The Future of Newspapers is History

Some pretty telling new stats are coming out of a study at Annenberg’s (USC) Center for Digital Future about who will be reading the newspaper in the future.  The answer? Well, the number isn’t going to get better. Mathew Ingram at GigaOm breaks it down further, but one metric stands out the most to me:

59 percent [of people surveyed] said that if the print edition of their newspaper stopped publishing they would read the online version. Only 37 percent said that they would read the print edition of another newspaper.

Think about that one. People aren’t overly unsubscribing from newspapers, but if the newspaper disappears, they won’t go get another one. Add that to the much larger concern: the younger generation isn’t exactly replacing them with new subscriptions of their own.

Please note: The death of newspapers is *not* the death of journalism. That is all.


Journalists and Programming

Should journalists learn programming? A non-ironic and decently useful flowchart from 10,000 Words. Click for their site and the larger version:


Stats on The Times Paywall Attempt

Three weeks ago, British daily The Times erected a paywall to all of its online content. Non-registered subscribers were kicked to places where they could sign-up if they tried to find some content. How have things gone since then? According to stats from Hitwise:

  • Between February and June (when the wall went live), Times has seen a 90 percent drop off in visitors, from 1.2 million daily users to just above 190,000
  • Before the wall, Times accounted for 15.4 percent of all UK “quality press traffic;” now, it is just 4.16 percent
  • A free online subscription is available for the 150,000 print subscribers to the paper, but estimates indicate that there are about 15,000 people who pay £2 a week for access. This works out to approximately just £1,400,000 pounds a year (approximately $2,135,560) – probably not enough to save journalism.

Data was reported by The Guardian, which doesn’t have a paywall and lets me link to it.


Twitter, One Goal and 23 Languages

With minutes remaining in extra time, Andrés Iniesta’s goal was all Spain needed to earn its first ever World Cup trophy.

It was a moment we were all watching together, and thanks to some global, digital channels like Twitter, it’s a moment that encapsulates how different this year’s World Cup truly was from those in the past.

It didn’t just unite us, it was a joyous explosion that came from every corner of the world. According to Twitter’s World Cup wrap-up post, that moment bounced around the cyber world in 23 different languages from 81 different countries. Check out this sweet Wordle released by Twitter for Tweets that were sent when Iniesta’s ball hit the back of the net:

We’ll see you in 2014. Man, I’ll miss the World Cup.


A Little Less Painful Than a Pay Wall: The Pay & Sit

Better not let the Old Media people see this, or they will wire your computer to shock you if you don’t pay for online news stories. I give you the Pay & Sit bench:

[Vimeo 1665301]

H/t Geekosystem


Federal Media Stimulus Would Be The Easy Way Out

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal this morning to talk about the future of the media, it’s financial situation – and recommending that maybe the federal government should step in to assist these organizations.

By the second paragraph, I can already see where I’m going to have a small issue with Mr. Bollinger:

At the same time, however, the financial viability of the U.S. press has been shaken to its core. The proliferation of communications outlets has fractured the base of advertising and readers. Newsrooms have shrunk dramatically and foreign bureaus have been decimated. My best estimate is that there are presently only a few dozen full-time foreign correspondents from the U.S. covering all of China, despite the critical importance of that nation to our future.

He’s missing a word in that first sentence. It should read U.S. institutional press. Bollinger discussed the idea of the institution throughout the rest of his Op-Ed, and then points to public media organizations within our country (PBS, NPR) as well as others on the international scale (BBC). The balance, he commented, between federal, mixed systems does not mean that the words would be controlled by the feds – the First Amendment would be safe, in his view, because of the same firewall that exists between a newspapers sales and news desks already.

My thought is not a “only the strong should survive” mentality towards the media world. While worldwide bureaus are shrinking, there are so many other realms of journalism that are expanding. The institution is changing, but the citizen footprint is making sure that there are boots on the ground covering stories as they happen – the same technology that is shifting the journalism world and splintering it into a fractured base also is making seemingly myriad contributors to help report those stories.

The reason for a foreign bureau is to ensure first-hand news gathering at a level of access that was fairly expensive except for those major media conglomerates. But that access isn’t nearly as expensive anymore, and it isn’t as high of a barrier of entry. Significant news gathering can be done on a leaner budget by working with the citizen journalists – even in developing regions.

In terms of local journalism, there have been several other models that still provoke the inquisitive and democratic process on the non-profit and crowdsourced model (most notably, in my opinion, would be Spot.us). This isn’t time to run to the Capitol and ask for a check. It’s a time to think about how to make technology work.

Of course, the irony of all of this could be that the link to the above Op-Ed may end up being behind a paywall on the WSJ site. Nothing could be more fitting for an opinion of the nature of Bollingers. The power of tradition, keeping the idea in.


You Don’t Say [Daily Show and NPR Edition]

In a completely unshocking recommendation, Facebook wanted to let me know that many who like The Daily Show also like NPR. I’m not surprised. Really. I’m not.


Maybe Facebook does know too much.


Ego Boosting Quote of the Day On Social Relations and Digital Networks

Yes, this is a diva moment, and I’m ok with it. Your quote of the day, from a Washington Post article on Pew’s recent study on the future of social relations, is from your flattered author:

“The social grid gives us the luxury to keep low-involvement relationships — past contacts, former classmates, etc. — together. But the serious friendships, spouses, those can continue at their high involvement.”

I actually wanted to take a brief moment to go a little bit more in depth here because it’s a topic that interests me a lot, specifically as it relates to my involvement in my alumni association. I wrote on a now defunct blog in March 2009:

That’s how Facebook changes the game at reunions.

Trust me, you would have been searching for many exits to that conversation with a long lost friend from a club you hardly remember being in. And, fundamentally, while there’s always the “look how I’m doing” motivation for going to reunions, that really can’t be all.

By staying plugged in to Facebook, we’re actually skipping that step. Yeah, so there’s a few people in my friend list who I may or may not have been really close with. But that’s not the folks I’m going to reunion to see. I mentioned to a friend yesterday in a face-the-facts moment: why fake interest? Go to reunion to be back on campus with the close friends you met there. Actually – use the social network for the savings in social capital at the five year.

I can’t wait to rejoin my classmates – there’ll be a few faces who I probably have missed out on, regardless of our Facebook connections. The online participation will *never completely replace* the offline activity. And I say that with a swift, unhesitating and final certainty.

Alright, I’m done reveling in my own glory, we all know it’s bad for me anyway.


National Public Radio Reduced To Just An Acronym

Since 1971, National Public Radio has fallen back on the acronym “NPR” as a shorthand for its lengthy, official name. As of today, the truncated version will be the only thing left, as the District-based organization is ditching the long moniker.

All things considered, this isn’t that much of a change beyond nomenclature, but there is some rationale in the decision. NPR has jumped head first into several digital channels, dominating the podcast landscape and trying its best to build as many useful smart phone apps as possible – translation, it’s about a lot more than just radio these days. Paraphrasing from NPR’s CEO, this change is meant to mirror the efforts and help NPR become more streamlined and more in touch with the speed of media.

For the NPR fans out there, here’s one more treat from the “trying to be more in touch with the digital generation” that NPR did earlier this summer. Enjoy as All Things D and NPR’s personalities embrace several Internet memes from the last few months:

Crossposted from We Love DC


Woot Approves Of AP’s Story About Its Sale to Amazon, Then Requests $17.50

In the middle of last week, geeks were geeking out hardcore with the news that Woot – the deal-a-day empire who’s shirts I own probably one to many of – got acquired by Amazon. They had a lot of fun with the announcement, including one of the funniest interoffice memo you’ll ever see and this great video release to share the news:

Of course, this is decent sized news in the tech world, so it’s not surprising that the Associated Press would get something out about the acquisition on the wire. One problem is that the tech world doesn’t love how the AP deals with blogs, specifically requests that authors online compensate the news service for any clips it uses. Woot is having a little bit of fun at the expense of the AP right now: because the AP did exactly that in reporting the news, borrowing quotes from Woot’s own blog post on the news.

As TechCrunch posted this morning, it is quite entertaining to see the smart fellows give the AP the sarcastic, Woot treatment in this morning’s post. The argument: if the AP can ask bloggers not to do it without reparations, than Woot can ask the same thing of them. They get clever, though, in asking for a little something back:

Just to be fair about this, we’ve used your very own pricing scheme to calculate how much you owe us. By looking through the link above, and comparing your post with our original letter, we’ve figured you owe us roughly $17.50 for the content you borrowed from our blog post, which, by the way, we worked very very hard to create. But, hey. We’re all friends here. And invoicing is such a hassle in today’s paperless society, are we right? How about this: instead of cutting us a check for the web content you liberated from our site, all you’ll need to do is show us your email receipt from today’s two pack of Sennheiser MX400 In-Ear Headphones, and we’ll call it even.

If that’s not monetizing Web content, I don’t know what is.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.