[2 Good Minutes] The Future Of Publishing

Brilliance, via Boing Boing:

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weq_sHxghcg]


Tiger’s Coming Back [Now On Mediaite]

My latest Mediaite column on the overblown media hype that I expect to come with the news that Tiger Woods will be making his return to golf at this April’s Masters is now up:

This is my one appeal: let’s try and keep the excitement in check. I’m asking a lot, I know, of the sports media to not overplay a story. Don’t bill this as the return of the Prodigal Son – let’s not forget for a minute *why* Tiger has been missing from Golf since November and it wasn’t an excuse to avoid the 16th Hole at the Phoenix Open. We’ll watch – Tiger or No Tiger – mostly because it’s a major tournament that is one of the first signs that Spring is actually coming and golf season is upon us. I know most believe that Golf media lives and dies by the Swooshed-One, but let’s try and behave with some dignity.

Full post, as always, at Mediaite.


[Social Broadcast] Publishers are Equal, Regardless of Followers

Early last week, All Things D reported on a study released by Baracuda Labs about the nature of Twitter users. A lot of the statistics made complete sense to me; the most telling was that nearly 3/4 of all Twitter accounts they surveyed (Baracuda looked at 19 million) had posted less than 10 status messages since registering – and 34 percent of Twitter accounts hadn’t shared a single tweet. Twitter CEO Evan Williams noted yesterday during his South by Southwest Keynote, there are 50 million tweets a day, and the accepted laws of Internet publishing and power law distribution indicate that it makes sense that the bulk of these messages are not coming from the plurality of users. It’s more likely that a few contribute a ton, while a ton contribute little to none.

But then something irked me from a logic sense, and it’s this chart that was included in Baracuda’s research as well as the ATD post:

This chart is a depiction of the number of tweets shared by accounts with certain amounts of followers. It’s mildly out of proportion to what you’d expect the distribution to be. At the center are the highest content contributors, meaning that there is no direct relationship between the most popular Twitter users and the amount of times they share messages.

Now it’s time for everyone’s favorite question: why does this look this way? Or, put in more specific terms, why aren’t those with the biggest speakers using them the most often? Without fully testing it, my best guess involves history.

See, we’ve been living in an era of media conglomeration where having the most eyeballs mean you have the prerogative to be the most important publisher. Everything from the ad dollars needed to support a media operation to attracting the most-credentialed, experienced talent to create content involve who has the biggest reach. You can’t waste time with a platform designed to talk with 10,000 if you need to reach millions. That thinking is what leads to the belief that users with few tweets but ridiculous amounts of followers can provide a significant influence. It’s much more likely that the 73 percent who hasn’t interacted much with the service are simply following accounts in the latter, driving up the number without justifying the publishing role of those users.

From a publishing and content perspective, Twitter is blind to how many followers you have. There isn’t a switch or barrier that says, “Well, you only have 47 followers, so that means you can’t tweet again until next Thursday. Thanks though!” You can publish whatever 140 characters or less you’ve got at that moment whenever you want – for better or for worse. That’s what makes it fascinating, that there are those who are turned to as influencers within that channel by way of how they use the service.

The outliers in the chart above are those with excessive amounts of followers (most likely celebrities or other well-known personalities) who couldn’t possibly interact with their entire group and earned their following based on offline success, not publishing on the Twitter channel. You need to move further down to those who are just known Twitter publishers and then the frame starts making sense.


[Citizen Journalism] Demotix is Beautiful Innovation

I haven’t been in Austin these past few days, but I’ve been doing my best to keep up with the talks and news coming out of this year’s South by Southwest the best I could. Geek By Proxy, if you will.

While clearing out the weekend feeds, I happened upon one of this year’s SXSWi award finalists in the community category thanks to a feature at Wired’s Epicenter. Demotix is a U.K.-based start-up that attempts to formalize the citizen journalism process, searching for a Goldilocks solution between the “too amateur” cell phone photography and “too exclusive” professional wire services. The service is based on user submissions of high-quality news images from around the world, and after Demotix reviews and publishes these images, they are available at cost to major news organizations; anything that comes in from a photo is then split 50-50 with the wire service and the original contributor.

I love this concept for so many reasons. One, it creates an army of photojournalist freelancers around the world who can provide a breadth of news stories of which we never knew. Second, the motivation is not career driven, since the payday that comes at the end probably isn’t anything more than pub money, the contributors are likely submitting work that is the result of their interests, not any small monetary reward. Still, these photos are still top quality (here are a few samples; since they are watermarked I didn’t want to embed and encourage you to check out everything available, though).

The service is about more than a place for citizen journalists to contribute; there is a focus on world events and the authentic voices who can relate those stories through photos. The aforementioned Wired piece features an interview with Turi Munthe, Demotix CEO founder, who isn’t shy about how he wants to tell authentic stories: “It’s no longer, ‘White man goes off to tell stories in dark corners of the world and relating it back…We’re telling native stories in a native way and just creating a platform for the stories to get seen and potentially bought.”

You could lose hours clicking through the galleries on the site, so if you have time, you absolutely should. This is a refreshing approach to covering news – and something only possible because of the changes in the way news is made and covered. It doesn’t have to all be, “doom and gloom newspapers are dying.” There are plenty of good stories out there, and plenty of stories that need to be told. Munthe’s army will be there to tell the latter.


[No Reason at All] Happy Pi Day!

Happy Pi Day!
It’s not the big Pi Day (that doesn’t happen until 2015), but 3/14/10 will have to do just fine. Robert Quigley has a much more entertaining roundup at Geekosystem.
 
Also, I’m required to share this video:
 
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDu351QNoZE]

[Weekend Treat] What 24-Hour Cable News Really Covers

Gotta love the Onion for never backing down from satire. Slightly profane, but you’re adults:

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo]


[Quote of the Day] Publisher Perspective

“I’m more worried about the 500 million or so people on Facebook versus the 2 million on Fox.”

~Jon Klein, CNN President

In a Q & A with BusinessWeek editor Josh Tyrangiel, the executive noted that the sharing of media across social channels is something he’ll be watching closely from a competitive stand point. So, is he right? Should 24-hour cable news channels look at other media forms as their main threats instead of each other?


[Pet Peeves] Gawker Cuts the Feed

Digging out of my feed yesterday, I noticed this:

Not obvious what’s disconcerting here? Alright, here’s the story:

In the last 48 hours, anyone watching their RSS feeds may have noticed a slight change in the content produced by the Gawker Network (which includes many sites beyond the Gawker blog itself, including Deadspin, Valleywag and Lifehacker, to name a few). Whereas in the past, Gawker has served it’s entire article content into the RSS feed, they have started cutting the cord on what goes through the pipe to just a stub of the piece. Now, with the change, RSS subscribers must now clickthrough the post in order to get the whole story.

The media business attitude is sound: advertisers care about pageviews, not subscribers. It’s leftover from the days of counting audience size or print subscription base. They haven’t shifted their thinking, and as long as advertisers carry the cash, media producers will succumb to those needs for dollars. Hence, in order to boost that page view number, a fractioned article in the feed makes complete sense.

However, it’s a giant pain to those who rely on RSS for news. The sliver of Internet users who use syndication and feed readers (a smaller population than many would think) are forced to leave their news sources for the whole story: a mild departure from the whole central firehose that they work with. RSS users are not universal, but they certainly are an engaged and invested audience. They offer incremental pageview increases by moving this tactic, but it may have a cost in other participation metrics (returning visitors and commenting numbers).

Felix Salmon, who shares the same disappointment I do, pointed out that there’s at least some evidence to support that full feeds generate more traffic than truncated ones, and a commenter on his post actually noted that the Wall Street Journal – that Murdoch property of paywalls and more – actually does publish the whole story via RSS for its blogs. This isn’t a counterintuitive belief: those who subscribe to RSS are pre-disposed to being highly active users, and changing their stream of efficient information gathering is probably more of a detriment.

At the end of the day, Gawker’s move is one of hierarchical media thinking, not source-agnostic, conversational media; that’s a shame. There are “VIP” feeds out there for Gawker and its sister sites; Lifehacker had the courtesy to post its full feed and explain the change, recognizing how that segment of their audience gets news.

I can tell you right now that my Gawker news consumption is about to get sliced dramatically: kind of like their feed.


[Geekmetrics] Giant Google Infographic Edition

I’m working on a longer piece (maybe a two parter) on privacy, digital media and cognitive dissonance. So, while I’m working on that, enjoy this completely unrelated, giant infographic on Google.

H/t Jenna K


[Everyone's a Reviewer] Variety Razzies Full-Time Movie Critics

In a memo that first circulated on Romanesko yesterday, Tim Gray, editor of inside-Hollywood industry pub Variety, announced to his staff that their main entertainment reviewers would no longer be kept on as full-time writers. As he penned:

It doesn’t make economic sense to have full-time reviewers, but Todd [McCarthy], Derek [Elley] and [David] Rooney have been asked to continue as freelancers.

Along with these full-time reductions, several other reviewers, most notably TV critic Brian Lowry, will be adding new responsibilities to their current review duties as to, assumingly, offset whatever loss Variety has forecasted.

The industry-watchers, especially in L.A., have been trying to sort through the news. As one movie blogger in L.A. noted, the reviews are often one of the most attractive parts of the entire publication, and McCarthy’s specifically. “[He] is the paper’s biggest star and the main reason readers all over the world read the august trade. His reviews post first, and are the best read thing in the paper, bar none.”

The L.A. Times movie bloggers unsurprisingly jumped headfirst into the news, as well, and took the opportunity for a direct shot with the headline “Is firing its critics really ‘economic reality’?”:

As anyone who regularly reads the venerable trade paper has surely noticed, even at the height of Oscar season Variety has been thinner than most of the starlets who walked the red carpet Sunday night [...] It was inevitable that Variety would once again have to find ways to cut costs, though it was definitely a shock to see the paper get rid of its top critics, especially McCarthy, who after the death of Army Archerd and the departure of former editor Peter Bart is easily the most iconic presence at the paper.

The post from LAT’s Big Picture also did a great job at accounting the other things at play here:

Virtually every survey has shown that younger audiences have zero interest in critics. They take their cues for what movies to see from their peers, making decisions based on the buzz they’ve heard on Facebook, Twitter or some other form of social networking. If anyone pays any attention to critics at all, it’s through aggregation sites such as Rotten Tomatoes, which offer a consensus score based on an accumulated ranking of critical opinion.

The very real forces behind digital, user-generated reviews are changing things, I believe that. “Advance Critics Screenings” don’t have the weight they used to anymore, and the rise in credibility and capability for the peer recommendation is notable (trust me, I work for Edelman, we study that Trust Barometer like it’s our job).

Now, I hated the sensationalist, “trend” attitude of stories last summer about “how Twitter sank-or-swim [x] movie,” but there is at least a modicum amount of truth to the crowdsourced review. The story has to go beyond that, though, because the impact is dollars-and-cents in communication efforts of studios, not just trust of source. This phenomenon, bottom line, is affecting the spending of these studios as they transition ad dollars to be spent as marketing in social media channels.

Are the voices of the crowd creating an earth-moving impact on Hollywood? No. The actual words or trends of reviews are something to note, but not the only thing at play. However, the presence of these voices, the fact that anyone with a cell phone in a theater can become an instant reviewer, mandates that studios need to be actively involved early on the channel to affect or quell negative trends and conversations. That has a cost, and just enough that launching a TV show, concert or movie can’t be done in an advertisement in single-channel, inside-business rags.

No wonder Variety has to cut costs: it’s already behind the eight-ball by relying on a prop of loss-leading subscriptions and ads-per-capita. The movie reviewers are just blood on the wall, the real shift is how the studios want to spend money to reach consumers instead of critics. And until Variety incorporates that, they’ll keep making news this way instead.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.