The last blogger on earth to weigh in on the iPad

OK, I may be slow in responding, but I felt I needed some time to really digest whether Apple’s new creation would really save the newspaper industry.  But now that the hype and hoopla over the iPad is making way to Super Bowl fever, it might be a good time to reflect on just what that all could mean.

And in the calm, it becomes clear: The iPad is not the savior of the industry. But it can be a help, if publishers are willing to accept it and utilize its potentials.

The device itself is not the must-have replacement for everything you already own. But, in reality, it has raised the standards of the e-reader to a point where publishers — if they are wise enough to recognize it — can create a revenue stream by providing a news product that offers readers an experience they cannot get from the web or print.

The iPad could be a Kindle-killer if Amazon doesn’t upgrade the product to meet the new capabilities (i.e. full-color touchscreen, ability to play videos, etc.). Same with Sony, who is also trying to carve a niche in the e-reader market as well.

What the iPad offers to e-readers is a multisensory reading experience. For example, instead of just reading “Where the Wild Things Are” to your kids at bedtime, the iPad can also offer the color illustrations and, if taken a step further, animation or video as well.

This multisensory experience is something publishers need to tap into. I expect that, in the rush to be a part of the iPad bandwagon, most newspapers will simply offer a slightly larger version of its iPhone app, or at minimum set up a PDF version of its print edition (or maybe a version of the print that uses the “page turning” technology of e-books). Unfortunately, this offers nothing new to the readers, and I expect that most will not use it. Those who do will probably not be willing to pay a premium for it.

Publishers need to take a serious look at developing products that offer iPad readers an ‘experience’ beyond what they are currently used to getting from other platforms. This will mean some R&D investment in developing products that integrate words, audio, video, animation and graphics to tell and analyze the news. This experience can set up two-way dialogs without going to third-party sites like Facebook or Twitter, and can also be used to enhance ads that can directly connect your advertiser to his target audience.

Two great examples of the potential of this reader experience are flyp, a multimedia e-magazine which does an excellent job in merging different storytelling forms into a unique reading experience, and the Sports Illustrated demo for tablet media I highlighted in  a previous posting.

The reading experience can create a renewed value of your content. The iPad and subsequent readers could bring back the “wow” factor for readers, and that could translate into a product readers will be willing to pay for.

Bottom line, I fear if current conditions continue, publishers will be faced with the reality that keeping a press will become too expensive. If publisher are proactive with the this emerging technology instead of being reactive, they may be able to transfer the newspaper reading experience from one medium to another without giving away the goose.

The iPad isn’t the answer, but  the new standard its set for e-readers is. It’s now up to our industry to meet that standard.

Is social networking too social for news folk?

Would Lou Grant know how to use Twitter or Facebook to its potential?

 

One of my all time favorite TV journalism moments comes from “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” when boss Lou Grant is looking over a story that Mary had poured her heart into.  

As Lou reads the script, Mary nervously asks Lou what he thinks of it.  

“It’s cute,” Lou calmly responds.  

As Mary starts to gush and say thank you, Lou look up at her and gruffly booms: “I HATE CUTE!”  

It’s a great metaphor for how journalists have long been envisioned by readers: grouchy, anti-social perfectionists who always seem to have a bug up their ass about something. And as a veteran of 30 years in the industry, I can attest there is a certain amount of truth in that depiction. It’s not necessarily that journalists are naturally grouchy and anti-social, it’s more that they’ve been trained to be that way: The disinterested third party. The one who tells you the story. The professional cynic.  

That is why news executives with roots as editors and reporters have problems understanding the potential of social networking.  

As more news organizations are seeing former and potential readers embrace sites such as Facebook and Twitter, they have recognized a need to be a part of it. Unfortunately, the results have been simply turning their social media presence into embellished RSS feeds. As a result, most news sites on Facebook and Twitter are like a first date with a pompous ass. They talk way too much about themselves, and aren’t interested in letting you have a say about anything. Then they can’t understand why you won’t go out with them again.  

They’re missing the ’social’ part of social networking.  

News sites on social networks must be more engaging with their followers. This means going beyond telling everyone what’s the cool story of the day or linking live to a press conference or major announcement. It means listening to your followers as well. The conversation needs to be two-way.  

But, as editors and reporters, we’ve been trained to be detached from the story, not be a part of it. As a result, most also become detached from their audiences as well. In order to make it in social media, we need to step down from the ivory tower and become an active participant in discussion and debate.  

Engaging your followers doesn’t need to be you saying “what’s up today?” on your post. For example, why not run a daily news events or trivia quiz on Twitter or Facebook? Or post a closeup of a notable landmark in your community and ask readers what it is? The first reply back with the right answer wins a small prize. Isn’t  building audience and loyalty worth a $10 Starbucks gift card every day?  

Advertising could tweet coupons for advertisers. Bring this tweet into our snack shop before 2 p.m. and get a free drink with your lunch order.  

Invite followers to post or tweet live from a local concert or key high school sports event. Make sure their responses are available for all to see. Conduct live interviews with notable people in your community, and invite questions and comments from your followers.  

Listen to your followers. Respond to a question from a follower — let them know you’re listening. On Twitter, if someone tweets a fact or news bit that would be interesting to your followers,  retweet them — even if that news is from a competitor. If you’ve built a good following, they won’t desert you.  

Above all, have a bit of fun with your followers. That’s what socializing is all about.  

This does mean that news organizations will need to commit manpower to their social network strategies. But, like all relationships, there needs to be a commitment involved. Ignore a relationship, and it goes away. Give it the basics and it may survive. Attend to and nurture a relationship, and it will blossom.  

And haven’t we said enough about ourselves?

New E&P owner’s ‘vital’ interest?

With last week’s purchase of Editor and Publisher by magazine publisher Duncan McIntosh, there was hope that the industry’s 126-year-old monitor could have a new life in helping the newspaper industry steer its way into calmer waters.

But after reading McIntosh’s comments in Folio, I have reason to think that may not be so. While the publisher may think the need for the journal is more vital than ever given the current state of the industry, there is apparently no plans to change the way it did business before it went under.

It looks like E&P’s new captain will keep the rudder pointed straight  And the rocks are closer.

Rising from the dead: E&P gets a second chance

It was nice to hear that Editor & Publisher, the 100-year-plus journal covering the newspaper industry that folded at the end of last year, was bought Thursday by Duncan McIntosh Co. and resumed operations immediately. The online version is up and running under the leadership of E&P veteran Mark Fitzgerald, and plans are to resume a monthly print edition beginning in February.

This is refreshing because, as I said last month, when the industry’s harbinger folds, does that become a harbinger for the industry?

Although E&P is back in business with a new owner, the real challenge now is to make it a viable, necessary tool for industry leaders and followers. After all, E&P’s first demise was not necessarily because of falling ad revenues in an industry suffering same, but it became irrelevant as the growth of online competition, such as Poynter’s Romenesko blog, took readers away. And although new features like the blogs written by Fitzgerald and staffer Jennifer Saba were good, they weren’t marketed well and became lost in the sea of media blogs.

If E&P is to survive its second life, it’ll need to be creative with new ways of distributing its content. Frankly, I don’t know of a single individual in my field who still has a subscription (I cancelled my 6 years ago after becoming a fan of Romenesko…back when it was still known as Media News).  Like the folks they cover, E&P is going to need to rely on new revenue models, because I don’t suspect Duncan McIntosh bought it with the idea to be its sugar daddy.

One idea would be to find a way to adapt the “E&Pinexile” blog written by suddenly unemployed E&P staffers. In the short time of their existence, they had build a blog that could easily rival the immediacy and credibility of Romenesko.  Then take these new ideas and deliver them in a format and timeliness that readers would be willing to pay a small price for. (An E&P iPhone app? Why not?)

E&P has been given a new life, which is good for it and good for the industry. Here’s hoping they can figure out how to stay healthy.

Focus on the core product

It’s refreshing to find others in the vast wasteland who are shouting the same thing as you. In this instance, Ty Ahmad-Taylor’s posting on what media companies are missing in developing audience doesn’t specifically target the  news industry, but his logic can certainly be applied to it .

The core product in the news industry is news – not newspapers; not television; not radio, not online. Those are simply methods of delivering the REAL product to customers. Customers have a preference for delivery, but what they are coming to you for is NEWS.

It’s amazes me why so many publishers fail to make this connection, and as a result come up with insane revenue ideas such as pay walls.

Misplaced values

Imagine General Motors bringing out an ad campaign that essentially says “remember those days you and your family would drive to the countryside in your Hummer? The fun?  The feeling of security as you drove in your steel-clad, gas-guzzling behemoth? Sure there are other, more efficient, green and safe vehicles out there today, but you can still get those feelings with a Hummer, so get rid of your Prius and buy one today.”

I get a similar impression as I read a series of editorials from my local newspaper touting “the value of newspapers.” (Here’s the most recent editorial which, ironically, you can find online). Give them credit for trying to sell the “value” of newspapers. Unfortunately, the value isn’t necessarily in the yellowed ink-on-paper example cited in the editorial, but the words or image that is captured on that medium.

In this particular example, it mentions finding a newspaper clipping in a scrapbook. I’d bet if we look at that same scrapbook, we’d find an old film photo (or, for some of us, an old Polaroid photo), also yellowed with age. The old photos bring back wonderful memories, but it’s the image, not the format, that we value.

Today, scrapbooks are more likely to be found in the form of albums posted on Facebook or numerous sharing sites like Flickr or Picasa. Likewise, Facebook and blogs are becoming the new refrigerator door as links, photos and passages of one’s personal and family history are held up to the world (or the world that the originator allows to enter).

And, if we need hard copies of that history, we can choose to run it out on our own printers.

These editorials, while noble, continue to show that some newspapers still don’t get it. The core product — the value — is in the content a newspaper (or any news organization) generates, not the ink-and-paper part. Instead of waxing nostalgic and hoping to shame a nation back into reading patterns of a half-century ago, newspapers should be redefining themselves to develop and sell content that is of value to the individual reader, not the mass audience.

Why, for example, aren’t more newspaper looking at modifying Amazon’s system of tracking customer patterns and making recommendations that might be of interest to them? Why not take that another step and develop a product that uses that model to deliver a personalized news product to a reader, on the platform he prefers, at a time that best suits his schedule? And, why not charge a subscription for that?

Why not use that information to develop laser-like audience targeting for advertisers? Why not help advertisers get their messages out through social networking as well as in print and online?  Why not provide advertisers with data that can help them support or modify their campaigns online and in print?

Or, why aren’t more newspapers adopting the “If you can’t beat Google, steal their thunder” model, going to news aggregation? Why aren’t more offering readers content that is both original and from other sources? And why not charge a subscription fee form that? (An aside: while writing this post, the Poynter Institute’s Al Tompkins posted a story about a former TV newsman who has done just that, and at a profit. Read it here.)

Why isn’t a national organization like NAA looking to create content sharing pacts among newspapers, allowing for a ”kickback” for sharing content from one organization to another to provide added value for readers?  Why aren’t newspapers offering products that allow transplanted readers to get information from their hometown, as well as from the community they now live in?

It’s past the time that newspapers break the bonds to paper. Paper is not where the value is.

Content is the golden egg. Focus on it and create new ways for readers to embrace it. Then sell that to your audience.

Now that’s something of value.

Miami Herald tries an online ‘tip jar’

I read with a bit of bemusement about the Miami Herald’s push to ask online readers for donations as their read stories on the website. The plea is subtle, with a button at the bottom of each story asking to  ”support ongoing news coverage on miamiherald.com” The link takes you to a more detailed page where, with a credit card, you can give as much as you wish.

At first, my colleagues and I reflected on how the industry has come to a point where we’re doing virtual panhandling (“Here’s a great story, buddy. Can you spare some change?”). Or, better yet, we’re adopting the Salvation Army business model to save the industry.

But,  after a few moments, I thought, “Well, why not?”

Certainly give the Herald credit for trying such an out-of-the-box idea to raise some revenues. With the sympathy/guilt factor beginning  to build for the newspaper industry, it could gain some momentum among newspaper web sites. It’s simple to set up and maintain, and is totally voluntary among the readership.

It is, in effect, an online tip jar. If a reader values what he’s just read — in the same way he values that perfect double-shot mocha the Starbucks barista just drew — he’s likely to drop some extra change into the jar.

But the key remains ‘value.’ Any waiter can tell you that the best tips come from outstanding service. If a newspaper expects to turn over revenue through this method, it must continue to look at what it is offering readers and assure that the content is unique and relevant. It must be of value to the reader in order for the reader to pay for it. There are still a lot of publishers out there that haven’t figured that part out.

I hope the Miami Herald find some success in this.  It won’t be the savior of the industry, but this has a lot of potential to provide a revenue stream.

And if it earn enough to keep at least one more journalist employed, then it’s definitely worth it.

E&P to close up shop. What’s next?

News item: Editor & Publisher to fold after 108 years of covering the newspaper industry.

Question of the day: When the industry harbinger closes, does that become a harbinger of the industry?

Some light in the vacuum of innovation

Two news items this week shine some light in the vacuum that has been innovation in the news industry:

* The announcement this week that Time Inc., Conde Nast, the Hearst Corporation, Meredith and the News Corporation are developing an industry standard electronic platform to display their wares. The interesting thing about this is not that they’ve developed something new that may be workable, but the fact that these five companies had the mettle to work together to come up with a platform that has the potential to bring give the industry a means to attract and maintain new readers, based on the readers’ demands.

Judging from the video, the new platform also recognizes the future of news means being able to tell a story in a number of formats: Words, videos, audio, interactive graphics and apps, etc:

* In San Francisco, a novelist and publisher is launching a broadsheet newspaper that takes the spirit of the Sunday paper — big, splashy, with expanded features including a book review section. It’s not cheap at $16 a copy, but the publisher hopes it will remind people of the potential of print.

Granted, the San Francisco venture is the trickier of the two — I believe you’ll need a lot to convince new readers of the potential of print — but again you have to give credit to anyone trying something new and different.

After viewing the demo of Time Inc and partners’ platform venture, it is quite splashy and cool. But I can also hear a cacophony of publishers, after  looking at both ventures,  say “that’s nice for magazines, but it won’t work for us.”

To which I say, ‘Why not?”

In today’s cable news/online/Twitter/Facebook world, newspapers have become irrelevant in being the source of breaking and up-to-date news. Most stories in the morning paper are 6 to 24 hours old,  which is well past its freshness date in the online world. To adapt to readers, print needs to redefine its content to what it can do best: Analysis, human interest features, trend pieces, watchdog journalism.

Sounds like a magazine, huh? Or, at least a Sunday paper?

I’ll wager that the electronic platform — if rolled out and marketed well — will be a winner with readers. We’re already seeing some interest among readers who are using Kindles-type readers. An open standard that could be shared by all — publishers and device makers — will save us from the ’standard wars’ that have plagued other technologies, such as high-def DVDs and videocassettes.

I also expect that, when said and done, the hardware and software costs will be far less what most publishers pay for their presses and supporting facilities.

It’s a good and smart gamble that could be the bridge to the next generation of news.

It’s nice to see someone finally stepping forward to lead the pack.

In the battle of the Titans, Google flinches

Is Internet juggernaut Google no match for Media Baron Von Murdoch? A day after the news mogul blasted Google and its ilk  for ’stealing stories’ and in turn taking away revenue from media organizations, the search engine released a statement that they would allow publishers to set a limit to the number of ‘free’ articles readers can access from news sites.

Murdoch has been the vocal leader in the move to put news content on lockdown. You want to read a story online? Put a dime in the jukebox, pal. No more freebies. The newspaper industry is on life support, and Murdoch’s response is to get the freeloading online customers to pay their fair share.

Google, on the other hand, has made a fortune in the ability to gather and supply customers with content harvested from the free range of  the Internet. By providing a service which has become ingrained in daily ritual for millions around the world,  Google is attractive to advertisers it its ability to identify customers and target with laser-sharp accuracy.

So why would Google give up some of its free range? Actually, it’s looks like a good business move. Considering Murdoch holds the reins of some of the biggest names in the news industry — and with clout to coerce others to follow — the concession to allow publishers to limit free time on their site still gives the search engine the ability to adapt and cultivate what is out there and free. Hey, if a paper throws up a fence around its content, it’s not Google’s fault. They’ll  find some other place for readers to graze.

What’s more baffling, however, is why Murdoch and company haven’t looked at Google and taken a  “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality.  Why haven’t newspapers realized that the draw is content — unique and verifiable — but the money is made the packaging and delivery to customers? Delivering content an individual wants, when and how he wants it, is far more efficient and doable than it was a decade ago.  And, as any business will tell you, customers are willing to pay a premium for something that is convenient and/or time-saving.

But until that revelation occurs, online content remains in this Cold War, and the industry continues to suffer as a result.