to be made often in the next few years."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Doctor, doctor.
Newspapers are in the midst of a shift that has transformed them from a mass medium to a niche product, and the advent of more sophisticated e-readers will further accelerate that migration.
Ken Doctor, affiliate analyst with Outsell Inc. and author of the book “Newsonomics: Twelve New Trends That Will Shape the News You Get,” told News & Tech columnist Doug Page in a Press Room podcast posted March 6, 2010, “Publishers are fully embracing the idea that it’s digital first and that print is now a niche.
“Newspapers have always been a mass medium even though there might have been some niches. Now newspapers are the niche, the Starbucks buy. If you are a baby boomer and are willing to spend twice as much as you did even two years ago (to buy a paper) you can still read your paper.”
Doctor, a former editor at the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press and a Knight Ridder Digital executive, said the emergence of Apple Computer Inc.’s iPad “has the potential of changing the news reading experience exponentially and could further move people away from print.”
“It may return the day of the pleasurable reading experience,” Doctor said of the gadget. “We all use desktops and laptops, but they are essentially work devices. You can find news from anywhere in the world, but that is a (version) 1.0 experience. With the iPad, you control the experience, so it returns the notion of reading for pleasure, and that’s one of the main reasons people like reading newspapers.”
Ken Doctor, affiliate analyst with Outsell Inc. and author of the book “Newsonomics: Twelve New Trends That Will Shape the News You Get,” told News & Tech columnist Doug Page in a Press Room podcast posted March 6, 2010, “Publishers are fully embracing the idea that it’s digital first and that print is now a niche.
“Newspapers have always been a mass medium even though there might have been some niches. Now newspapers are the niche, the Starbucks buy. If you are a baby boomer and are willing to spend twice as much as you did even two years ago (to buy a paper) you can still read your paper.”
Doctor, a former editor at the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press and a Knight Ridder Digital executive, said the emergence of Apple Computer Inc.’s iPad “has the potential of changing the news reading experience exponentially and could further move people away from print.”
“It may return the day of the pleasurable reading experience,” Doctor said of the gadget. “We all use desktops and laptops, but they are essentially work devices. You can find news from anywhere in the world, but that is a (version) 1.0 experience. With the iPad, you control the experience, so it returns the notion of reading for pleasure, and that’s one of the main reasons people like reading newspapers.”
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Forrester Research presentation at paidContent 2010
Here's the fascinating interpretation of this theorem that people don't -- and never have -- paid for content, they will pay -- and always have -- for access. So the subscription to the newspaper used to be what people paid for access, in my opinion. So that puts into a stranger-than-ever context the experiment of charging for content that paywalls online are contemplating.
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)