Yearly Archives: 2007

04.02.07
by

Adopt the mantra “Change or Die”

I’d really missed Tim Porter the last year. He had all but stopped blogging at First Draft as book work took precedent. But, it’s good to see him not only blogging again but also releasing his book. From the first look over on PressThink, Tim and Michele McLellan have produced the kind of clarion call for change that I had come to enjoy from Tim’s posts on First Draft. I really like in the post that they focused both on management and staff.

Management needs to focus on how to foster change, they said.

Many newspapers editors found themselves in the ranks of management somewhat by chance. They were good at their previous job – reporting, say, or copy editing – and got tapped for a promotion. They adapted to the duties – and adopted the values – of their new jobs, becoming decisive, directive and demanding, good for driving a fast-paced environment like a newsroom, but less useful in leading organizational change.

I’m one of those accidental managers, even though I don’t really see myself as managing anything. Although I’m an editor, of sorts, I don’t really see my managerial role as pushing people to do something. I’ve never seen that strategy work. I’d much rather blaze trails and lead by doing. That’s what I’ve been good at during my career. I really see my job not as a blogs editor but as a digital journalism evangelist. Participation and engagement just happen to be part of the mix of digital journalism. Passion can be infectious. Success is inspirational, and if managers take risks, it gives their staff permission to innovate.

Tim and Michele also have some great bullet points for staff as well. They talk about the newsroom of the past, and contrast that with the journalist of the future who will:

  • Take initiative and responsibility at all levels.
  • Enjoy brainstorming and trying new things.
  • Learn even from failed experiments.
  • Adopt “Change or Die” as a mantra.

There is a lot of hand wringing about the future of newspapers and journalism, but here we have yet another blueprint for how to not only survive but thrive in the future. Add Tim to your RSS feeds. He won’t disappoint. He’s definitely one of my heroes.

03.30.07
by

If you want engagement, be ready to engage

I just spent the last hour have a very enjoyable time writing a post on the Guardian’s News blog about the ‘hack’ of John McCain’s MySpace page. I put hack in quotes because I really don’t like how the media uses the term. It’s very unsophisticated, and they usually mean breaking into computers you don’t have permission to use.

But the defacement of John McCain’s MySpace page is sure to go down as Mike Davidson, the ‘hacker’ and CEO of NewsVine, has dubbed it: The ‘immaculate hack’.

Mike gives Team McCain some criticism that rings true for political candidates but also for many news organisations who believe their staff needn’t be involved in their communities:

But then I read the article in today’s Newsweek about how politicians are all setting up MySpace pages in order to “connect” with younger audiences. McCain’s MySpace page is listed, as are the pages from several other candidates. I think the idea of politicians setting up MySpace pages and pretending to actually use them is a bit disingenuous, so I figured it was time to play a little prank on Johnny Mac.

Todd Zeigler in this post at the Bivings Report put it more directly:

This is another example of the point I made in my last post: if campaigns are going to play in these social communities they need to understand the rules and respect the culture.

It’s pretty easy to see through these cheap ploys, and they feel disingenuous. Setting up a static page on a social networking site actually makes it look even more static, not at all interactive. Just by being in MySpace, or having a Twitter feed or putting the odd video up on YouTube doesn’t make a media organisation more interactive if you don’t actually interact.

Publishing on an interactive platform is still just publishing. What happens when people ask your ‘content’ questions, and there isn’t a human being there to answer? Well, at the very least, nothing happens. People get bored and go away. But, sometimes bad things happen, especially when you’re not particularly clueful with your approach and don’t understand the space. If you want community and participation, be ready to participate.

03.30.07
by

links for 2007-03-30

03.29.07
by

links for 2007-03-29

03.26.07
by

links for 2007-03-26

03.26.07
by

Mini rant: Stop calling everything a blog!

Ok, I just looked up from desk and saw a segment on Sky News called Business Blog. What the hell is so bloggy about a business reporter sitting behind a desk on the telly? NOTHING! So stop calling it a blog.

Oh, but wait you say, Michael Wilson does have a blog on Typepad, buried somewhere in the sub-basement on the Sky News website right around the corner from janitor’s loo. Great! More news sushi! Just chop up what you would normally do and dump it on a blog.

What is interactive about this? Nothing. How is this engaging your audience? It’s not. Transparency? Nope. Easy for the gob on a stick (what some TV producers call the ‘talent’)? Possibly. Bottom line, what is compelling about this for the audience? Nothing. It will fail.

What I’m about to say may sound ridiculous coming from a ‘Blogs Editor’, but there is nothing magical about blog software – it’s just a really easy content-management system with comments. Just dumping content into a blog isn’t going to entice the masses to come round and participate. You actually have to engage with the audience, not just produce more flat boring content.

If you want to start a conversation with people, stop talking at them and start talking with them. Follow them sometimes, not the news agenda all the time. Link out. Link to blogs not just other news sites. Kick off a conversation. Don’t just ask: “What do you think?”

You can have the best technology and still fail because your content is stuck in the age of publishing, not the age of participation. And for chrissakes, stop calling everything a blog because you think a bit of branding is all it takes.

03.23.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: The future of media?

Session Chair: Nick Higham, correspondent, BBC News

Andy Duncan, chief executive, Channel 4

Tom Loosemore, project director, Web 2.0, BBC

Alan Rushbridger, editor, The Guardian

Ok, I’ll be have be on my best blogging game now with the Editor – as he’s simply known as at the Guardian – speaking. He started off with one of his famous abstract presentation images – think Kandinsky does PowerPoint – that showed the blue line of depressing, falling print profits, the red line of rising online profits and an amorphous green bubble where most media organisations are. A little star in the bubble showed the current location of the Guardian with respect to the profit decline, profit growth curves.

Next, Alan pulled out an electronic reader from Illiad. It is a screen that has wonderful resolution and looks like paper. They are wonderful things, but it’s impossible to predict what form journalism will be delivered in the future.

One year on, and the depressing abstract graph has moved on a little bit. And then he showed that the Guardian is competing not just against the Telegraph and the Times but against the New York Times, Yahoo, Google, Oh My News and just about everyone. And the move has been from one platform – print – to a multiplicity of platforms. We’re also mixing sources of content from our own journalists to a broader mix of content from users and our communities.

Ten years on, we hope the increase in online profits then surpasses the declining print profits. Although Alan showed this a lot better than I did – aging a few media moguls with a little Photoshop magic and the addition of white hair. He also wondered out loud what media organisations would fade as their owners aged, and their children took less interest in running media businesses.

Next up, Tom Loosemore. I have only met Tom a few times, but I really like his ideas. I remember Tom, Nico Flores and me sharing lunch with Jeff Jarvis last summer. It was one of the more interesting lunches I had at the Beeb.

Tom said that the BBC is cutting itself some slack, especially when it comes to be in the middle of Alan’s green bubble. Many of the assumptions that we built our business around are gone. The ability to copy digital media perfectly has fundamentally changed our models.

We are right at the top of the hype curve when it comes to Second Life, but it’s not crucial to focus on technology but on behaviours, especially people we used to find were our audience. When you look at young people, technology doesn’t really exist until they are 15.

When you look at the young early adopters, you see amazing changes. They see media as self expression, identity and empowerment. They use media on their terms. If it is not on their terms, they either nick it, ignore it or make it on their own.

What has changed in media is who is charge, who is control. I think we need to be honest on how much previous popularity of media was down to quality and how much was down to control. There used to be only so many channels. There is only so much room on newstands for so many newspapers and magazines. Was that content that good?

This is a generation that will not give control back. At the BBC, he says they have to balance the needs of his great aunt who thinks that BBC 2 is a little risque and his son. If he really wants to punish his son, he doesn’t take away the TV, he unplugs the router. The BBC has to succeed in making the licence fee payer believe that £130 a year is really good value.

We’re in a state of flux, but this is not the death throes of media. Those that win will take the long term view. Those who win will give up control gracefully.

Andy Duncan of Channel 4 spoke next. I’m not going to waste space writing up his talk. He spent the first 5 minutes making a pointless rebuttal of an article in G2 that asked: “What’s the point of Channel 4?” What was the point of his talk, more like. Obviously he sees a future in government, because after that he launched into a content-free mumble notable only for its cliches about progress and the role of media in the future of the British economy. It reminded me of Kang’s speech in the Simpsons when he and Kodo take over the bodies of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and run for president:

We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

That’s about the level of vision and inspiration that we’re talking about here. He of course spiced up his ill-prepared, or at least, ill-delivered comments with a few buzzwords like UGC and mobile community, oh and, of course, a radio station in Second Life. But that really was it. “We’re in a multi-channel world.” Duh? “Competition is growing.” Duh? Ben Hammersley and I liberated a couple of bottles of beer early from the drinks reception just to deaden the boredom.

Maybe he was playing it close to the vest lest he give away his strategy to his competitors. That would be the generous interpretation. Maybe he is just a poor public speaker. Maybe he’s just clueless. But I was left thinking to myself: What exactly does it take to become the chief executive of a media company?

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled round up. Nick Higham asked Tom: Well, the BBC surely can’t cede control, can it?

Tom responded by saying that this generation was much more media literate than we were giving them credit for.

Trusting content because of the means of distribution is over.

Nick asked whether the reader comments on Comment is Free would blow the Guardian’s brand proposition “out of the water”.

Alan said that journalists are struggling with the fact that they are not the only ones who know things. There is a danger that it might capsize the brand, but “there is something about the way the community moderates themselves”. And the Guardian did some internal subjective review of the comments, rating them on a five star scale, and most comments were in fact, high quality, with ratings of four and five stars.

The first question came from Patrick Smith of the Press Gazette and asked if there was still a role for the journalist. Alan said that there was still a place for an ‘unpolluted supply of journalism that people can trust’. But he added that it was not right to think that people in newsrooms in Wapping, Kensington or Farringdon were the only people who knew things.

Tom said that journalists now had a fantastic range of new sources, but he added that great editors had become more important not less.

Suw and I are considering writing a little round up of our thoughts. We’ve noticed a few early interesting items in our trackbacks asking why the conversation seems to have stalled or is getting a bit repetitive. Hugh Martin asked why I blogged here and I didn’t blog on the Guardian blogs, seeing as I’m the Guardian blogs editor. I have responded on his blog, but he has approved my comment yet so I’ll respond here.

I blog on Guardian blogs when I go to conferences, but if there are other Guardian staff blogging, then I usually write here. Also, Suw and I tend to write notes ‘with the eye of a stenographer‘ or ‘amazing near transcript quality‘, which is a bit different than the Guardian blog style. And I hope our little public service makes up for what this blogger felt was too high of cost for a ticket, shutting out citizen journalists and others.

Now, Hugh’s point is taken when it comes to my relatively low profile on Guardian blogs, and as I said in my as yet to be published comment, I’ve spent much of my first six months behind the scenes working on the tech, making sure it’s ready to support our editorial goals. But, I know that I need to be involved in community, not just poking at servers and software in the background. That will change soon enough.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

03.22.07
by

Guardian Changing Media: Will IPTV change TV forever?

Session Chair: Nick Higham, correspondent, BBC News

Merlin Lilley, head of airtime management, Channel 4

Anthony Lilley, CEO, Magic Lantern Productions

Griff Parry, director of broadband and mobile, Sky Networked Media

Dr Abe Peled, chairman and CEO, NDS Group

Marc Watson, commercial director, BT Vision

Marc Watson of BT said they have 5,000 customers. The product is a hybrid set top box, a free set top box that has Freeview channels and BT broadband line – content, interactive services, games. We are progressing to spring launch.

NH: Are you a rival to conventional broadcasters?

MW: We’re an alternative to those platforms. What we found. Big gap between analogue and free services and subscription services. There is a big gap in the middle. People want extra services but not keen to subscribe. They can then access on demand content. People will be able to buy content at a discreet prices like premiership football, children programming and niche programming.

NH: Advertising or payment supported?

MW: Content that is free to access to the customer but has advertising wrapped around.

NH: Where will you get your money?

MW: We think that there is premium content that people will pay for. Sports, premium movies and adult content.

NH: Griff, is Sky worried about this?

GP: We tend to see this as suped up Freeview. We think the world is an interesting place right now. We’re moving from a world as far as television is concerned from a single platform to a multi-platform world. We tend to lean towards a world that follows customers. We expect linear channels to be a big part of the world, and we expect broadcast to be a big part of that world. I’ll start with Sky Plus. IPTV is often synonymous with on-demand. But we have SkyPlus and Sky on demand mobile.

Mobile is a different case, was launched as and conceived as pay-for service.

NH: Impact of DVR?

GP: I think the impact of DVR is over-stated. People still respond to ads.

People understand IPTV to mean on-demand.

NH: What is Channel 4 doing?

MI: We’re doing Freeview, BT, advertising paid for catch up and paid for catch. I think that Apple TV will be really big.

AP: Convergence is not can I watch TV on my PC but convergence of linear and on demand content. On demand is the ideal medium for niche content. Moving from a world where there were few terrestrial channels to gradually eroding. People can open window on a host of other content.

The main issues seemed to be whether subscription or advertising would support programming. What is the best model for on demand? Is scheduled programming dead? How are content producers going to be reimbursed? Will these new distribution channels support the production of content? I’ve heard these issues before.

Moving from channels to shops and to social networks, Anthony Lilley said. The business models have to converge, not necessarily the technology. One of the major challenges for industry and regulator (OFCOM) that you can’t simply slowly progress in this world. You have to have access to better material, more well tagged material. You can’t think the watershed will continue to work. The watershed is the time after which content deemed not fit for children can be broadcast in the UK. More than 25% of children know their parents’ PIN number to unlock age-restricted content, OFCOM has found.

Question from advertising agency about impact of Apple TV?

AP: They may be trying to do the same thing they did with iPods. Pay for razor, but give razor blades away for free. Most iPods only have paid content equivalent to one CD. Most of the rest of the content is ripped from CDs.

Jo Twist, recently returned to the BBC, asked about closed versus open systems. Closed systems have failed. Mobile systems haven’t shown as much innovation because of the closed nature of the platforms. She asked about how to tie in social networking such as possibly using Alcatel’s Amigo.

Jo, Jemima Kiss, Suw and I have talked about the divide here. Jo is getting upset as the Sky guy just called Sky an aggregator. Corporations are using the language, but that is only the first step in cultural change. They are still trying to dress up old business models, sometimes merely with new buzzwords (like micro-chunking) without adapting to new business realities.