Do some Newsbrands want to charge for the right to lie to you?

August 17th, 2009

Is Journalism Online like Spotify? Which I posted about in networked economics comes to the music industry

The Journalism Online e-commerce system will offer a single account for users to access all the publishers’ websites and a range of payment options from pay-per-article, day passes and monthly and yearly subscriptions.

The question is whether in a networked economy, newsbrands can survive by still offering the same fare? Broadcasting, as in broadsheets were designed and built for a mass media, where deep specialisation, could not scale because of limits to production, distribution, language etc.,

In a superglobal networked economy, this no longer applies. Just look at the extraordinary success of Lauren Luke. Ok, shes not a newsbrand, but she offers specialisation.

For a deeper dive into my thoughts go to Life and commerce in the connectivity of the clouds

Nicholas Carr in his book the Big Switch takes the view that the most advanced uses of utility computing are aimed not at companies but us – people, individuals. I wonder what this implies for what media and commercial worlds we are creating? If we thought that the world we are in fact creating was already in 5th gear – I think we need to look at the stick shift to understand we are probably only in 2nd gear.

We are decoupling from the 19th and 20th Centuries – philosophically, technologically, culturally, and commercially. Creating a new society, always demands we destroy the old, as we pull our age out of the captivity of the last one.

Journalism Online was founded in April by Steven Brill, the journalist and journalism lecturer at Yale; Gordon Crovitz, a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal; and Leon Hindery, who heads the media industry fund InterMedia Partners.

They say they are acting to meet “the urgent need for a comprehensive, immediate plan to address the downward spiral in the business of publishing original, quality journalism”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. What this suggest to me is what happens when society goes through a painful process of transition, there is great resistance, based upon working harder and harder at the old ways of doing things, rather than standing in the flows of new possibilities. As Howard Rheingold said, don’t stand at the back of the queue of information, stand in its flow.

When the economy is shaken by a powerful set of new opportunities with the emergence of the next technological revolution, society is still strongly wedded to the old paradigm and its institutional framework. The world of computers, flexible production and the internet has a different logic and different requirements from those that facilitated the spread of the automobile, synthetic materials, mass production and the highway network. Suddenly in relation to the new technologies, the old habits and regulations become obstacles, the old services and infrastructures are found wanting, the old organisations and institutions inadequate. A new context must be created; a new ‘common sense’ must emerge and propogate.

And, Rob Grimshaw, managing director of FT.com, which already charges for its online content across a three-tiered paywall, says the BBC is a factor, “but has its own constraints”, such as its enforced politically neutral stance. He adds: “In general, we do not see any reasons why not to charge for content. But users will not pay for wire or press release copy.”

Now the real rub is in this statement, “In general, we do not see any reasons why not to charge for content. But users will not pay for wire or press release copy.“ Wire copy – Why should we pay for something that is, fabricated as news in one form or another?

Nick Davies in his book Flat Earth News excoriates the owners of newspapers (describing them as Grocers)because their interest is not about being local, its not about community, its not about quality journalism is about one thing and one thing only – MONEY – PROFIT AND SHAREHOLDER RETURN. And thats all well and good until the quality of the product is so inferior it devalues itself.

This is life in a news factory, says Davies whilst writing about one journalists experience of working for a local news paper.

These are corporations that think greatly about commerce and casually about journalism

This is the heart of modern journalism, the rapid repackaging of largely unchecked second-hand material, much of it designed to service the political or commercial interests of those that provide it

Robert McChesney, author of The problem of the media says in his preface,

The first myth is that media does not matter that much – that they merely reflect reality, rather than shape it. In fact, media are a social force in their own right, and not just a reflection of other forces. These are complex relationships, often difficult to disintangle, because media are so interwoven into the fabric of our lives

McChesney goes onto say that big business is standing firmly in the path of the ordinary joe to make a difference

The point of this claim is patently ideological – to retard the growing awareness among citizens that they can create a media system superior to the one that currently serves the needs of a handful of media corporations

And why would you want to pay for that?

John Hagel also explored the issues facing legacy newsbrands, he lists a number of key criteria:

1). Shifts from advertising placed in digital content to ads placed in social networks and applications?

2). Shifts from digital advertisements delivered through conventional PC?s to a growing array of mobile devices, with an increasing ability to target messages based on the physical location of the person?

3). Shifts in the behavior of digital users in their responsiveness to advertisements online?

4). Shifts in the way that companies connect with and build relationships with stakeholders (e.g., blurring boundaries between customers, partners and suppliers)?

5). Shifts in the revenue models for businesses, as online businesses in particular become more and more dependent on advertising as a key revenue source (e.g., is there any Web 2.0 start-up that doesn?t blithely answer ?advertising? when asked about their revenue model?).

Hagels message to advertisers is that they should be able to genuinely engage people around their products and services. And to do so in such a compelling way that people seek them out ? and keep coming back because they have received so much value. What we describe as Engagement Marketing.

The transition is almost too painful to watch – but the reason is dead simple – The management of these companies just can’t grasp the fundamentals of living in a digitally networked society. The profound implications of living in a pull not a push economy pass them by like faint shadows.

They fail to grasp the fact that the media is now embedded in society as social media, that we live in a participatory culture, and they have failed to grasp the possibilities of how data, its collection and refinement could in fact be a key aspect to its survival.

In a paper I am preparing for Nokia on data analytics I write

What companies will be creating, using and selling in the near future is what is described as Social Marketing Intelligence. The more unique the “intelligence” extracted from the raw material of multiple data flows, the more valuable that “intelligence” becomes to a number of parties. Unique and valuable intelligence = $$$.

Or it could be that the process of evolution is so traumatic it just can’t be achieved – leaving the door open to new competitors – without the baggage to get on with the job. Lets face it – if you had been a scribe all your life, cosetted, fed. clothed etc., – why change that for the nonsense they call the printing press?

Traditional media have to learn how to engage or they will die. In that post I highlight my own views on some broader issues facing traditional media:

[1] We live in a Read & Write culture

[2] We live in a participatory culture

Convergence is a cultural phenomenon not a technological one

[3] We live in a search economy and a semantic universe and refined data transforms how brands and people can find each other in more meaningful ways

[4] We live in the networked society Which also encompasses the glittering allure of the mobile society

This transformation Yochai Benkler argued is structural – challenging how businesses and markets will co-evolve over the oncoming decades.

[5] The networked society and the Read & Write culture dramatically alter the power relationships between society the media, and organisations.

“In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomised but connected ‘up’ to Big Media, but not, across to each other, and now that authority is eroding”, says Journalism Professor Jay Rosen

[6] That communication technology is political

Communication power, says Manuel Castells is at the heart of the structure and dynamics of society. By which he means, who has and who wields that power, can transform society. Communication technology is at the very heart of this current transformation of society – because we are seeking meaningful communication with each other, something that traditional media has failed to grasp, or crassly deployed it via Pop Idol and the X-Factor. The reality is that there there are consequences to this evolution.

[7] That interruptive, display, and image advertising is the junk mail of the 21st Century.

[8] There is no online and offline, there is no analogue vs. digital there is only blended reality – the crisis comes when there is No connectivity. Business models must reflect that fact. This has implications for how organisations construct themselves.

[9] The language and therefore the literacy that defines this networked society is different to the straight line, siloed, industrial mass media, mass consumer language and literacy.

[10] Business value is defined by (a) being: life-enabling, life-simplifying and navigational (help me navigate through the complexity of my life), (b) business models are hybrid, (c) the 4C’s: commerce, culture, community, connectivity.

Spotify, World of warcfraft, Apple Apps, Cyworld, enabling mobile services like; Girlswalker or Help Networks in Japan , are all representative of the digital elixiar of networked economics. And all these business models represent the “augmentation of information” plus, the “augmentation of experience.”

But this has become a political issue, not merely a commercial one. What we read, how we read it, who distributes it, who controls it – has become of critical importance. Franz Fanon, famously said, “a people will only be free when they control their own communications”. Take this for example, an article about Barack Obama, and the unleashing of extremist views, inflamed by the Republicans fanning the embers of poverty, identity, and social breakdown.

The cacophony of gibes and unfounded claims is loudest, however, on rightwing TV and radio. Fox News presenter Glenn Beck, who last week came to British attention following a negative interview about the NHS with Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, has claimed Obama dislikes white people. “This guy is, I believe, a racist,” Beck said. Beck has also discussed allegations that Obama is setting up a network of secret internment camps and joked about poisoning Democratic congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh, whose weekly radio show is listened to by millions of Americans, has compared the Democrats to the Nazi party. Perhaps taking him at his word, some healthcare protesters have carried signs featuring swastikas and Obama with a “Hitler” moustache.

Who is Fox owned by? Rupert Murdoch. What is it exactly I am paying for Mr Murdoch? Where is your credibility in the networked society?

Bookmarks: