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.
This Beam is Not Balanced
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.
