MagBlog

The following block quote is taken from a comment on the piece Cory Doctorow wrote for Technology Guardian, about Rupert Murdoch's plans to block online access to his newspapers (sorry, the newspapers he has some vague connection with that are run according to the whims of their editors and over which he has no influence). chrsoz, the comment's author, addresses a number of points that Murdoch seems to have overlooked, then adds:

And none of this starts to touch on the fact that most traditional media co web sites are dull one-dimensional experiences (article + advertising - any decent community engagement (inc useless closed comment systems, ahem) = yawn), that really just mimic the newspaper in an online environment, without bringing any significant additional value to the party. So unless Rupe (and others) sorts this rather fundamental issue out then he's doomed anyway (if managing the digital business transition doesn't kill them first; maybe ereaders will save the day). Better get good at creating compelling and valuable consumer internet experiences, and not just being all about publishing articles online (otherwise they'll just get displaced by a new generation of way more innovative media companies who can fuse content + community + services + utility + monetisation).

I have written about magazines and newspapers simply reproducing their print content online (see Writing for Journalists, over to the right) rather than creating digitally native material, but chrsoz summarises the principle behind successful online publishing beautifully in his last sentence:

content + community + services + utility + monetisation

Next time I give my "launching a magazine" lecture, I shall make sure to use this simple-looking formula. Of course achieving it is not simple at all ... and therefore it could make the basis for another book. Thanks indeed chrsoz.

chrsoz's Guardian user profile

Labels: digital revenue, magazines, online, political economy, Value theory, web 2.0

B2B publisher considers the value of information online. His conclusion? It all depends on how valuable the reader thinks it is. This conclusion may fall into the NSS category but it's interesting that someone inside the industry is saying it. (As reported in Press Gazette)

My conclusion? Everyone is going to have to work harder at digging out stories that the readers find valuable and getting ... what's that word? ... ah yes, scoops.

Hey – maybe this online thing could be good for journalism!

Labels: B2B, digital revenue, Emap, online, political economy

[AOL's] plan would be to build and buy scores of new brands in every monetizable niche possible. If you see a magazine at the newsstand covering a topic, AOL will have their own online brand for that topic, in blog or other format. They’ve already got the publishing platform with MediaGlow. New brands can be inserted or built at little marginal operating cost. And the talent is out there for the taking right now.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Daring to Dream of a Resurgent AOL (nytimes.com)
• Interview: AOL's Levick: 'Platform-A Didn't Make Us Work Better; It Just Made Clients Confused' (paidcontent.org)
• A resurrection for the AOL brand? (news.cnet.com)
• David Weir: 'Is AOL on a mission to save journalism?' (blogs.journalism.co.uk)

Labels: men's magazines, niche publishing, online, political economy, web 2.0

Honey magazine has made a comeback! Look: http://www.honeymag.com/

Labels: Honey, magazines, online

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.

Labels: amazon, audience, Cardiff Journalism School, community, development, digital revenue, media jobs, online, print journalism, readertorial, web 2.0

Reading a Guardian Money article about the online retailer triggered a question: what would be the media equivalent of Amazon?
This was the specific paragraph that got me thinking:

It suggests that shopping around the net in the traditional way - searching out the cheapest price for each individual purchase at price comparison websites and then ordering from a raft of different retailers - may now be redundant. Many online competitors have decided that if you can't beat them, join them. Amazon invites other retailers into its "marketplace", allowing it to offer prices that, even if they are not sourced by Amazon itself, are some of the cheapest on the net. Rival Pixmania.com now sells through Amazon, while Marks & Spencer and Mothercare have subcontracted Amazon to power their own websites.

So far I have not developed the thought at all but I can say that the equivalent would not be like a "portal", even though the principle could be interpreted that way. It's probably closer to Sky or Freeview, a service that offers many other services; a one-stop point of choice.

Perhaps it's yet another of Jeff Jarvis's "we'll know what to call it when we see it" phenomena.

(Uh oh - when finding the link to Jarvis's piece I also found this about a new aggregator-portal: Jarvis seems to be involved with the project in some way too.)

Labels: aggregation, aggregator, amazon, development, digital revenue, Guardian Money, jeff jarvis, mashup, online

Below is a thought-provoking list from Mindy McAdams – useful for journalists, editors, publishers and journalism educators who want to move their courses on and prepare students for the world of work.

It can also be connected to the theory of Readertorial I am working on, as will become evident.

http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2008/how-to-foster-innovation/

Labels: online, print journalism, training, web 2.0

Fashion bible Vogue is upgrading its online offerings.

The new look Vogue.com will
• include more news stories every day
• add a mapping mashup element to its vox-pop street fashion regular
• feature fashion industry bloggers
• allow users to add calendar apps

The new look site template, to be launched on 7 May, will be used for Vogue editions around the world.

Conde Nast has online plans for other parts of its publishing empire, as reported here.

Vogue UK

Labels: blogging, mashup, online, Vogue

So on the one hand we have Publicis Blueprint shrinking its ad-funded, print-based customer magazine operation, and on the other we have the publisher of digital magazine Drift declaring that digital magazines have had their day, partly because advertisers do not understand online publishing.

Then again, Yahoo seem to believe that online is quite a good place for magazine content, and B2B publisher Centaur may, or may not, have been weighing up its value to a buyer.

But look at this video and the Drift guys might just be right ...

No wonder the world is such a confused place.

Labels: digital magazines, online, print magazines

The BBC has brought the Top Gear brand under one roof. This might not sound like a revolutionary step but it is. For the first time, a 'public service' television programme, its online avatar and the print magazine of the same name will be physically and philosophically together, operating as a 'virtual company'. If nothing else, it pioneers an official new level of co-operation between BBC Television, BBC Online and BBC Worldwide.

It will also give Michael Harvey, editor of the magazine, a major new role in expanding the brand across the globe. Top Gear magazine has licensed editions in several territories, and this can now be tied in with sales of the tv show overseas, with sponsorship opportunities (especially in the USA) and with brand extensions such as ... aftershave (just imagine the aroma; Castrol R and petrol, perhaps).

Will other publishers, broadcasters and onliners squeal? Perhaps they will, but with the less-than-expected licence fee settlement now clear the BBC will probably make the argument that it needs to generate as much revenue as possible from its commercial activities, and also that this kind of reorganisation brings managerial efficiencies.

If the Top Gear experiment succeeds in getting these three bits of the Beeb to work together there will be a massive machine in operation.

Question - how does this compare with Ofcom's proposals for an online Public Service Publisher?

Labels: BBC, magazines, Ofcom, online, public service publisher, Top Gear