Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Magazines may suffer from newspaper paywalls
Good post from Peter Kirwan of Press Gazette on the potential revenue generated from newspaper paywalls (based on some actual numbers and calculations!) and the possibility that this might, somehow, damage magazines.
Kirwan's thesis that the success of paywalls will depend on providing niche content that appeals to specific groups/communities of interest is undoubtedly correct; his observation that many magazine publishers can't or won't engage properly with the digital platform is also correct; but will gigantic beasts such as newspapers really be able to cover the full spectrum of magazine interests? That's probably not right. However, the big beasts of B2B might need to pull their fingers out. On the other hand Reed Business Information, surely the biggest beast in this field, is already well engaged with digital.
Kirwan's thesis that the success of paywalls will depend on providing niche content that appeals to specific groups/communities of interest is undoubtedly correct; his observation that many magazine publishers can't or won't engage properly with the digital platform is also correct; but will gigantic beasts such as newspapers really be able to cover the full spectrum of magazine interests? That's probably not right. However, the big beasts of B2B might need to pull their fingers out. On the other hand Reed Business Information, surely the biggest beast in this field, is already well engaged with digital.
Labels: B2B, community, digital revenue, magazines, political economy
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Amazon of the media, the printing press and storytelling
Once upon a time Johannes Gutenberg invented (or re-invented, or perfected) the printing press with moveable type. For a long, long time the press he designed and made was THE printing technology.
Then other people modified and improved the press and the type, used new materials that made it all more durable or easier to use or more efficient, and their presses and type expanded the market.
Then a clever person (or people) devised a way to separate type and press, so that the text could be set up separately and combined with the press in a different way that was more efficient again. As Adam Smith would have predicted, this increased output further. It also allowed presses to become faster, driven first by steam and then by electricity.
Then the mechanical typesetting systems were replaced by electronic ones, and then the electronic versions were made simpler and easier and this process collided with the miniaturisation of computers, leading to desktop publishing that put the compositors and proof-readers out of business.
And now, as Marshall McLuhan would have predicted, the press has become a fully electric artefact, incorporated invisibly into the code that drives a computer and its screen.
At each stage there was upheaval and realignment; people who did old things had to learn to do new things or be pushed aside by the inevitability of technological progress.
And at each stage, as old business opportunities and models died away, new ones took their place.
The people who made the real money were those who owned the means of production, as Karl Marx would have predicted, by which they could introduce those with something to sell to those who had the money to buy – and charge both sides. The bait was "journalism" (ie stories) and they needed to employ other people to do the actual production (printers, compositors, journalists), so the money got spread around a bit, and they continued to grow partly by taking over or driving out smaller, less capitalised businesses.
We can see that something major is happening now, and even though we can't see the outcome, the process follows a similar pattern.
A clever man (or men, or people) invents the electronic press (internet protocol), someone invents a way to both locate and distribute the products of that press (search: AltaVista, Dogpile), then someone else invents a better, more efficient, way (Google). So far, the people who have made a bit of money out of this are the equipment suppliers (routers, servers, personal computers) and the businesses that have managed to combine search and advertising (basically Google to date).
At the same time, because the means of production have become much more widely available, capital and the accumulation of income have also become more widely (and thinly) distributed.
The question for journalists then becomes either "Who will pay me to produce?" or "How can I tap into the current streams of revenue?"
(This leaves aside questions about the role of the press as the Fourth Estate, and editorial workers as Gate Keepers and all that – perhaps those roles are relativistic.)
If the previous patterns show us anything useful, it is that someone will invent a new way of harvesting the potential – but also that many new ways of harvesting will be discovered. And if the shitstream (Copyright: Dr Daniel Meadows) of the internet tells us anything it is that people still love stories, telling their own and consuming other people's.
So here's one thing for all journalists to cling on to: Find the best stories.
Then other people modified and improved the press and the type, used new materials that made it all more durable or easier to use or more efficient, and their presses and type expanded the market.
Then a clever person (or people) devised a way to separate type and press, so that the text could be set up separately and combined with the press in a different way that was more efficient again. As Adam Smith would have predicted, this increased output further. It also allowed presses to become faster, driven first by steam and then by electricity.
Then the mechanical typesetting systems were replaced by electronic ones, and then the electronic versions were made simpler and easier and this process collided with the miniaturisation of computers, leading to desktop publishing that put the compositors and proof-readers out of business.
And now, as Marshall McLuhan would have predicted, the press has become a fully electric artefact, incorporated invisibly into the code that drives a computer and its screen.
At each stage there was upheaval and realignment; people who did old things had to learn to do new things or be pushed aside by the inevitability of technological progress.
And at each stage, as old business opportunities and models died away, new ones took their place.
The people who made the real money were those who owned the means of production, as Karl Marx would have predicted, by which they could introduce those with something to sell to those who had the money to buy – and charge both sides. The bait was "journalism" (ie stories) and they needed to employ other people to do the actual production (printers, compositors, journalists), so the money got spread around a bit, and they continued to grow partly by taking over or driving out smaller, less capitalised businesses.
We can see that something major is happening now, and even though we can't see the outcome, the process follows a similar pattern.
A clever man (or men, or people) invents the electronic press (internet protocol), someone invents a way to both locate and distribute the products of that press (search: AltaVista, Dogpile), then someone else invents a better, more efficient, way (Google). So far, the people who have made a bit of money out of this are the equipment suppliers (routers, servers, personal computers) and the businesses that have managed to combine search and advertising (basically Google to date).
At the same time, because the means of production have become much more widely available, capital and the accumulation of income have also become more widely (and thinly) distributed.
The question for journalists then becomes either "Who will pay me to produce?" or "How can I tap into the current streams of revenue?"
(This leaves aside questions about the role of the press as the Fourth Estate, and editorial workers as Gate Keepers and all that – perhaps those roles are relativistic.)
If the previous patterns show us anything useful, it is that someone will invent a new way of harvesting the potential – but also that many new ways of harvesting will be discovered. And if the shitstream (Copyright: Dr Daniel Meadows) of the internet tells us anything it is that people still love stories, telling their own and consuming other people's.
So here's one thing for all journalists to cling on to: Find the best stories.
Labels: amazon, audience, Cardiff Journalism School, community, development, digital revenue, media jobs, online, print journalism, readertorial, web 2.0
Friday, June 27, 2008
Readertorial in action, or How to save Print (1)
In a previous entry I mooted the possibility of opening up your print publication to the readers. In the course of my usual digging around I have discovered a project, in California (of course) which is actually doing just this. The interesting thing is that the print product has been reverse engineered from an online entity. Read Don Pacheco's article about the project, or go to the website that allows you to participate.
Print from online – is it just me or does that sound a bit like watching sport on the tv while listening to the radio commentary?
Print from online – is it just me or does that sound a bit like watching sport on the tv while listening to the radio commentary?
Labels: audience, community, print journalism, print magazines, readertorial, web 2.0
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Readertorial: or, how a magazine can let go of content and trust its readers
Years ago when I worked for Emap, David Arculus –who was a big boss then and is an even bigger boss now – like to come up with pithy mottos. One was 'Recession means opportunity' (might come in handy again soon but not my concern here), another was 'People don't work for money'. This is perhaps easier for a well rewarded manager to believe than, say, a receptionist, but nevertheless there is a truth in it, especially where us creative types are concerned.
Thus, turning to the magnificent Clay Shirky's recent meditation on gin and the industrial revolution and David Cushman's persuasive look at the value of networks, then putting them together with the news that Vogue.com will relaunch with mash-up features and staid, staunch Hello is dipping its toe into the waters of reader-generated blogging, I come to the conclusions that
a) Web 2.0 has reached the tipping point of accepability and
b)magazine readers will work for nothing, that indeed they are eager to, provided certain conditions are met.
They always have wanted to contribute, of course, and often for nothing but the tools now exist to let them do even more. This is not in any way akin to allowing the lunatics to take over the asylum, just in case you were worried; more like making sure the campers are inside the tent pissing out.
So, what are those conditions?
• Your magazine (product/brand/whatever you want to call it) must be well loved; this is a given for hundreds if not thousands of titles
• You must provide the tools for readers to be able to create; it's got to be widgets-a-go-go
• You must not be afraid of stepping outside your brand silo and making use of Flickr, YouTube, Facebook and whatever else is going
• You must be prepared to start meaningful conversations with people who appear to have some kind of beef against your title
• Err, that's it (for the moment)
As Professor Shirky has pointed out elsewhere, Web 2.0 material does get edited – after it has been uploaded. If it's not popular it will sink to the bottom; if it's good – and your readers will be judging this – it will rise to the top.
This is still a work in progress.
Update 1: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2007/07/cant-make-money-with-content-make-money.html
Thus, turning to the magnificent Clay Shirky's recent meditation on gin and the industrial revolution and David Cushman's persuasive look at the value of networks, then putting them together with the news that Vogue.com will relaunch with mash-up features and staid, staunch Hello is dipping its toe into the waters of reader-generated blogging, I come to the conclusions that
a) Web 2.0 has reached the tipping point of accepability and
b)magazine readers will work for nothing, that indeed they are eager to, provided certain conditions are met.
They always have wanted to contribute, of course, and often for nothing but the tools now exist to let them do even more. This is not in any way akin to allowing the lunatics to take over the asylum, just in case you were worried; more like making sure the campers are inside the tent pissing out.
So, what are those conditions?
• Your magazine (product/brand/whatever you want to call it) must be well loved; this is a given for hundreds if not thousands of titles
• You must provide the tools for readers to be able to create; it's got to be widgets-a-go-go
• You must not be afraid of stepping outside your brand silo and making use of Flickr, YouTube, Facebook and whatever else is going
• You must be prepared to start meaningful conversations with people who appear to have some kind of beef against your title
• Err, that's it (for the moment)
As Professor Shirky has pointed out elsewhere, Web 2.0 material does get edited – after it has been uploaded. If it's not popular it will sink to the bottom; if it's good – and your readers will be judging this – it will rise to the top.
This is still a work in progress.
Update 1: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2007/07/cant-make-money-with-content-make-money.html
Labels: audience, community, magazine, magazines, readership, tipping point, web 2.0
Friday, April 25, 2008
Magazines: writing for the reader or the community?
It is a standard trope in magazine journalism training that we put "the reader" first; that we always write for "the reader". If this is really so then shifting to a Web 2.0 philosophy of publishing for a "community" shouldn't be a problem, for what is a community but a bunch of readers? If "the reader" always comes first, then "the reader" decides what is good and what is bad – not the writer, not the editor, not the publisher. Translate reader into community and you have the possibility of a networked decision rather than a mass of discrete individual decisions.
But, of course, it hasn't been "the reader" who has come first in reality. It has been the corporate entity that publishes the magazine. The idea of "the reader" has long been circumscribed by limitations that are not always transparent to "the reader":
• there have to be enough readers to make publication commercially worthwhile
• there have to be advertisers who want to reach them
• there have to be all sorts of deals along the distribution system to allow them to get their magazines
• there have not to be all sorts of counter-deals (spoiler tactics of various sorts; buying up all the shelf space) to allow the magazines to get into retail outlets
and so on.
When all is said and done, the printed magazine is a non-editable, non-selectable, previously filtered, handing-down-the-tablets-of wisdom, broadcast entity. The much vaunted research that big publishers do before a major launch or during re-launch preparations are, looked at through the other end of the telescope, an attempt to define the community that will want to buy the magazine.
This approach still works. All the new ways of consuming media do not suddenly negate the old ways, just as all the new ways of marketing do not negate the old ways. What has changed is that these methods are now only effective for the last generation of publishing, and they do not work so well for networked communities.
That's where we're going ...
This posting is a work in progress, after my synapses got fired up reading one of David Cushman's postings on Faster Future: this one.
But, of course, it hasn't been "the reader" who has come first in reality. It has been the corporate entity that publishes the magazine. The idea of "the reader" has long been circumscribed by limitations that are not always transparent to "the reader":
• there have to be enough readers to make publication commercially worthwhile
• there have to be advertisers who want to reach them
• there have to be all sorts of deals along the distribution system to allow them to get their magazines
• there have not to be all sorts of counter-deals (spoiler tactics of various sorts; buying up all the shelf space) to allow the magazines to get into retail outlets
and so on.
When all is said and done, the printed magazine is a non-editable, non-selectable, previously filtered, handing-down-the-tablets-of wisdom, broadcast entity. The much vaunted research that big publishers do before a major launch or during re-launch preparations are, looked at through the other end of the telescope, an attempt to define the community that will want to buy the magazine.
This approach still works. All the new ways of consuming media do not suddenly negate the old ways, just as all the new ways of marketing do not negate the old ways. What has changed is that these methods are now only effective for the last generation of publishing, and they do not work so well for networked communities.
That's where we're going ...
This posting is a work in progress, after my synapses got fired up reading one of David Cushman's postings on Faster Future: this one.
Labels: community, magazine, magazines, readership
