The evolution of the news flow
Posted: May 17, 2009 Filed under: Department of Broadcast, Department of News, Department of Print, social media | Tags: how we get our news, new forms of news Leave a comment »Really interesting piece from Thomas Baekdal [H/T to Lifehacker] on the form that our media consumption has changed in the last century. I love the chart he uses to illustrate it as well:
From Baekdal, on explaining what his article is trying to do:
We are seeing an entirely new way for people to interact. One that makes all traditional ways seem silly. It is a fundamental shift, and it will completely change the world as we know it. And the best thing about it is that you get to help make it happen.
Baekdal does also look to what is coming in media and believes that the traditional veins don’t have much time left at all (he marked 2020 as the end of traditional media). I still think there will always be a purpose for the loudspeaker of mainstream media that can’t necessarily be replicated in social media. Sure, it won’t have the targeting from which social media benefits, but until the access wall breaks down (and who knows, it may a little), there is a need.
Now, what should they do with that access? That’s up for the old media giants to figure out. Otherwise, Baekdal is completely right: they won’t have a puncher’s chance.
It’s not delivery…
Posted: May 12, 2009 Filed under: Department of Digital | Tags: how we get our news Leave a comment »
…ok, it’s not Digiornio either.
It’s the New York Times and its new desktop client, TimesReader 2.0.
I got a really interesting question a few weeks ago from a student at Boston College about the future of paid-online content. I stick by my answer: there isn’t a walled garden of news that could survive on a paid-model because, generally, there will still be a place to get it. It’s supply and demand. There’s a high supply of information. Unless you are providing something unique, it won’t work, and, to be honest, a lot of news just isn’t that unique.
And, like clockwork, along comes the announcement from the Times that it has updated its desktop client to utilize the powerful Adobe Air. It looks pretty, less ad content and a bigger space to read. Clearly, its a bridge between a browser-based read and the physical version. I like how it looks, its pretty easy to use and it is really a clean space:
But that’s not enough for me to say the Times gets it (even though Lifehacker is giving a modicum amount of credit for trying). I have it installed on my computer. After my tests playing around with it, I doubt I use it much more than that. Why? Because the information is the exact same as NYTimes.com where things are more accessible on my terms. And, I think a little more importantly for the participatory world: I can link to those articles and comments. I can’t do that in TimesReader. I’m going to end up at the site anyway.
I’ve been reading the Times since I started at school in the northeast in 2002. I’m not stopping now. But I don’t need a fancy application to do it. I just need it to continue producing content that is good.
Delivery doesn’t matter. Good pizza does.
Looks like Newsweek has an idea…
Posted: May 6, 2009 Filed under: Department of News, Department of Print | Tags: Newsweek, reinventing the model Leave a comment »
Newsweek cover, May 31, 1993
File this under, “maybe there is a chance for traditional media.” Check out “Reinventing Newsweek,” from the magazine issue dated May 18, 2009. It’s a fantastic piece from Kathleen Deveny, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek.
A few snipets if you don’t have time for the whole thing. First, on philosophy:
We’ll aim to be provocative, but not partisan…because while there is no shortage of information out there, we believe there is a scarcity of insight.
And now, the practicality of survival:
For decades, NEWSWEEK has succeeded because advertisers wanted to reach our vast audience. That strategy is no longer working. Advertisers are seeking more targeted demographic groups. We will drop our guaranteed circulation from 2.6 million to 1.5 million by next January. We will focus on a smaller, more devoted, slightly more affluent audience. Over time, we will increase subscription prices. Right now, we’re charging about 47 cents an issue for a product created by hundreds of people around the world, some of whom have risked their lives in places like Baghdad. Good journalism is expensive to produce, and we need to make our business profitable in order to continue producing it. “Repairing NEWSWEEK the business is more than an intellectual challenge,” says Ascheim. “As corny as it sounds, I really believe that our republic will not thrive without healthy, self-sufficient journalism.”
Newsweek.com, which celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2008, will also debut a new look on May 15. The redesigned home page will be easy to navigate and introduce new features, such as an interactive version of CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. The site already has 6.8 million unique monthly visitors, according to Nielsen, which means more people read NEWSWEEK stories online than in print. We’d like to increase that number significantly, while keeping users on the site longer. We’ll be offering a mix of our own content, aggregated content and content generated by our users. If we were to do a magazine piece on nukes in Iran, for example, we would post it along with links to the best stories we can find at other Web sites—including our direct competitors’—while encouraging our readers to ask questions and comment via Twitter.
The bold emphasis above is mine. Could it be that Newsweek is actually willing to foster the conversation and let participatory media happen on its watch? That would be the step in the right direction – give the conversation the ability to enjoy the access it has always had.
