Fly on the News - Latest Comments

Re: Week-old News: Volume 11, Feb. 16, 2010

Stefan Arnold — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:16:35 -0000

Here's a short blog and a podcast from Jay Rosen and Dave Winer on Google and the BBC.

http://rebootnews.com/2010/...

Re: Apple iPad … Game-changer for newspapers?

Stefan Arnold — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:16:46 -0000

Mike,

I agree many people would think about buying an app if the news behind it is difficult. I know you said here ... http://blogs.waggeneredstro... ... that private experiences and discussions could be a premium charge for a newspaper's app.

What do think about more mundane, everyday news. You put out the news, photos and video for free but then charge, say 99 cents for a longer video, audio interview and some more photos.

Maybe News through the app, and NEWS PLUS for a 99 cents a story, $3 a day, $12 a month ...

Let's talk more about pricing.

Re: Week-old news: Volume 9 — Jan. 31, 2010

Stefan Arnold — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:08:23 -0000

Mike, thanks for the comment. I agree journalism's core should be about information and that companies' profit margins sometimes come before spreading the news as wide as possible.

I do believe paywalls, if fully utilized, may contribute to a have/have-not situation.

And you know I am not a fan of paywalls, either. My point in this post was ... is it doing anything for Newsday?

It's one thing if a company is MAKING MONEY off a paywall, but when it is not and the paywall is still there? That is a strange way of doing business.

Re: Week-old news: Volume 9 — Jan. 31, 2010

foleymo — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:23:17 -0000

I hate paywalls. In my opinion, paywalls go against the very purpose of journalism. Of course, the purpose of journalism is debatable, but here's how I like to define it:

The purpose of journalism is to educate citizens so they can make informed decisions about how they spend their money on goods and how they spend their votes and support for politicians and issues.

Putting up paywalls of any kind helps keep poor people ignorant. Now, that's not new. That's been happening throughout history. The rich have always had access to the best information. But with today's technology and the ubiquity and speed of web connections, poorer and poorer people can afford to be informed and engaged citizens. Not only do paywalls keep people poor people from accessing the content, but it keeps the rich people from easily sharing the knowledge with poor people. Try sending a link to your friends from content that is behind a paywall. I doubt many of your friends will pony up the cash to view your recommended link.

I understand that good journalism must be financially supported, but the financial support isn't the purpose of journalism. The financial support is the purpose of the publishing company.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that paywalls go against the very purpose of journalism.

Re: Apple iPad … Game-changer for newspapers?

foleymo — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:10:18 -0000

I think this can be a game-changer for newspapers and magazines, but I think you correctly stated that most of these institutions aren't ready for change. The key to making money on the iPad will be creating an excellent experience around your content (and wrap it up in an app that you might be able to sell).

The problem with most print publications is that they extend their production limitations into perceived limitations on how they can present their product.

Content doesn't have to be produced daily now. It doesn't have to be produced in column inches. It doesn't have to be produced at the same time as all the other content that's going out. It doesn't have to have a single "main page element." It doesn't have to be in a story format -- go ahead and publish raw data.

The iPad (and other devices like it) can be a game-changer only if publications can re-imagine themselves as standalone apps.

Re: Week-old news: Volume 9 — Jan. 31, 2010

Stefan Arnold — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:05:54 -0000

Here are some traffic numbers from @BrentDPayne, the Chicago Tribune's SEO Director. http://posterous.brentdpayn...

Re: Quick study on Mediabistro’s call for media haiku

seamuscondron — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:14:04 -0000

Thanks for the analysis! We're thinking of making this regular activity with our community. Perhaps a "Haiku the News" once a week on Twitter and Facebook. Would love to get yours and everyone's thoughts.

Best,

Seamus
Community Manager
Mediabistro
Twitter: @mediabistro

Re: E-readers to experience decline in 2010

Stefan Arnold — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:44:18 -0000

If you want a longer look at the LG Expo, go to http://www.lgexpo.com/ and click Unbox the Expo.

Re: Paywalls … pesky or (soon) predominant?

BernieR — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:25:25 -0000

Hi there,
Where are you from? Is it a secret? :)
BernieR

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 2

Matt Wolfe — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:56:01 -0000

I really don't want them to pay attention. I'm saying that we provide a niche product - local news coverage. All that I'm saying is that IF that is what you crave, pay for it. If you don't crave it, that's fine - we'll go away. That may be the natural order of things, I just think that's a scenario we should avoid.

As for its scarcity - our product is unique. Last week, Palm Springs High School won its first CIF title in school history. Who else was going to cover that? I don't expect them to pay attention - I know they will pay attention. Local government agencies, where else will you keep tabs on them? Events, elections, business information - everything on the local level disappears if organizations like ours don't stay around.

The problem, as I see it, is that people need us, they just don't know it - and their unwillingness to pay for our service risks a future where local news organizations won't exist.

This is no different than any other industry - the local experts are being clouded by mass manufacturers, and in the end we all suffer. You said it right, there are numerous other options to occupy their time - yet somehow they still choose to use us, because they crave that local information. I know I work for a major company, but the words we put in our paper and online are written here, and are about this area.

One point I agree with wholeheartedly is 'If you don’t have the very best original content, you’re just another option for busy people in the attention market.' That speaks directly to what I was saying with accountability. If the only people we have to please are the ones who pay for our information, we owe them the best product we can create. The way it works now, they don't have a real voice. We're just on the honor system. The only needs we truly have to cater to are those of our advertisers.

I'm telling you - those needs don't directly dictate the stories you read (yet), but those lines come dangerously close to one another, and I can assure you that the day will come where our readers will be shortchanged at the hands of an advertiser's needs, and the day that happens is when our community has lost their voice, and their watchdog. We provide what is too often a thankless service for cities and towns around this country, and when its gone, our society will be worse off for it.

With that said, I hear every word that you say, and I'm afraid to admit that you're more right than I want you to be - these people really are choosing reality shows instead of learning about how their tax dollars are being wasted. As much as I want to disagree, I'm only fooling myself.

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 2

foleymo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:49:19 -0000

The problem with the model you suggest is that you're trying to sell into a saturated market. You're not up against just the Press Enterprise or even the LA Times. You're up against American Idol, Susie's tap dance recital, Johnny's track meet, iPhone apps, etc.

You're in the attention market. If you want people to pay you money AND pay you attention, you have to offer them something that's better than all the other options they have for both their money AND their attention.

Information is no longer scarce, it's abundant. So, there's no use trying to sell it as if it were scarce.

The new scarcity is time. You can never create more of it. If you don't have the very best original content, you're just another option for busy people in the attention market.

The news organizations that will survive will be the ones that recognize this dynamic and do the best job of providing great content in a way that requires the least amount of attention (time).

That doesn't bode well for day-old news digests (newspapers) that are printed on dead trees and moved around the area on fossil-fuel eating trucks. That system simply wastes too many resources to be economically viable into the future.

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 2

Matt Wolfe — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:06:52 -0000

Mike,

You're absolutely right, the content isn't being sold - but that's the problem I have with our current model. I am the customer for other sources of information.

NPR is a perfect of money that I spend every month to support. What I prefer about that system is that the content really is what I'm buying. I am the customer, and I attach expectations on this product because I help pay for it.

We do that already with so much - movies, music, even premium cable channels. This system allows us to pick and choose where we get our information and entertainment. We are truly the consumer.

The problem now is exactly what you said - the only people with a real financial stake in this are the advertisers. I don't want to paint a picture that looks too poorly, but I'm in the middle of this, and I don't like the fact that advertisers are part of some conversations I have at work.

Instead, our audience should be our only concern. It's too easy to shortchange them when they're not the ones truly funding the operation.

You're seeing it all around the country, with smaller newsrooms and shrinking pages. If this is truly about providing information for the public, we need to go around the advertisers and have the main financial burden placed on the people who ingest the news that we provide. I hate to keep going back to NPR, but maybe some government funding could be a solution.

The whole concept of the press is to give a voice to the people, to share the news. Too much of that gets lost in the machine of selling this service as an ad delivery tool.

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 2

foleymo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:59:57 -0000

Here's my response to Matt's quote: "Going back to magazines, and newspapers, I don’t understand how all of a sudden
when our information went into a computer, that all of a sudden it became free."

You've got the customer and the product mixed up. The content isn't what's being sold, the audience is what's being sold. The content is the cost of production you pay to deliver an audience to a paying advertiser.

It's really simple.

The publisher sells an audience to an advertiser. That's the product.

The publisher uses some of the money from the advertiser to create content. That's a cost of production to create the audience that is later sold to the advertiser.

At no point is the audience the customer.

If you're really interested in the economics of "free," I suggest you read (or listen to) "Free: The Future of a Radical Price" by Chris Anderson (http://www.amazon.com/Free-....

But don't buy it. With a good web search, you can find a copy (text or mp3) for free.

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 2

foleymo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:49:34 -0000

Hey Stefan! I love that you've started a blog, but you really should have done this interview as a video. It would have saved you a lot of typing. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on hyperlocal news blogging some time. I'm hoping to set up a sort of hyperlocal news blog help center with forums and tip videos and stuff. Just wondering what you think of hyperlocal... Hit me back.

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 1

Stefan Arnold — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:30:26 -0000

Thanks for reading my blog, @ICchris. Yeah, the three Phish photo galleries I linked to have over 300 photos.

Glad The Desert Sun helped you enjoy Fest8. And I know the coverage of Coachella will be even bigger.

Thanks,
Stefan

Re: Working with Social Media – Volume 1: Matt Wolfe, Part 1

@ICchris — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:05:36 -0000

I remember the Metromix coverage of Festival 8 because I recall thinking how wonderfully diverse the photographs were -- not just 100 pictures of the band, but many great mini-essays on the crowds, and great individual shots of festival-goers.

I'm an East Coast Phish fan and was not able to make it out there for the band's first big festival out west. But I was able to keep up with it through the Metromix coverage and by following others on Twitter and Facebook.

Looking forward to see how your coverage develops for Coachella 2010! :)

Re: Paywalls … pesky or (soon) predominant?

Stefan — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:58:44 -0000

Here's one article on paywalls that @jeffjarvis tweeted about. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

Re: Paywalls … pesky or (soon) predominant?

Stefan Arnold — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:23:43 -0000

Here's another blog from @yelvington .... http://www.yelvington.com/c...

Also @jeffjarvis keeps on top of paywalls too. The link is broken to the latest article he tweeted about. I'll post it if it starts working again.

Stefan