We usually spend time discussing new gadgets or the latest online or mobile usage trend, but today, we're going to kick it old school. One of The Baron's great pleasures in life is reading the work of Gary Smith. Smith has worked for Sports Illustrated for the last 25 years and is one of the greatest writers of his generation. I know what you're thinking. He's just a sports writer. Well, he is a sports writer, but he's so much more than that. If you don't believe us, check out this review from The New York Times. In case you're too lazy to click over, they refer to him as "the most decorated journalist you’ve probably never heard of."
Smith, who has won four National Magazine Awards, just released a new book, Going Deep: 20 Classic Sports Stories. In it, he compiles his 20 favorite stories. I don't know which of his stories are in there -- other than a few listed in the above link. My personal favorite? The story about the black basketball coach who broke down barriers in a Mennonite community in Ohio. If you have the next 45 minutes free, you can read it here. Enjoy.
Gary Smith: One of the Great Writers of His Generation
Newspapers Spar with AP over Rates, Coverage
First, let me say welcome to our friends at PoliticizeMatters. The blogosphere is a better place with you in it. Now, on with the show.
The Newark-Star Ledger today published an edition without any content from the Associated Press. There is some question as to whether this is a protest of new AP rates or simply a way to save some cash and see if any readers complain. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune recently told the AP that it will cancel its AP contract in 2010. In that case, the move was financially motivated. Interesting.
While newspapers have gone hyperlocal with their coverage, I always thought the AP model worked because papers could get a huge wealth of stories for a minimal fee. Maybe the fee isn't as minimal as I expected, though it's still cheaper than hiring large-scale staff. The rates themselves are based on what type of coverage the paper uses (breaking news, international, national, etc.). Ultimately, the AP needs these member papers as much as they need the AP, so I'm sure if several papers move to this model, then the AP will be forced to adjust its pricing structure.
The problem would be if the papers just decide to go with local and breaking news coverage. People already look only at the headlines -- if that -- as witnessed by the McCain campaign's effective headline-grabbing strategy. No one cares that McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" line to Hillary. They just know that McCain's people screamed about it when Obama used it on their campaign. This is a problem. Overall, we are no longer a society well-educated on the issues. We just know who we like and who we don't. That's what informs our decisions.
Certainly, if this no-AP policy were to come to fruition, people could go online and find out international news and major national stories and they can watch on TV, but I would argue that there is already a lack of awareness of what's happening in the world and in this global economy, America can't afford that.
Web-Only Series Only a Dream at This Point
One of the few places the web has not taken over is in producing original video content intended for large audiences. There have been no real web series of note at this point despite the hoards of folks who now watch TV shows online. Mike Hale had an article on this in yesterday's New York Times. Hale lists off some current web series and explains where they are lacking.
A few things to keep in mind here: The web's fragmented landscape could mean that it's difficult to gain a large audience. In addition, the strength of the web is its ability to allow anyone to create content. If you can't pull in the large audience, it may not be worthwhile to create high-quality content -- particularly when several quick entertaining clips were created by 100 other users. The only way to effectively distribute these series is through established studios and networks which have the money to produce a quality series, but if significant ad dollars aren't there -- and why would they be if the large audience isn't there? -- then it's going to be a struggle to get web-only series off the ground.
That said, as a laboratory for content, nothing beats what the web provides. The viral nature of content still gives young writers and creators a chance to produce something worthwhile of mass attention. It will be a while, however, before we see a breakthrough web-only series.
This Beam is Not Balanced
On the way back from a European vacation -- loved that movie -- with the Baroness, I was reading the International Herald Tribune when I came across a column from The Boston Globe's Alex Beam. I know nothing about Beam, but the column caught my eye because it was about Twitter, the social networking site on which a friend can send you updates on how the haircut is going. Basically it's a site to let people know what's up.
I doubt Twitter has much staying power, but I'm certainly no final authority on the subject. Let the Twitter folks do what they want. Beam took a decidedly less moderate stance, blasting the site and those who use it, including Barack Obama and the State of Rhode Island. Why does old media have to seem so old all the time? Clearly, Beam decided it would be amusing to write a column in short bursts like the copy used on Twitter, but what is the columnist's point? I have no idea. I may not be the smartest guy in the room, but if I can't figure out the point of the column, Beam is in trouble. Being a columnist at a major metro daily used to carry such weight, but it just doesn't anymore -- except maybe at The New York Times. There's too much great content out there in so many places that people like Beam have become less relevant and let's be honest, it shows in the work.
We Like the Web, But That May Not Be a Good Thing
This just in: People like the Internet. Yup.
The latest evidence comes from a few places. In the news category we find that newspapers are reporting a 12% growth in online readership, amounting to a truly stunning 40% of all Interweb users. In the entertainment realm, a new survey claims that 20% of "TV" viewers are now watching shows online. The last number is certainly surprising, but what would be more interesting to see is whether people watch more TV than they did previously because they're watching online. DVRs have caused people to watch more, and overall media consumption keeps going up. The article alludes to some of that, but it doesn't address it head on. I would be shocked to find that people are replacing TV with online viewing and not just adding to their existing viewing habits.
This article actually brings up a larger issue. I searched for the survey results or some article not written by a wire service. Impossible. I got to the website for IMMI, the survey company, and everything they give for free (the deeper dive will cost you) was included in the wire service story. Is anyone actually reading/ordering the survey or are we content to read the executive summary and just post it everywhere? I don't even know if there are TV reporters working at newspapers anymore. If there are, they're either busy packing their belongings into a cardboard box or they have no idea how to use the Internet and they're still using AOL mail.
The problem in journalism these days is that there is no money or time to bring someone in to do analysis. Seemingly, it's the one industry where the amount of analysis and deep thinking has decreased over the last decade. Hopefully, some reporter out there will get ahold of the survey and educate the rest of us. No offense to the folks at wire services -- they do great work -- but their system is not built for enterprise work.
Somehow MSNBC Ranks at Top of News Sites
Nielsen is out with data on the top news sites on the web. A lot of what you would expect: The Huffington Post had the biggest gains since last year percentage-wise, Google and Yahoo are near the top of the list, etc. One of the most surprising revelations, though, is that the MSNBC Digital Network is the top news site. Maybe I'm biased because I don't see their promos during The Today Show (not a fan). How can they be the news destination on the web? I assume this has something to do with MSN Mail, particularly since Yahoo is right behind them, but it's surprising that MSN beat out Yahoo.
E-mail must be driving that train, which is why it's a bit surprising to see Google News behind some of the newspaper sites. Also surprising is that The New York Daily News' traffic is up 109%. They must have poached some of The New York Post's writers.
If these traffic figures could somehow translate into ad dollars, all would be right with the world, but that's not the case. The Baron believes that the ad dollars will be there eventually, though things could get worse in the news business before they get better. The New York Times is a great brand -- something Rupert understood about The Wall Street Journal -- and a great news organization. There's no reason to think it can't succeed online. It just may have to cut back -- or, gulp, give up -- the print edition. Maybe they should just start nytimes mail.
Changing the Online Newspaper Model
While we were enjoying a lovely 4th out in the wilderness with the family, we spied an insightful take on modern journalism from Timothy Egan (a favorite of The Baron's brother, if that matters at all). Writing for one of The New York Times blogs -- oh, the irony -- Egan points out that as newspapers reach more and more readers online, they continue to slash jobs. While he seems to veer off topic a bit at the end of the blog post, Egan's point is a good one.
So how do newspapers make money when online ad revenue is so puny compared to print ad revenue? One way is to get past the homepage model. The homepage should be a vehicle to the major stories a paper has to offer. Most papers, though -- and the Times is particularly guilty of this -- cram as much as they can on the homepage because they know readers won't go particularly deep. I think they need to change that model and flesh out the main stories ever more deeply with extra analysis and other content, while using the homepage as a gateway to the rest of the paper. Streamline the sites and make the content easily accessible through search and menus. That would offer a chance for readers to get deeper into the site, spend more time there and see more ads, mimicking the print experience. Of course, RSS feeds bypass this solution, but those are still only very popular with the tech savvy crowd.
Another problem -- and this is constantly being debated -- is what determines online engagement. Egan quotes a Nielsen stat about visitors, but visitors are no longer viewed as the default measurement in the digital research world. Folks there also focus on page views, time spent on the site and page views per visit. If newspaper sites looked at this information and created some sort of combined rating, they could determine how their sites are being used and they could optimize for that. It's a lot easier to say than to do, but there are a lot of people who care about this -- just look at how many comments his post received -- and the print industry should look for creative solutions from passionate readers, shareholders and staff members.
Time Dogs it With Maghound Site
Time Inc. is working on launching Maghound.com, a Netflix-like site in which consumers pay a monthly fee and have the ability to jump from one title to another each month. Sounds like a pretty cool idea, but you probably have some questions, right? Me too. So I headed over to their site and was all excited to dig in and check it out.
The site looks like it's up and running, but it's not. It's just up. I tried to click on the "How it Works" and "Find Magazines" link, but nothing worked. I must say this is very disappointing. Time is a great company with a lot of smart people, but they totally missed on this one. How can you have journalists, bloggers and others getting people all excited about this new, innovative product and then crush that enthusiasm by offering a site that does nothing? True, Maghound is not launching until September, but if the folks at Maghound are walking writers through a presentation of the site, they have to have the site ready for traffic. I just kept clicking and clicking on the links because I could not believe that it didn't work.
I like the Maghound concept and according to their early testing, they are not cannibalizing their traditional audience. I'm sure the people at Time looked at Netflix and saw that consumers often pay the fee and then let their usage slide. It's like a gym membership. Free money waiting to be grabbed. Whether it's successful as a model for getting people to read more, diverse magazines is up in the air, but the potential to make some serious cash -- something sorely needed by print media companies -- is definitely there.
Hot Web Searches: Are You Cool?
The great thing about the Google guys is not just that they have figured out a multitude of ways to organize the world's information. They've also figured out a way to make it fun -- and that cannot be discounted in the rise of Web 2.0. The latest Google tool to destroy your work day is Google Trends.
Trends allows you to track top search terms and see the arc of their search terms. For example, search for the Boston Red Sox (a Baron favorite), you see a huge spike, as expected, toward the end of 2004 when the team won its first World Series title in 86 years. You can also search for Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John McCain's name together to see how they relate. By far the best part is the Hot Trends section, which allows to see what the top searches are. It's basically a snapshot of whether you're cool and in the know or lame and out of the loop. I won't tell you where I fit in, but let's just say that I wasn't one of the people searching for the Vern Troyer sex tape today.
Rupert is Setting the Pace; The Others Would Be Wise to Follow
What's so great about Rupert Murdoch is that he sees opportunity where others don't. It also helps that he's a self-promoting windbag who likes to talk about himself. Murdoch has always said content is king, but he has been smart enough to hedge his bets with tech-based investments such as MySpace and Hulu. Those projects have given Murdoch a broad portfolio and an understanding that while he may still love newspapers, not everyone does. This article gives further insight into the man and his (occasional) madness.
And though he doesn't have much company as a forward-thinking businessman who understands the journalistic desires of the masses, he is not alone. Gannett, though far more buttoned-down than the Australian cowboy, has made some shrewd online investments in the last few years, including CareerBuilder. Almost as important, Gannett is constantly looking for ways to embed itself in the lives of its readers. (The investments don't always work, but at least they're trying.) Last week they invested in Cozi, a web service that helps families manage schedules and stay in contact.
The rest of the journalism world would be wise to follow this model. Sam Zell bought the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and Newsday. He proceeded to slash the budget and battle with the Times editors and then he decided to sell Newsday. That's all fine and dandy, but why he is planning to sell the Chicago Cubs (who were owned by Tribune Co.), I have no idea. Look around: Regional sports networks (such as YES and NESN) are all the rage. Hey, I'm sure Zell is a smart guy -- or maybe just a guy who likes to curse at his staff -- but he should be watching what the other big players are doing and following their lead.
Political Ads: The More Things Change...
We mostly focus on mainstream media outlets, but we pay attention to media in all its forms. That's why we're focusing on political commercials today, as the maker of the famous "Daisy" ad died. Aside from being frightening and crossing the line by miles, the ad -- which only ran once -- is generally viewed as transforming negative political ads forever.
The ad is below. Click and cringe.
How We Use the Web
This is a few days old -- it has been a busy week in Baronsville -- but it's an interesting profile of who actually makes up the blogosphere. (Thanks to The Big Lead for pointing us to this.) Among the more interesting stats listed here:
• 24% of adults watched TV online. We've talked about this before, but it's not the number as much as it is the growth. This number could have been counted on one hand two years ago.
• 49% of 25-41's use online auction sites. I'm not surprised at the popularity of eBay-like sites, but what's interesting is that only 30% of 13-24's use the same sites. Five years ago, when eBay was taking over the world and doing those great ads, you would have predicted a much higher number.
This survey is interesting, but incredibly general and some of the categories cover two vastly different user groups. Those who read message boards and those who post on them would seem to be very different groups, but they're lumped into one category. One more question: Does the first category ("Watching and Reading Content Created by Others") include MSM like The New York Times? That's a very vague category also.
Long Live The Long Tail of Cable Networks
We've never been big on snarky. Sure, we can be critical of people sometimes, but snarky? Not our style. We spend most of our posts giving our take on things happening in the media and techosphere. We criticize angles or points, but rarely do we take on an entire article for being off base.
Why did I feel the need to disclaim? Because today, we take The New York Times to task. As we've mentioned, we eagerly await their advertising and media coverage each Monday, but lately, the coverage has been rather lackluster. Exhibit A is this article on cable vs. network TV. This is a topic that has The Baron fascinated so you can imagine we get uber-disappointed when the story flops. And this one did. The first third of the article discusses Kimbo Slice, who made his mixed martial arts debut nearly 10 days ago and was widely panned as being a one-trick Internet pony. OK, I guess leading with something that hasn't been water cooler conversation in more than a week isn't terrible, but it's not the best start either.
My main problem with the story is that it would have been more effective if it had been written in 1993. The author goes on and on about how cable has long been disrespected and is rarely seen as having top-notch programming. Let me tell you this: That perception is so hopelessly out of date, the guy might as well have been talking about what it would be like if we ever landed on the moon. More people watch cable in primetime than network TV, TV news is an absolute joke (which the author correctly points out) and there have been several successful cable shows over the last several years. There's a reason CBS wanted to put Dexter on broadcast TV.
Cable is not king. It does not bring in broadcast-like ratings, but no one views it as the poor step-child. If anything, cable is a great testing ground that has pushed the broadcast networks to take more chances and in the end, improve their own programming. Long live the long tail.
Hyperlocal May Be All Hype
Some concepts take off in mind long before they do so in reality. Mobile advertising is going to take off this year (ongoing since 2006). Everyone with a DVR is skipping through ads. Newspapers need to go hyperlocal with their coverage. The last one is particularly interesting because it is the buzz concept in journalism these days. Since consumers now have access to the nearly any paper, broadcast clip around the globe, the thought for several years has been that hyperlocal news coverage could save community journalism.
If this story on The Washington Post's hyperlocal online endeavor is any indication, hyperlocal coverage may be a lot of hype and not much else. Apparently, The Post put a lot of resources into the project and a year later, it has yet to make a splash. The Baron, in general, dislikes generalizations, so I don't want to paint with too broad a stroke here, but it may be that this type of hyperlocal coverage works in small towns and not in large cities (the story has some evidence to that) or that hyperlocal coverage works only in certain parts of the country. Not enough has been done yet to figure that out.
That said -- and this is speaking as someone who worked for a small-town paper -- I can only see Mr. Wilson painting his fence so many times before I go insane. The hyperlocal movement has to be about more than what people do. It has to revolve around the issues that are important to that community, and when it's done well, that is usually how things work. I just had to make sure to get that warning out there. I saw so many snow-shoveling pictures when I worked in Smalltownsville, I almost developed a rash every time I saw rock salt.
Who Likes Big Cable? No One.
We love the DirecTV ad mocking big cable. You know, the one where the fictional cable company decides to raise prices because it determines that people have disposable income. I love the line that goes something like, "I learned that in business school ... when I read about business school in a book."
With that in mind, today's post ... So much for unlimited broadband access. Time Warner Cable is testing a plan to limit the amount of downloads before users -- already paying a monthly fee of at least $29.95 -- get charged extra. Not surprising, but the bloggers plain don't like this move. Nothing goes over worse in bad economic times than cable companies trying to raise prices. People already dislike the cable companies -- we wrote about this in our last post.
If this is rolled out widely, Time Warner may come to regret this move. Verizon and other telcos have plans to move in on the cable world and finally deliver some level of choice beyond satellite. This lack of unlimited service could be a real differentiator for Verizon in the marketplace. Look, it's just not a good idea to give consumers something and then abruptly take it away. That's why the DVR has not yet been overthrown by networks and advertisers. It got out there too quickly and now they need to figure out a way to solve the problem (free on-demand content with no fast-forwarding, for example) other than simply taking it away.
Cable Companies Unhappy about Online Streams
Cable is one of the few monopolies left (largely because satellite hasn't yet figured out a way to keep your TV going in a rain storm), and the providers continually offer sub par service at an ever-increasing price. So The Baron wasn't shedding any tears for the cable companies when it was announced that some cable shows -- like those on Comedy Central -- would start to stream complete shows online on the same day. Obviously, cable is unhappy because it takes away from the exclusivity of their product so they don't want to pay as much.
You know what? Now you know how everyone else feels. The average cable home gets about 110 channels and watches about 15, but we still have to pay for all of them and the bill still seems to go up more often than any other household bill. Why? Because there's no competition. Maybe this will level the playing field a bit. I doubt it will make much difference in the grand scheme of things, but I do enjoy watching them squirm a bit. Is that a bit schadenfreude-ish? Yup, but the cable companies don't care at all about customer satisfaction or customer experience. Now that this has happened and, far more important, the telephone companies are getting into cable, we could see some real change -- in about 5 years.
Going Mobile: Web Use Differs Depending on Access Point
Though I gave myself the title of Baron, I certainly don't think I know everything about technology usage and media usage, but I do know a bit. That wisdom is what I try to impart here. That said, it seems completely obvious to me (and I would hope to you too, loyal reader) that the PC web experience and the mobile web are very different. Apparently, based on the tone of this BusinessWeek article, it's not that obvious.
Is it such a surprise that people don't want to set up blogs on social network sites via their mobile devices? Until the iPhone, most mobile devices delivered a poor browsing experience that could not handle high-level activities. Is it a surprise to learn that people use their mobile time on weather forecasts and airline information? Without sounding too snooty (too late), the answer is no. I have done some work in the mobile space so maybe I'm biased, but the underlying theme -- that mobile is used for convenience and shorter sessions while PCs are used for more in-depth functions -- just seems very basic.
One thing to keep in mind regarding this research: early adopters almost always use new technologies differently than the masses. (That's what happened with DVRs and ad avoidance habits.) The iPhone, which has raised consumer awareness about the mobile web, has given rise to smartphones that deliver a true web experience, but current mobile web users -- about 30 million people in the U.S. -- probably won't predict the pattern for the rest of us.
Hop into The TimesMachine
The great thing about the Web is its ability to make mass amounts of information easily accessible. Hell, Google built an empire on that principle alone. The latest addition is the cleverly named TimesMachine, the archive from The New York Times that allows users to see the paper and read articles from 1851-1922. (The dates cover the public domain archive of the Times. This blog post explains the process of how TimesMachine came to be, but it doesn't tell you if/when they might put more recent content online.)
The user interface is very well designed and easy to use. There are a few small nitpicks I have, but none seriously affect performance or usage. The first is the inability to click on an article when you scroll over it. The article highlights in blue and a box pops up, but you have to click the link inside the box to get to a PDF of the article. The other bummer is that you can't click on the ads. It would be fun if users could zoom in on those. They add a tremendous amount of historical value. On the plus side, most of the large ads can be viewed just fine as is.
SI Vault, the Sports Illustrated archive, is a similar tool that allows users to flip through as if they were reading the magazine (so you can check out the ads). The site only has some issues available with the "reader," but does contain complete archives (some are text only).
Cable Networks Keep Gaining on Broadcast
Cable networks have been gaining on the broadcast nets in terms of overall viewership for years. When reality TV made a big splash several years ago, the cable networks even passed The Big Four for primetime viewership. The latest chapter in the story comes from the growth of the cable network audience since the writers' strike. The strike sent people to cable and since most cable networks don't have much content, they just replay their core programs endlessly -- an advantage to a viewer who tunes in late and wants to catch up. (That's one of The Baroness' classic moves with Top Chef.)
What's interesting here is that the broadcast networks still let the cable nets own the summer. Granted, the cable networks do not need the kinds of ratings to justify what they charge (like the broadcast nets), but how can broadcast just cede the summer season? In the last few years, cable has had great success with new summer shows and the broadcast folks are getting left behind. People watch more TV now than they did a decade ago, and they want something new and compelling. A summer full of reruns is not cutting it.
Be Careful with Results of AP "Survey"
I saw the headline, "," and immediately thought that this is the kind of the thing I should be blogging about. I took a look at the article, which explains that young media savvy consumers have no media consumption rituals and that they often get their news information via e-mail (as opposed to the Internet). The article also noted that the survey found similarities between young media consumers in America, India, England, etc.
Just one problem. They only "surveyed" 18 people living in six different countries or regions! That's not a survey -- it's a questionnaire given out to some friends. How can you possibly draw any conclusions between habits of people in different countries when -- at most -- 12 people are from that country? The Baron usually doesn't focus too much on methodology, but this has to be a typo. It's completely absurd.
Tech and Media Roundup: Links and Opinions Aplenty
Since we're not feeling any of the big stories today in the tech and media world, we're going to give you a quick roundup of some cool stories. They may not be worth their own post, but they are worth being aware of. Consider this post several opinions for the price of none.
• The folks at The New York Times -- and this blog is one of their best -- seem to like the Netflix box that streams movies. This is clearly the future model. It will be interesting to see how much faith users have in this box. Aren't we all a little skeptical at how quickly and how well this box will stream movies? The biggest plus: it only costs $99 and requires a $9 a month subscription.
• After finishing first in the number of online streams in the latest Nielsen data, Hulu is continuing to expand. What's interesting here is that by adding some of these networks, Hulu will be adding some programs from CBS, which finished last in online streams. In related news, Fancast has added the top Viacom shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to its online stable. Very nice!
• TV is starting to tinker with live commercials. Radio does this all the time with promos and anyone who listens regularly will tell you that the only ads they remember are the ones the hosts ad-lib. Since this article talks about the late-night TV hosts, this could get fun and might actually give me reason to watch.
• This is the most ridiculous SI cover I have ever seen. I found it absurd, but also a little distasteful that they make it seem like the Rays player is on 'roids. Maybe that's just my interpretation, but I can't be the only one. See, I'm not.
Agencies Need to Graduate to Compelling Online Ads
Welcome to our 100th post! Though we don't want this to sound like a graduation speech, we'd like to thank the Baroness for her support and our stable of readers for coming back. Now if we can just get the folks at Facebook to return our calls, we'll be all set.
One of our fascinations is watching TV shows online. It is amazing to see how quickly the service has improved and how quickly viewers have moved online. As we mentioned in an earlier post, some online viewers even make up half of a show's audience. Now comes word that marketers are hot for online ads during shows. Not surprisingly, the ads have high recall and offer more of a connection. They would be better still if they were not just repackaged content from TV. We know it's coming, and at this rate it may be here in a year or two, but this is where agencies really have to work hard to create Flash ads -- which are cheaper to produce -- that engage the viewer in a way that is unique to the medium. So far, we've only heard urban legends that indicate this online TV creative actually exists.
The Baroness and I love watching shows online, but when I see the same ad four times in a row and it's never the slightest bit interesting or engaging, plus it looks awkward because it's repackaged, it always bothers me. OK, back to the part that sounds like a graduation speech: It's time for these agencies to step out into the world and take risks. Shoot for the stars and realize that you can make a difference and be a great success.
An Insightful View on Mainstream Media
We often spend time writing about the sorry state of print journalism -- the dropping circ numbers, the vanishing pool of ad dollars and the fact that no one under 30 views the newspaper as central to their lives. But there is a larger disconnect than that. For the last several years, media viewer/readership (TV, print, Internet, radio) has been increasing at fairly sizable percentages. In TV alone, people are watching 15% more than they did a decade ago. So why are newspapers losing out?
Dan LeBatard, a Miami Herald sports columnist, has an insightful take on the topic, noting that newspapers should spend more time giving readers what they want and less time dictating content. His blog post, which he did for The Big Lead, discusses sports but it could be applied to mainstream media overall. It gives a sense of just how fearful the mainstream media is of blogs, the Internet and change in general.
Our favorite nugget from the column: "Newspapers aren’t giving you what you want. We are telling you what you should want, and you are doing an exceptional job of ignoring us. The marketplace has spoken, and the marketplace always wins in business." Understand that we're not for the dumbing down of society and we believe serious news needs to be out front when appropriate, but the increased consumption of media means people have specific wants and they'll go wherever they can to get find they're looking for. If you don't adapt, consider yourself a dinosaur.
Turner Brings Targeted Ads to TV
The effective ad targeting on the web has forced those in the TV industry to work at creating more effective ads. TV is still the most effective -- and frankly, the only -- mass medium out there. If Turner's plan to target viewers with these contextual ads works, the cost and effectiveness of TV ads could increase. That would avoid the doom and gloom predictions of TV ads due to the DVR. Well, it could help at least.
This does seem like a great concept, though I don't know if viewers will purchase olive oil after watching a scene featuring olive oil in The Godfather. It certainly can't hurt to try to link the viewing experience with the ads. During The Office season finale (which The Baroness and I DVR-ed), we did hold off on the fast-forward to watch the Get Smart ad with Steve Carrell, but would I have done the same if they had been at Chili's and then I had seen an ad for Chili's? Doubtful.
Newspapers Need to Stop Whining About Craigslist
Craig Newmark -- of Craigslist fame -- has always been a media favorite because he's thoughtful and interesting and he has resisted the urge to sell is site for hundreds of millions of dollars. This feature again addresses the claim that Craigslist is killing newspapers because it's taking away classified ad money to papers. Newmark, who clearly cares about journalism, refutes this, but it's almost indisputable. That said, who cares? Craigslist offered a better mousetrap and people flocked to it.
As the story notes, if newspapers want to win back classified users, they need to design something online that benefits their readers. Easier said than done, maybe, but you can't expect people to use something less efficient just because they have for many years. If newspapers could actually design web classifieds to rival Craigslist, my guess is people would flock there since they would be more inclined to trust their local paper over Craigslist.
TV Networks Try to Figure out Online Viewing
Since the upfront ad sales kick off this week, TV is the topic du jour. Generally, I love The New York Times' media coverage, but this article about time-shifted TV viewing leaves a lot to be desired. The article breaks no new ground and rehashes the same old stuff. It does have a couple of interesting tidbits that point to where things are in the whole DVR/VOD/streaming of TV mess.
It's amazing how quickly people have migrated to online viewing, specifically to sites like Hulu. (Side note: I went to a panel today with Hulu CEO Jason Kilar. Interesting discussion, including the fact that you can watch the ads for your show on Hulu in a trailer format which cuts them out during the show itself. Back to the post.) The story notes that half of viewers for The Office and 30 Rock in L.A. watch online. That's amazing.
The other key point the story brings to light is the fact that advertisers and networks haven't fully committed to online viewing. I recognize that the most money comes from TV, but The CW pulled Gossip Girl episodes from its website to improve the show's ratings. It's ironic since the network has been lauded in many places, including a cover story in New York, for being the new model of a TV/online hybrid. The CW should have at least given more time to see how this will play out (and the comment by the show's executive producer in the Times article tells you some at the network were hoping that would happen). Oh well, this is how progress is usually made, slowly and tentatively. At least they're not pulling The Office from Hulu.
Free Papers: Getting More Than You Pay For?
I was visiting Baron von Mom recently and while I was talking about the expansion of NYTimes.com, she was complaining that soon she won't have any paper to read. While I doubt the Times will stop printing its print edition any time soon, that day is coming at some point. Everyone in the newspaper biz is trying to figure out what the future of print is. We'll leave online journalism alone for the moment because that is where most content will go. But until the transition is complete, what happens to print?
In many large cities around the country, the free, ad-supported daily has become the answer. In New York, there are two such tabloids, filled with news tidbits, a handful of local stories and Sudoku. Those papers only publish on weekdays and are available in newspaper boxes throughout the city. Now, there is word that the free papers in Baltimore, Washington and San Francisco -- all owned by Philip Anschutz -- will begin free Sunday papers with home delivery. Now, I don't live in those cities so it may be that those papers are dreadfully unreadable and not worth the time and effort of lugging them into the house, but the model is an interesting one. It may not be possible for a straight media company. (Anschutz has a diverse empire with stakes in a variety of businesses). I don't know if these ventures lose money, but it's something the rest of the print industry should examine carefully as it may provide an answer to a confounding question.
These papers may not be exactly what Baron von Mom is looking for. Readers will likely get what they pay for with these papers -- lots of wire stories and brief roundups of events with little in-depth analysis -- but the model could be used in the future to prolong the life, and find a use for, the sagging print industry.
3 Shows, 1 DVR: The Complicated Math
The Thursday night TV schedule presents an interesting challenge. The Office and 30 Rock go up against Grey's Anatomy and the Celtics-Cavs game. (I don't need to tell you which one The Baroness doesn't care about.) Our DVR can handle two of the three and we have decided to watch the NBC sitcoms on Hulu. Why is that relevant here? Well, Comcast and Time Warner are experimenting with limiting the number of gigabytes for users and charging a fee above that limit. The writer points out (correctly, I think) that the cable companies may have an ulterior motive here since they still want people to watch on TV. The question is, will there be a point at which we worry about the monthly bill -- similar to the cell phone bill -- when we watch TV online?
If that happens, the cable companies could be courting disaster with the emergence of Verizon FIOS. Cable companies no longer have a complete monopoly and if they start alienating customers -- Comcast has cut off customers who use more than the stated gigabyte limit -- they could be asking for trouble. Plus, cable companies could draw the ire of the networks, who are trying to push viewers online to increase viewership.
Paying for Web Access at Hotels? Ugh!
A quick warning: I'm irrational. I have no idea why I pay for the newspaper but expect free content on the Web. No clue. I do know, though, that I am not the only one. This is the great conundrum of the Internet. One of my biggest pet peeves in this regard is hotels and Internet access. I despise having to pay to get online and spend some time checking my favorite sites and blogs. It's not my fault you have crappy cable and I can't find the sports news I need.
I suppose the reason it irks me so much is that I hate being nickel-and-dimed. I already have to pay for parking (if you're in a city like NYC), the mini-bar and virtually everything else. And no, that doesn't make up for the fact that I take the pens. I'm not so bullish on airports, but for heavy business travelers, it must be a huge pain in the butt. Anyhoo, some hotels and airports are giving travelers free Internet, though it's ad-supported or you have to sign up for a loyalty program. Don't know why it has taken so long for this to become the norm. I understand we're all here to make money and frankly, if they added it into the cost of the room, it wouldn't bother me at all. Today's rant, over and out.
Tech Publisher Shows it Can Make the Transition Online
There's an interesting story in The New York Times detailing how IDG, a publisher of mostly tech magazines, has moved some of its top pubs online and seen strong ad growth. The journey was much more difficult than that last sentence makes it seem, but the important thing here is that magazines can transition online and make money from ads. I was impressed that they decided to scrap the 3,000-word features and tailor the content to online readers by utilizing web video. Of course, the tech mag readership is more likely to smoothly migrate online, but right now the battered print industry will just settle for knowing it can be done.
Since we're feeling all giddy about print entities, we should also tell you that newspapers are cornering the market in local online ads. That's no surprise, but it is key as more local ads move online.
What if Those Facebook Friends Showed Up at Your House?
We've written about the oddity of Facebook and being "friends" with people you haven't seen in 15 years. Well, a bunch of Brits took that point and ran with it, turning it into a real-life episode. The clip even got mentioned in The Wall Street Journal, which is where we found it. (It reminds us of the great Dave Chappelle sketch detailing what it would be like if the Internet was a real place.) Enjoy.
Apple Uses iPhone to Keep Moving Forward
It's no secret that we love the iPhone. While we won't count the ways here, this is the overarching theme: the Apple folks are forward-thinking and have built a completely logical device. Now, Apple is teaming up with tech heavyweights like Cisco and Intel to develop advanced applications for the iPhone. The Baron's personal favorite? You can move a file from the iPhone to your desktop computer with nothing more than the flick of a finger. The article says it best when it notes that this is why Apple is the king. Other manufacturers are trying to catch up, while Apple is pushing the line further and further.
Even more exciting is the fact that AT&T will be sponsoring the 3G iPhone when it comes out in June, meaning that the 8MB iPhone will costs just $199. It's like the iPod all over again. And if you think that Apple is still just a nice niche company, look at the fact that its earnings were up 36% over last year, thanks largely to PC sales. Apple has figured out that it can keep customers once it exposes them to its core strengths of usability and design. The iPod and the iPhone tap into that broader customer base.
YouTube Has Yet To Earn for Google
BusinessWeek takes a look at YouTube's revenue challenges in a recent article. While the article focuses mostly on advertising and revenue generation, the overall point (which the writer seems to sidestep) is that YouTube has not been the goldmine it was expected to be. YouTube is ubiquitous and has become the Coke or Kleenex of online video. It is a brand that identifies the whole category.
Still, Google paid so much -- $1.65 billion, anyone? -- that it would seem to be a bit of a concern that YouTube is not generating the kind of money it was expected to. The site has incredible value in search, especially since Google now regularly returns search requests with video, and that adds value to the Google brand overall. But a billion-and-a-half seems like a lot for a loss leader. Google gets a free pass in the mainstream media -- largely because much of that media doesn't understand the tech world -- but keep in mind that Microsoft once was Google and now that company makes mistakes like Vista. Past performance is no indicator of future success. Google's bottom line may be able to handle the hit, but you are only viewed as an infallible superbrand once. That perception may be even more valuable.
News Coverage as Sport
The Boston Herald is the subject of a great read in The Washington Post (we found this one on Romenesko). A lot of little fascinating tidbits in the story, which is what makes any good story great. Among them: the Herald has no correspondent in the mayor's office and the city desk is down to just 10 reporters. We had about half that many when I worked for a tiny paper in upstate New York.
While it seems to be a foregone conclusion -- it's never a good sign when you're selling your office and renting space -- Boston really could use a second paper, if only as a check on The Boston Globe. As a native New Englander, I've read the Globe for many years and, even though I've only read the sports section on a consistent basis, that is the paper's signature section. The sports section of the Globe has seemed very complacent over the last few years. Aside from Mike Reiss, who tirelessly and aggressively covers the Patriots, the Globe has been slow to evolve to the new world order of sports coverage. Bob Ryan is a great columnist but he is a relic from another era and Dan Shaughnessy mailed it in years ago. His shtick is as tiresome as it once was relevant.
What's the point of telling you this? The Herald keeps the the Globe on its toes. Part of the reason Reiss's coverage is so good is that John Tomase's coverage in the Herald is equally relentless and thorough. The rest of the Globe's coverage certainly benefits from the competition. Competition makes news coverage better. Sure it occasionally means newspapers get the story wrong as they aggressively pursue leads, but ultimately it's a good thing. Look at how Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal has affected The New York Times. I may not agree with Murdoch's politics, but the competition is good for the Times. It turns news coverage into its own sport.
Honey, What Should We Do Tonight? Let's Go to Blockbuster!
I'll be honest: I'm not a Netflix guy, but that's only because The Baroness and I don't rent movies too often. Someone gave us a free month trial and we can't even figure out when we should use it (though we do want to). Now that I have disclosed my personal views, I do not understand why Blockbuster is fighting the Netflix model. Isn't it so much more convenient to shop online for what you want and have it delivered to your house? Not everyone thinks so.
Apparently, Blockbuster is trying to enhance the in-store experience because its CEO claims, "People like to shop, whether it's in a Neiman Marcus or a Blockbuster." Uh-huh. In-store shopping for clothes makes sense. The same cannot be said for movie rentals. I could pick 10 movies I want to see right now based on reviews I've read or recommendations from friends. I couldn't just imagine a shirt I might like and see how it would fit me. We're not talking apples to apples here.
Anyhoo, Blockbuster wants you to go to the store. To draw you in, the chain is installing PS3's and serving coffee, plus installing play areas for kids. Nice try, but a better solution would be making themselves more relevant to people's lives. How much extra time do these Blockbuster people think you have anyway?
Nielsen and comScore Battle it out over Internet Numbers
Ratings are an endlessly fascinating study. They're the currency of the TV business and yet there is only one company producing the data. Sounds suspect indeed. There are pros and cons to this approach. The cons are obvious -- the ratings figures could be distorted for a variety of reasons (small sample size, inaccurate recording of data, etc.). The benefit is there's only one number and since the numbers are all determined the same way, everyone is happy.
We can see what would happen if Nielsen had major competitors in the TV industry. Nielsen and comScore are battling it out in online measurement. Everyone knows something is amiss because the two companies have different numbers for the same sites. You would think online would be easier to track, but in actuality, the wealth of information makes it more difficult. My favorite part of the story is when folks in the industry say they don't rely on the figures, rather they focus on the performance of their specific campaigns. Seriously? Trust me, these numbers are the holy grail. Just like they are with TV.
Apropos of this topic is the fact that about 30 times in the past 6 weeks, we have seen it reported that China has tied or passed the U.S. for total Internet users. Where did the data come from? Nielsen. What's the ginormous flaw? Well, this data only tracks home and business use and even the story itself notes that "one-third of Chinese Internet users surf through Cybercafes." In what other industry can you base a story around figures that are so completely flawed? Mentioning it in the fourth paragraph doesn't mean you should use the numbers.
Just one example and then we're good. Did you know that Alex Rodriguez is hitting .353 this season? You didn't? Oh, that could be because he's hitting .353 at Yankee Stadium and we don't record his at-bats on the road. Ridiculous.
Back in Action: Some Fun Links
The Baron had to take care of some bidness, but we're back and ready to roll. As promised, you'll be getting more posts over the next few weeks to make up for the short vacation break.
Since we're just easing back into this, let's start with some fun stuff. TV Land has created a movie trailer database dating back to the 1950's. Though it's annoying that the trailers start when you pull up a different genre or decade to search, the site is quite cool and a neat little link to film history. Second, and just as important, it's a great place to get sucked in for 20 or 30 minutes if you want to take a break from updating your Facebook profile. I watched the trailer for The Birds. A bit long by trailer standards, but wonderfully done by my man, Hitch.
The other fun site is Get Back. Though not nearly as cool as the TV Land site, it's a cool concept. Basically, it's I Love the 80's meets the Internet. How these guys plan to make money long-term, I have no idea, but that's not my problem. I wasn't an Angel funder.
Blurb Gives You a Chance to Publish The Great American Novel
** Posting will be light for the next few days as The Baroness and I are heading out of town to see some family. Don't worry, I'll make up for it when I get back.**
Despite the technological innovations resulting from the rise of the Internet, one industry that that has been left largely untouched is the book publishing industry. Sure, Amazon completely transformed how people buy books, but none of the portable book readers like Sony's E-Reader have taken off. We'll see about the Kindle.
That's what makes this article on Blurb.com so interesting. The article focuses a lot on scrapbooking for some reason, but the part that is most fascinating is that users can publish their own books for free. (They make money if you print your book with them.) Essentially this is the convergence of the blogosphere and the book publishing industry. While it's a great concept for individuals, I doubt we'll see the same level of success with these books as we have with the big-time blogs because these books are still not widely distributed. If you want a blog on the political views of rhino herders, you can find one. A book on the topic? Not so much.
FriendFeed Delivers Tasty Dish on What You're Sharing
The key to sustained success in new media is to make users' lives easier. Google offered better search, the DVR offers a better user experience than the VCR, etc. With that in mind, a group of former Google guys have created FriendFeed, a site that pulls together all of the things you're sharing with friends across all of the sites. The idea is that people go to their friends for recommendations on everything. This site just makes it easy. The folks at BusinessWeek seem impressed.
These guys decided that it made no sense to share things on Facebook, YouTube and Flickr when you could just share them all in one place. FriendFeed is not a replacement for those sites, it just organizes it. It's the same concept as an RSS feed, which organizes the news you want to read and puts all in one place. Sounds good to me. I don't share a whole other than photos, although this would seem to remove the cut-and-paste link situation on a site like YouTube or The New York Times. Yup, I'm still cutting and pasting. I find it easier than sending one of those automated share e-mails. Maybe that fact takes me out of the target for FriendFeed. Am I the only one still doing that?
Networks Looking for More Online $$
Not surprisingly, the broadcast networks are looking for ways to max out online advertising revenue. There are plenty of online viewers, but the dollars have not followed the way the networks had hoped. This is really a microcosm for most online media. Existing brands have not struggled to make money online, but they have struggled to make as much money online.
Alright, back to the networks. They are in a tough position. They can't increase the amount of advertising substantially without upsetting online viewers (to some degree, at least). Plus, the networks don't want to cannibalize their TV business model. So, how can they improve the situation? The key is to create online ads that are not just repurposed content. They should be clickable and relevant to the viewer demos. Keep in mind that much more information is tracked online. Ford is a big advertiser, but the car company may not appeal to online viewers the way they appeal to a broad TV audience. When the networks can master this delicate balance, they will likely see the revenue growth they're after.
Bringing Back the Polaroid Shake (or Trying To)
About a month ago The Baroness and I were in Florida. We were in a restaurant and a large party walked in, including one guy with a Polaroid. Considering we were out during early bird special hours, it was slightly less shocking, but I didn't even think they were still making film for that camera. The great thing was, after every picture the guy took, ... yup, he was doing the Polaroid shake. Loved that move, especially because when we were growing up, there were entrenched camps of opinion debating whether that was the best method.
Why am I telling you this? Because Polaroid is attempting one serious comeback. Polaroid has come out with a printer that wirelessly connects to and prints from your cell phone. It's so small, you can carry it around in your pocket. This is tremendous. Can't you see this being the most fun to play with when you're out with a bunch of people in a bar? You've just gotta love companies (or actors, athletes, etc.) that are at the top, crash and burn and come roaring back. It's tough to do, but it's why the E! True Hollywood story exists. (By the way, The Baroness wants credit for finding this story, so there you go, dear. Nice find!)
Am I fired up about this? You bet. Do I have concerns about its success? I do now. "The rechargeable lithium ion battery that runs the printer will last for about 15 shots," according to the story. Totally unacceptable! How can they let this thing off the assembly line when you have to recharge it after 15 shots. I still like the product and the idea (a lot!), but for $150, it's gotta have better staying power. We'll see. My bet is that this concept takes off when they can deliver at least 40-50 shots before recharge is needed.
Paramount Tries to Sell Movie Clips on the Cheap
Following the model used for downloading ringtones, Paramount is attempting to charge "at least $1" for clips of its movie titles. The idea is that users could use the famous clips on blogs, as ringtones, to create funny clips and stick them on YouTube. Though this sounds like a bit of a stretch as a revenue generator, keep in mind that ringtones were never expected to be as big as they have been.
Even if this move is a success, it likely won't generate significant money for several years. It will, however, be a good marketing tool for the company. And the key, of course, is that people will gladly spend a dollar or two for some amusement and for the personalization of their phone every now and then. Since so few things now cost a dollar, people toss it over without even thinking about it. If that happens here, Paramount could have found a huge new revenue stream for the movie industry.
Clearflow Means Clear Roads
I'm not an early adopter. I like new gadgets, but I don't have a burning urge to possess the latest, hottest item. I prefer to see how people use a certain product or service and find out about its pros and cons first.
That said, sign me up for Microsoft's Clearflow technology. This free software helps to predict traffic jams based on algorithms that factor in previous data plus sensors on the highway that track current information. This is technology at its best. New York City might even become a more civil place because of this. As crazy as this sounds, traffic and parking (if you have a car) loom over everything in New York. It's bizarre the way you get used to it. The whole subculture of people who work and/or sleep in their cars while waiting for the alternate side rules to expire, and the constant debates about the best way to drive somewhere are a strange but necessary evil. Now I just have to get a SmartPhone so I can easily carry this info around with me.
On a largely unrelated note that's cool but not worthy of its own post, Google Earth has added a feature from The New York Times which embeds news stories onto the map so you can see where the stories are taking place. Maybe this will help kids with their geography.
Turn Back the Tech: Computer Switches
Here's our latest installment in the Turn Back the Tech series. Here's our last TBTT post. If you're looking for others, just search for Turn Back the Tech and you'll find the whole series.
While this clip isn't as technical as others, it's far more amusing. It was originally shown at the 1940 World's Fair in New York as a way to explain how switches work. Pretty cool.
Prime Time Rewind Tries to Take Online Viewing a Step Further
One of our first posts was about Fancast, a catch-all site from Comcast with TV listings and online episodes of dozens of current and former shows. In that vein, we bring you Prime Time Rewind, which we found thanks to the folks at Media Daily News. PTR is a cool site that gives you immediate online access to almost every major show. (Watch out for the web address, though, since it ends in .tv, not .com.) The site is cool and promotes the always popular concept of one-stop shopping. Plus, the creators were smart enough to include not just the broadcast networks, but also USA, TNT, Bravo, aka the major cable nets. I also love the Rubik's Cube-like interface.
Apparently, you can also personalize PTR so you just have your lineup of shows. I didn't make it that far, but it sounds like a great feature. These guys have put some serious thought into this and it shows. Though I've only played around on the site a bit, it seems to be very fluid and well thought out. One plus over Fancast is that the listing of shows is easier to maneuver. Fancast just has a large list, which is very overwhelming and tough to sift through.
Newspapers Fail to Keep Up With Political Blogging
A new study of political blogs at newspapers indicates that the old print media has a way to go before it fully understands the complexities of the blogosphere. Anyone can start a blog, but it requires commitment -- occasionally bordering on insanity -- and a certain rhythm that traditional journalism lacks. Even The Baron doesn't profess to understand it all, but I have learned quite a bit from blogs I read regularly and from the experience of keeping up with a blog every day.
The study on newspapers' political blogs tells us that nearly one quarter of the blogs were not updated at all during the 5-day study. I don't know everything about blogs, but that's unacceptable. Of course, this ignores one of the major problems in journalism today. Newspapers are hellbent on staying relevant but they are also facing major budget issues. So instead of hiring bloggers or adding to their staffs, they are cutting staff and requiring all of their reporters to do more. The end result? Blogs that don't get updated and analysis that doesn't go very deep. That drives readers to want more and to often go to other sites (like the Huffington Post) to get it.
When to Buy an HDTV
Demand for HDTVs has slowed to its lowest rate since 2002. While this may not be so surprising given the economic conditions, it's interesting because of the switch from analog to digital TV next February. Though consumers don't have to buy an HDTV for the switchover, it will obviously help increase demand.
So the question is: When should you buy an HDTV (assuming you want one in the next year)? My guess is prices will go up in November since it will be a few months before the switchover, Christmas and the Super Bowl. And if the next several months are lean economically and sales do indeed slow significantly, prices are bound to come down a bit. So the best buying zone would seem to be this summer, probably May through July.
Now I just have to see if I can get this plan past the Baroness.
Can You Hear Me Now? No
Think of this as the first Turn Forward the Tech post, even though we don't see that being a regular feature. Check out this video (which we found via Seth Mnookin's Feeding the Monster blog), explaining voiceless cell phone calling. It's pretty wild. This technology tracks the signal your brain sends when you're about to speak and converts it to words. It's still in the early stages, but very cool nonetheless.
Whither Joost?
Joost, the online TV site developed by the creators of Skype, has been around for less than a year and it already seems as if it's time has passed. Last summer, when it debuted to an invite-only audience, passwords and invites were being auctioned off on eBay. It was the hottest thing. However, we now see that Joost has been limited by a drought of compelling programming and because the site requires users to download the video player.
Why do all that when you can go to Hulu and watch current, high-quality shows in a streaming format? No extra effort required. That's what online viewers want. It took online video so long to take off because users had so many technical issues - issues which often went beyond bandwidth. Raise your hand if you ever gave up after downloading a piece of software so you could watch some clip that a friend sent you. (Thank you. You made my case. Hands down.)
Give Joost credit. The site's innovative chat function allows fans of a show to interact. Plus, the site features the old GI Joe cartoon. Some of Joost's interactive functionalities have been picked up by Hulu, and it's doubtful Fox and NBC would have had the same foresight as the Joost guys. Ultimately, it always comes down to content and here, Joost just could not compete with Big Media. Joost doesn't have shows that are currently on the air, which is obviously a tremendous disadvantage. Even if it had been able to land cult hit Arrested Development, that would have been a big coup, but it was not to be.
Extra, Extra: State of the News Media 2008
The State of the News Media report for 2008 is out. There are several interesting findings from the annual report, including that news is shifting from a product to a service that empowers consumers and that newsrooms are perceived as innovative. That last one surprised us a bit, but since we haven't done the leg work, we trust the folks at The Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The finding that we found most intriguing is that the agenda of the news media has narrowed, not broadened. The question here is, chicken or egg? Does the media not cover a wide range of topics because it is attempting to dictate public conversation or do readers simply have a narrow focus and want stories only on a few topics (the economy, the war in Iraq, etc.)? For our money, we see the reader as the problem -- though not our readers, of course ;). There is no question that news consumers in this country have decided that they want their news from people with the same views as them, talking about the topics that are important to them. If you're conservative, you watch Fox News. If you're liberal, ... you get the idea. The bottom line is that people have a narrowing view of the world and what the news media is covering is simply a reflection of that.
This, of course, is a major problem. The importance of journalism as the Fourth Estate cannot be understated in American history. Watergate, anyone? The exchange of differing opinions and ideas is important on several levels and if we all continue to watch only the views of those like us talking about only the three stories we care about, we lose the chance to broaden our understanding of others. (Deep, huh?) This angle represents the great elephant in the room, the story that journalists seem to avoid. Though we're not the ultimate clearinghouse, we haven't seen too much written on this topic. Then again, maybe it's not one of the three stories we care about.
Loopt: Friend or Foe Finder?
A front-page story in today's Wall Street Journal discusses a new application (named Loopt) for your mobile device that can track where your contacts are at any time. Think of it as Google Maps starring your friends and family. Here's a quick video so you can see how the service works.
Now that you've seen that, are you a little creeped out? In the story, the Loopt founder even says, "It's one of those things, the more you think about it, the more ways you can figure out a creep could abuse it. I think people realize that unlike a telemarketer call, which can be annoying, a location-based service could be an actual physical safety risk." Good times! I'd like to pay an extra $4.95 a month for that.
Obviously you have to opt-in to the service, but it raises some scary issues. And as the Baroness says, "What if you're going to surprise me with something? Then I don't want to know where you are." Hmmmm...Is that a hint? Gotta go work on that, I suppose.
DVR vs. VOD: The Battle for TV Control
The Baroness and I love our DVR. We don't know anyone who has a DVR and isn't emotionally tethered to its greatness. And now comes word that DVR should be in more than one-third of homes by 2012. But is the DVR just a bridge technology?
The same story tells us that VOD will be in more than 50% of homes by 2012. Cable companies love VOD because it's worth much more to them than the $5 per month they receive for DVR. VOD also means that cable companies can supply video on the back end (just when you choose that video) and don't need to worry about putting the large hard drives into cable boxes.
I have a couple of concerns with VOD: 1) As it's currently constituted, only a limited number of episodes for a given show are available at a time. That must change. If I am giving up my DVR, I want to retain control. 2) I don't want to have to watch ads or pay for the content, and with VOD, you have to pick your poison.
I get the sense that the DVR will be surpassed by VOD in terms of usage pretty soon, but that doesn't mean DVR will go away. And if I have to, I could always buy Tivo, assuming they're still in business. You can't underestimate how great it is to be able to pause live TV. I'm not giving that up without a fight.
The Hits Just Keep on Coming: New Google Search Feature
Google rarely does anything without thinking about the ramifications, so it's interesting that the company has launched a search-within-search feature that could end up hurting print publishers.
Basically, when you search on Google for "NY Times," the search brings up the top pages and another box so you can search within the Times page without clicking through to the site. It certainly seems more convenient, but print publishers are unhappy because when you search for certain terms (jobs, real estate), ads pop up on the right for competitor sites. The ads, of course, only pop up for terms where there's real money to be made. If you search terms like sports and politics -- where there are plenty of competitors -- no ad words come up.
The one saving grace is for people to search logically. If people want jobs from the Washington Post, they are likely to search "Washington Post jobs" rather than breaking the process into two steps. When you do that, no ads words appear. It's a small but significant difference.
New Yorker Puts Papers Under the Microscope
Journalism and newspapers get The New Yorker treatment this week. The article (which we located on The Big Lead) has some crazy statistics -- The New York Times Co. has seen its stock price drop 54% since 2004 -- and brings up some good points, but too often it feels like a press release for The Huffington Post.
The article talks about blogs and does give some mention to other blogs, but HuffPost is the central theme when the reporter is not doling out miserable stats about newspapers. On the plus side, there are some incredibly insightful quotes from Rupert Murdoch, which give you an idea that the man really has vision and didn't just get to the top by putting boobs and blood into his papers.
Moreover, the article points out (correctly, I think) that the next few years will be a chaotic time in journalism. For some reason, in other new media (mobile web, for example), we understand that things are going to be in flux for a few years until a working business model emerges. In newspapers, however, we expect the transition to be quick and painless.
The Ecosystem of Old Technologies
Much of what we blog about here is about how new technology is adopted and consumed, and how that affects older technologies. I guess the folks at The New York Times have been reading because they basically took that theme and fleshed into a 15-inch story instead of ongoing blog ethos.
This article deals with how old techs evolve when they are overtaken by new techs. One source in the story even compares it to the evolution of ecosystems, a spot-on analogy. For example, the Beta VCR is often considered one of the great recent tech blunders as it failed to adapt and was overtaken by VHS. But Beta disappeared only in the consumer market. In the B2B world, Beta was often used by TV stations and, I believe, still is in some places.
What to Expect When You're Expecting To Blog
Since our job is to bring you what's happening in the world of media, we of course must bring you what happens when mainstream media outlets cover the blogosphere. The New York Times gives you everything you wanted to know about blogs but were afraid to ask. So if you were hankering to blog but wanted to know more, this article is for you.
What I would add to their list of points is that blogging is a different kind of writing. Maybe I only notice because I wrote very often for five years, but blogging has its own rhythms and tone. Those take a little while to figure out, but if you're a true card-carrying member of the blogosphere (aka you read a few blogs regularly), you will pick things up pretty quickly. Happy blogging!
Turn Back the Tech: The Atari
Welcome back to another edition of Turn Back the Tech. In case you missed the last couple of editions, you can click here or here.
There's not much to say here other than the fact that the Atari was the greatest video game system ever. I didn't even have one -- yes the Baron's mom is a bit of a technophobe -- but man, could I rock Space Invaders and Pole Position. This ad is great for so many reasons.
1. Pete Rose
2. Isn't that Don Knotts in prison? Barney Fife?
3. The sounds, the graphics, the bad TV reception at the end
Politicians Missing Out Online
With American politics at such a pivotal point, Online Spin has an interesting article on the candidates and how much they have spent online. Turns out the candidates are only spending 1% of their ad budgets online. In the case of Barack Obama, a large portion of his donations have come online and his online ad spending is still surprisingly low. The article discusses where the candidates are missing out in crafting their message through key search words. Good stuff.
I (Heart) the iPhone
I admit it -- I am in the tank for the iPhone. I had unrealistic expectations of it before its release and now that I have used it a bit (through friends and the Apple Store), I like it even more than expected. It delivers such incredible usability and is so easy to figure out. Plus, it has revolutionized the smartphone market and means that the mobile Web is no longer a distant fantasy.
Still, I can't imagine even the folks at Apple could have projected some of the usage numbers in a recent study by M:Metrics, as published in The New York Times. The most overwhelming stat? Nearly 85% of iPhone users access the mobile Web, compared to 13% of the overall mobile market in the U.S. and 58% of total smartphone owners.
More than anything else, the iPhone has kept the hardware manufacturers and the cellular companies on edge because they know if they don't do something (and quick), they will lose out on this growing market. Too often, these companies hold off on putting things out on the market because they can't figure out the right way to monetize things. That's a bad thing for us. The iPhone has kept them from f-ing around too much.
Peeking into the Vault: Magazine Opens Up Archives
Starting Thursday, Sports Illustrated, a Time Inc. property, will allow online users to search the magazine's complete archives, in what they're calling The Vault. Time has taken similar actions with archives for some of its other properties, including People, Time and Entertainment Weekly.
The article claims that this is a way for magazines to draw readers to their websites. True indeed, especially thanks to search engine traffic, but I don't see this as being so revolutionary. Will users really want to see a story about how great Dale Murphy was in May of 1986? There are plenty of things worth searching for -- I will promptly look up every Gary Smith article ever written -- but this strikes me as one of those things that sounds cool but is rarely used once it launches. On the plus side, it sounds like SI put together a high-quality reader to use on the site. And you can look at the ads. That might be the best part.
Weekend Roundup: The Baron is Back
The Baroness and I rolled back into town earlier this evening, so I had to get to the happs on what we missed in the last few days. This will be roundup style.
- Editor and Publisher released a study on the decline in circulation at the top U.S. papers in the last four years. The lowlights? The L.A. Times lost 20% of its readership and the San Francisco Chronicle lost 30%. Huge losses in such a short period of time. I could tell you more, but the E&P link doesn't work, so I couldn't get to the entire article.
- The Wall Street Journal is planning more sports and political coverage. Welcome to the party, boys!
- The Wii rocks. I gotta get me one of those. I hear they're using them for exercise in elderly homes. Nintendo must be all over that market.
- Apparently newspapers are not playing nice with Craigslist. Several years after fawning stories carried the day, the Craigslist CEO says his "journalist friends" have been told to write negative stories about them. And you wonder why people think newspapers are biased.
18-49s Get Their News From Cable
In what is no surprise to anyone, network news ratings among 18-49s have nosedived. The common perception, of course, is that the 18-49 bracket gets its news from the Internet. But what the figures in this article tell us is that the 18-49s are still watching news (at least some of them), and they're watching it on cable, not on network TV. The election may be skewing this data, but that's a post for another day.
I have to say I can't believe more isn't made of the Katie Couric situation. She was brought in to revive CBS News and the ratings have continued to tank. She's become completely irrelevant. It's just a stunning turn of events. You know, people talk about the demise of the newspaper, but the national nightly news is gone in a decade, if not sooner. Local news will survive in some form because it's becoming hyperlocal, but national network news has problems.
By the way, The Baroness and I will be heading out for a little vacay this weekend, away from the comforting protection of the Internet, so there won't be any posting until the end of the weekend.
CBS Sports Gets It Right With Online Viewing
How great is the NCAA Tournament? So great that I once got caught by my boss watching a buzzer beater and she didn't even care.
It's rare that we write about sports here. However, we're going to make an exception to recognize what CBS has done with the NCAA Tournament and online viewing. March Madness is clearly an oddity in that it has a short window with tremendous demand that continues to grow. What they've done may not be comparable to other media bigs, but it is a good blueprint to follow where applicable.
What's great about what CBS did is that they tested things over a couple of years and were flexible in their approach. Their player worked great right from the start (I got caught by the boss watching a buzzer beater at my desk) and they quickly realized that online viewership enhanced interest in the tournament rather than cannibalized it.
A few years ago, CBS began with registration for online streams of games. The big plus was the ability to watch out-of-market games. The company didn't charge the first year and had incredible viewership numbers. They did charge $19.99 more recently, but now they have gotten rid of that fee. Plus, games will no longer be blacked out locally to protect the TV interests. Revenue keeps going up and fans have great access to every game. It's shocking that the miserable NCAA has anything to do with this process.
Did You Know?
Don't know if you've seen this (and it's a wee bit outdated in a few of its figures), but it's fascinating. Watch this all the way through. It's worth it. The overall message here is very powerful. It may make you a bit uncomfortable about where the U.S. stands in relation to the world, but maybe it will kick-start us to something better. According to President Bush, of course, we're the leader in everything. I love the fact that he's blind in addition to being stupid.
Here's the site they reference at the end if you want to know more.
Most Powerful Blogs Named, Baron Miffed
The Observer in the U.K. put together its list of the 50 Most Powerful Blogs. The list goes from serious to silly, but it does not include us. Ho hum. It does include engadget, which is a great tech blog, and one we've been planning to write about. Note that the list is not The 50 Most Relevant Blogs or The 50 Blogs Run By Very Likeable and Attractive People. We're sure we would have been at least an h0norable mention on those lists.
Great way for The Observer to drive traffic to its site though. You know this thing has gotten more hits than Lindsay's latest [fill in something relevant].
Hulu Prepares for Big Rollout
We have written about how much we like Hulu (the News Corp./NBC web video site) several times in the past. Well, if you're watching TV on the web and you haven't yet checked it out, you will get the chance as the site is about to come out of private beta. In other words, you'll no longer have to register to use the site.
Part of the reason The Baroness and I enjoy Hulu so much (though we only use it on occasion) is for its incredible user-friendliness. Well, Fortune Magazine has an article detailing just how fanatical the Hulu programmers were in putting together the site. Hulu did it right in taking its time and launching the site only once things worked really well. Unfortunately, a lot of this piece is the big media folks saying, "I told you so." I guess designing a great site and being humble was a bit too much to ask.
Internet is More Trusted News Source Than Print, TV
There's a new poll out with interesting info on how much trust people have in different media. The figures are surprising. Adults tend to trust radio (first) and the Internet (second) before they trust TV and print (dead last). I think the results here may have been affected by the fact that they called the print category "press," which I would take to mean the entire media field, but maybe I'm just reading too much into this.
Look, if you readers are going to trust me that much, I appreciate it. I am, after all, The Baron. But you would trust the news from me before The New York Times? There's something screwy going on with this data. It's one thing if you think the Times or the Wall Street Journal have political leanings, as they undoubtedly do, but does that mean you trust their information less than the folks at Gothamist (a site I love)? I'm totally confused. This is like when I found that women actually pay to have someone rip their eyebrows out with hot wax.
NBC Spends Money, Explains the Obvious
NBC tells us that people who watch shows online are more likely to recall ads and more likely to watch the whole show through. I can't say this is terribly surprising on either count.
As far as the ads are concerned, when you watch an episode online, there are about three ads, maybe four if you count a pre-program sponsorship. Of course, people are going to recall those four ads better than the 13-15 that normally run during a show on TV. Plus, you can't switch channels online and since the NBC player can sometimes be shaky, I hardly even want to breathe on the computer when I'm watching The Office.
This lack of channel-surfing also means that you're more likely to stay with a show all the way through. Plus, you decided to stream that show (in theory) because you want to watch it. Viewing online has a far bigger pull side than TV, where there are so many options and occasionally you just want to be mindlessly entertained for an hour. How else to explain Are Your Smarter than a 5th Grader?
Yahoo is Serious About Finding Other Suitors
You really have to admire the folks at Yahoo. These guys have made it clear to everyone that they have no interest in being bought by Big Brother Microsoft (at least at the current price) and that they still want to compete with the Google behemoth.
Today comes word that Yahoo is working on a deal with Time Warner involving AOL. (In case you missed my recent post on AOL, I'm trying to improve its grandma-like image.) Together the companies figure they can take on Google in the advertising arena. At this point, it seems the deal with Microsoft is still likely to happen, but you have to admire Yahoo trying to scare up as many potential suitors as it can to get Microsoft to play fair.
The Economist Backs My Play
Amen to my brothers from The Economist!
As a follow to my rant on the movie industry (even though they published their article first), The Economist has an article detailing Hollywood's on-again, off-again relationship with the Internet. I swear I read the article after my post. I swear!
Is AOL Going the Way of Ovaltine?
What do you think of when you see the letters A-O-L? Chances are you're probably shuddering at the thought of the dial-up days when you would write e-mails offline and then log on to send them. Good times.
Well, a decade later, AOL, which not surprisingly has seen its share price tank in recent years, is working on creating as many niche content sites as possible. AOL plans to launch at least a dozen in the next six months. That's wonderful. The brand has produced some great sites, especially its Fanhouse site for sports.
But wouldn't you change the name? The brand has tremendous recognition, but it's like Ovaltine wanting to reinvent itself. The name has recognition, but the first thing that comes to mind is something that was popular years ago. How about renaming their online content unit? Otherwise, all you think of with A-O-L is O-L-D.
