Gang,
Here is one more article that deals with an increase in on-line readership and a decline of newspaper readership. It's from the Wall Street Journal.
Jerry
Newspaper-Circulation Drop Sharpens
By ANDREW LAVALLEEApril 29, 2008;
Most of the nation's biggest newspapers saw circulation tumble at an increased rate, a sign that the migration of readers online may be picking up speed.
The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported Monday that average weekday circulation at 534 daily newspapers fell 3.6% for the six months ended March 31, compared with the year-earlier period. The rate of decline is accelerating: ABC had reported an average weekday circulation drop of 2.1% in the year-earlier period and 2.6% in the six months to November.
Sunday circulation fell even more, losing 4.6% on average.
Newspaper circulation has been falling for more than 20 years amid increasing competition for advertising dollars and readers' attention. The latest results were grim but unsurprising, said John Morton, an independent newspaper analyst. "Big-city papers are suffering right now, and this is just reflective of that."
Newspaper publishers have also seen worsening drop-offs in print-ad revenue over the past few months, at least partly because of the economic slowdown.
Nearly all of the 10 biggest newspapers in the U.S. posted circulation declines. Circulation at the Los Angeles Times -- which has struggled with turnover among its newsroom management as real-estate magnate Sam Zell took effective control of its parent, Tribune Co., in December -- fell 5.1% to 773,884. The New York Times' average weekday circulation fell 3.9% to 1.08 million. It saw an even steeper drop in Sunday circulation, which was down 9.3% to 1.48 million.
"This was a decline that we planned and budgeted for," said New York Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty. The company has eliminated "bonus days," in which the Sunday paper was delivered to weekday subscribers, and has cut back on discounted and advertiser-paid distribution as it attempts to grow more-profitable circulation, she said. In that shift, she added, "We do expect to see some copy decline."
A Los Angeles Times spokeswoman said it too has cut bonus-day issues, which lowered circulation. She also noted a price increase for home-delivery subscribers and competing pressure from other media outlets.
Of the top 10, only two newspapers saw circulation growth. Gannett Co.'s USA Today, the largest paper in the U.S., posted a 0.3% increase in weekday circulation to 2.28 million. At The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by News Corp., the number of subscribers inched up 0.4% to 2.07 million, a figure that includes print subscriptions as well as about 352,000 online-only ones that qualify under the Audit Bureau's rules. The year-earlier figure included 340,618 online-only subscriptions. Other papers also offer electronic editions that qualify as part of their circulation, but the Journal has a far larger number of such subscriptions.
Some particularly big declines occurred among big newspapers below the top 10 ranking, including the Boston Globe (down 8.3%), which is owned by New York Times Co.; Cox Enterprises Inc.'s Atlanta Journal-Constitution (down 8.5%) and Advance Publications Inc.'s Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., which lost 7.4%. A.H. Belo Corp.'s Dallas Morning News experienced the biggest percentage drop among the top 25 newspapers, losing 43,607 weekday subscribers, about 11% of its weekday circulation, compared with the year-ago report.
The Morning News said last year that its efforts to reduce bulk circulation -- free copies sent to hotels and airports -- as well as a smaller delivery zone, would cause it to lose circulation at a faster rate for a year.
The Daily News and the New York Post maintained their fierce battle for readers, although both lost subscribers. The Daily News, owned by real-estate developer Mortimer Zuckerman, ended the period with 649 more average weekday subscribers than its local rival the New York Post, which, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp.
Both papers lost circulation, with the Daily News down 2.1% to 703,137 and the Post down 3.1% to 702,488.
The ABC announced in March changes that may allow papers to count more copies in their paid circulation, while separating some bulk circulation, including copies distributed at hotels, into a separate category. Those new rules won't go into effect for at least another year.
Write to Andrew LaVallee at andrew.lavallee@wsj.com
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Hey gang,
We've picked a lot on newspapers and their issues in the new media world. Here is an article from Slate that deals with TV and specifically with CBS. Let me know what you think.
Jerry
Dead Air
Why CBS should shutter its news division.
By Troy Patterson
To judge by the ads, the most loyal adherents to CBS' quasi-journalistic programming are impotent and incontinent. It so happens that they share these afflictions with the network's actual news division. Katie Couric is reportedly itching to bolt her gig as the anchor of broadcast TV's worst-rated evening newscast. Last month, Shelley Ross lost her job producing The Early Show, the worst-rated morning newscast, after problems concerning temper tantrums and tequila parties. Most weeks, the perfect! ly decent Bob Schieffer, who will retire after the 2009 inauguration, sees Face the Nation to a finish as the third-rated Sunday show. And the only thing worse than the Nielsen numbers is the product.
Poor Katie, a victim of the poor health of her medium and of simple chauvinism, of unreasonably high expectations and of a stupidly high salary. For $15 million a year, you'd think she could at least pretend to be having fun up there, but—last Friday, at least—all her cheer was forced, and all her charm was canned. Going through the motions, she went through the news of the day—polygamists in Texas, pope in Gotham, some perfunctory stuff from the campaign trail, a dollop of business news. Somewhere in there was a bit on the Pennsylvania primary featuring a snippet from Billy Joel's "Allentown."
The night's big enterprise piece was a report—thin with substance, thick with outrage—on congressional earmark spending on an aquarium in Chicago. "A taxpayer watchdog group thinks something fishy is going on there,"! said Couric. Poor Katie. The aquarium "sits on millions of dollars in net assets," said whichever reporter it was. Hmm. I'm no not-for-profit expert, but isn't that called an endowment? The human-interest story was about a child who'd reached the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro, and Couric kept teasing it in the oddest way: Boy versus mountain. Who wins? Stay tuned. This is rather like saying, Man versus dog. Who bites whom? Film at 11. Poor Katie.
I suppose that we'll have to talk about The Early Show, a program entirely lacking in tonal coherence. Co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez looked awfully lonely by herself in the studio on Monday, and she led with either the polygamist story or more pope pap; who can remember? Her partner, Harry Smith, was in Pennsylvania. "Coming up," he said, "we're going to explain why Pennsylvania is such an amazing state." This was about 7:30 a.m. The commercial break included a promo for CSI: Miami that featured one close-up of a corpse and, for variety, one medi um shot of a corpse. When we came back, it turned out that what's great about Pennsylvania are such things as Utz pretzels, Heinz ketchup, Rolling Rock beer, Pittsburgh's Andrew Warhola. There were visual aids, in case you couldn't quite put your finger on what a ketchup bottle looks like. Smith: "It's a pretty cool state, I should say." I have two nephews in elementary school in Philadelphia, and I think their parents would be troubled if ketchup and beer were the best that they could come up with for an oral report on this topic.
The Early Show gave us some more polygamy coverage; then, at 8:02 a.m., ran a promo for Moonlight in which the camera lavished Bruce Weber-style attention on its hero's bare torso; then went back to Pennsylvania to play a sample of Billy Joel's "Allentown." At 8:55 a.m., Today aired a live performance by Alicia Keys, and Good Morning America hosted the country act Ashton Shepherd. The Early Show, ! eager to get in on the musical fun, ran a montage of pope moments set to tinkling sap.
A brief word about CBS Sunday Morning: While it is obvious that this network's coverage and presentation of current events is geared toward old people, the target audience of Charles Osgood's show seems to be already dead—peacefully so. There was, last time around, some tranquil nature footage. Also, a profile of crooner Michael Bublé that refused to stint on clichés. ("The other thing Bublé won't change, he says, is being himself, outspoken and open.") Ben Stein, the actor and economist, came on to do a commentary on the mortgage crisis in which he argued that federal funds should be devoted to aiding the dogs and cats disadvantaged by the fallout. Either this was exquisitely subtle satire, or everyone involved with the segment has lost his mind.
We're supposed to have some respect for 60 Minutes, and I'm not entirely s! ure why that is. The most recent episode began with a Lara Logan piece on a Special Forces unit in Afghanistan. It was teased as a tale of valor that would also expose why we are losing in Afghanistan. In reality, it only addressed one of these topics. Guess which! Recounting a battle between the Green Berets and the Taliban, Logan—whose hair was mussed, which I take to be a considered choice—gave us a boys' adventure story of the old school. It takes nothing away from the courage and sacrifice of these soldiers to say that the segment was an encyclopedia of war-story treacle: "I thought, 'If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me,' " and so on.
Next, Leslie Stahl did a number on the side effects of gastric bypass surgery. Some studies suggest that it has substantial benefits for diabetes patients. On the down side, it may make you more likely to kill yourself. Why were we talking about this? Next, the dapper veteran Morley Safer reported on a lost mural of da Vinci's. This segment was fine, despite mostly delivering the impression! that it was a shrewd way for Safer to take a trip to Florence, where I do hope he had some shoes made. In our few minutes with Andy Rooney—now in his 30th year on the show and in his 29th as a cranky old punch line—Andy inveighed passionately against the airline industry. "I like to get up and walk around when I fly, but they don't make the aisles as wide as they used to. ..." He proposed we should boycott the airline industry for a week.
Taking a cue, I propose that it is time for CBS News to be put down, in the Old Yeller sense of the phrase. It's time to turn out the lights and just start airing Hollywood gossip at 6:30 p.m. The network could follow Schieffer's lead and simply dissolve the thing after the inauguration, maybe keeping 60 Minutes around, either as a commercial-free public service program (because what exec doesn't love a prestige-hogging loss leader?) or under the auspices of CBS' entertainment division (because why! keep pretending?). The farewell would be handled with dignified pomp? ??tributes to Murrow and Severeid and so forth. And if Walter Cronkite is in good health, he could do the honors with a final sign off. I'm serious. That's how bad things are, and that's the way it is.
Troy Patterson is Slate's television critic.
We've picked a lot on newspapers and their issues in the new media world. Here is an article from Slate that deals with TV and specifically with CBS. Let me know what you think.
Jerry
Dead Air
Why CBS should shutter its news division.
By Troy Patterson
To judge by the ads, the most loyal adherents to CBS' quasi-journalistic programming are impotent and incontinent. It so happens that they share these afflictions with the network's actual news division. Katie Couric is reportedly itching to bolt her gig as the anchor of broadcast TV's worst-rated evening newscast. Last month, Shelley Ross lost her job producing The Early Show, the worst-rated morning newscast, after problems concerning temper tantrums and tequila parties. Most weeks, the perfect! ly decent Bob Schieffer, who will retire after the 2009 inauguration, sees Face the Nation to a finish as the third-rated Sunday show. And the only thing worse than the Nielsen numbers is the product.
Poor Katie, a victim of the poor health of her medium and of simple chauvinism, of unreasonably high expectations and of a stupidly high salary. For $15 million a year, you'd think she could at least pretend to be having fun up there, but—last Friday, at least—all her cheer was forced, and all her charm was canned. Going through the motions, she went through the news of the day—polygamists in Texas, pope in Gotham, some perfunctory stuff from the campaign trail, a dollop of business news. Somewhere in there was a bit on the Pennsylvania primary featuring a snippet from Billy Joel's "Allentown."
The night's big enterprise piece was a report—thin with substance, thick with outrage—on congressional earmark spending on an aquarium in Chicago. "A taxpayer watchdog group thinks something fishy is going on there,"! said Couric. Poor Katie. The aquarium "sits on millions of dollars in net assets," said whichever reporter it was. Hmm. I'm no not-for-profit expert, but isn't that called an endowment? The human-interest story was about a child who'd reached the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro, and Couric kept teasing it in the oddest way: Boy versus mountain. Who wins? Stay tuned. This is rather like saying, Man versus dog. Who bites whom? Film at 11. Poor Katie.
I suppose that we'll have to talk about The Early Show, a program entirely lacking in tonal coherence. Co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez looked awfully lonely by herself in the studio on Monday, and she led with either the polygamist story or more pope pap; who can remember? Her partner, Harry Smith, was in Pennsylvania. "Coming up," he said, "we're going to explain why Pennsylvania is such an amazing state." This was about 7:30 a.m. The commercial break included a promo for CSI: Miami that featured one close-up of a corpse and, for variety, one medi um shot of a corpse. When we came back, it turned out that what's great about Pennsylvania are such things as Utz pretzels, Heinz ketchup, Rolling Rock beer, Pittsburgh's Andrew Warhola. There were visual aids, in case you couldn't quite put your finger on what a ketchup bottle looks like. Smith: "It's a pretty cool state, I should say." I have two nephews in elementary school in Philadelphia, and I think their parents would be troubled if ketchup and beer were the best that they could come up with for an oral report on this topic.
The Early Show gave us some more polygamy coverage; then, at 8:02 a.m., ran a promo for Moonlight in which the camera lavished Bruce Weber-style attention on its hero's bare torso; then went back to Pennsylvania to play a sample of Billy Joel's "Allentown." At 8:55 a.m., Today aired a live performance by Alicia Keys, and Good Morning America hosted the country act Ashton Shepherd. The Early Show, ! eager to get in on the musical fun, ran a montage of pope moments set to tinkling sap.
A brief word about CBS Sunday Morning: While it is obvious that this network's coverage and presentation of current events is geared toward old people, the target audience of Charles Osgood's show seems to be already dead—peacefully so. There was, last time around, some tranquil nature footage. Also, a profile of crooner Michael Bublé that refused to stint on clichés. ("The other thing Bublé won't change, he says, is being himself, outspoken and open.") Ben Stein, the actor and economist, came on to do a commentary on the mortgage crisis in which he argued that federal funds should be devoted to aiding the dogs and cats disadvantaged by the fallout. Either this was exquisitely subtle satire, or everyone involved with the segment has lost his mind.
We're supposed to have some respect for 60 Minutes, and I'm not entirely s! ure why that is. The most recent episode began with a Lara Logan piece on a Special Forces unit in Afghanistan. It was teased as a tale of valor that would also expose why we are losing in Afghanistan. In reality, it only addressed one of these topics. Guess which! Recounting a battle between the Green Berets and the Taliban, Logan—whose hair was mussed, which I take to be a considered choice—gave us a boys' adventure story of the old school. It takes nothing away from the courage and sacrifice of these soldiers to say that the segment was an encyclopedia of war-story treacle: "I thought, 'If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me,' " and so on.
Next, Leslie Stahl did a number on the side effects of gastric bypass surgery. Some studies suggest that it has substantial benefits for diabetes patients. On the down side, it may make you more likely to kill yourself. Why were we talking about this? Next, the dapper veteran Morley Safer reported on a lost mural of da Vinci's. This segment was fine, despite mostly delivering the impression! that it was a shrewd way for Safer to take a trip to Florence, where I do hope he had some shoes made. In our few minutes with Andy Rooney—now in his 30th year on the show and in his 29th as a cranky old punch line—Andy inveighed passionately against the airline industry. "I like to get up and walk around when I fly, but they don't make the aisles as wide as they used to. ..." He proposed we should boycott the airline industry for a week.
Taking a cue, I propose that it is time for CBS News to be put down, in the Old Yeller sense of the phrase. It's time to turn out the lights and just start airing Hollywood gossip at 6:30 p.m. The network could follow Schieffer's lead and simply dissolve the thing after the inauguration, maybe keeping 60 Minutes around, either as a commercial-free public service program (because what exec doesn't love a prestige-hogging loss leader?) or under the auspices of CBS' entertainment division (because why! keep pretending?). The farewell would be handled with dignified pomp? ??tributes to Murrow and Severeid and so forth. And if Walter Cronkite is in good health, he could do the honors with a final sign off. I'm serious. That's how bad things are, and that's the way it is.
Troy Patterson is Slate's television critic.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Gang,
Here is an interesting post from VideoNuze.com about teens putting videos on YouTube. Is this good or bad or are you indifferent?
Teens are Prolific YouTube Contributors
Will Richmond
It's no surprise that teens are hooked on YouTube. But, as I am seeing first-hand, they're hooked not just as viewers, but as contributors. Though I don't have any data, it sure seems as if making videos and posting them to YouTube has become an adolescent obsession.
The latest example for me came last Friday from a former colleague describing how his 15 year-old son and friends had produced 3 videos that had made them quasi-rock stars in their freshman high school class.
That's on top of another buddy of mine telling me how his 13 year-old son has been begging to get a Mac and an upgraded video camera though he'd just received one last year. And then there was my recent trip to Florida, when three 14 year-old girls approached me poolside wielding a tripod-perched video camera and scripted questions for an impromptu interview.
What's going on here? Are we becoming a world of Spielberg-wannabees? Should film schools expect a tidal wave of application in a few years? My guess is no and no. Nevertheless, what I do think is clear is that many teens have discovered a bona fide new outlet for their creativity, passion and self-promotion.
Think about what a different world YouTube, and others have created for today's teens. I don't know about you, but when I was in high school if you were interested in video, you'd be among the handful of kids in the A/V club, (which wasn't exactly the coolest place to hang around), or if you were a performer, you'd be in a school-organized play. Today, kids are taking things into their own hands, seizing today's technology and tools to "roll their own" productions.
The teen projects I've seen show a generation utterly unafraid of being on camera or intimidated to be behind it. They're also unencumbered by any need (or desire it seems!) to make money from their efforts, setting them apart from the professionals. To be sure, many of the results are goofy and juvenile, and of course parents need to stay alert that their kids aren't doing anything that's inappropriate. Still, it's pretty exciting to see these kids jump in and just go for it. Combine video with social networking, teens' other obsession, and it's obvious that trend has a long way to run.
Here is an interesting post from VideoNuze.com about teens putting videos on YouTube. Is this good or bad or are you indifferent?
Teens are Prolific YouTube Contributors
Will Richmond
It's no surprise that teens are hooked on YouTube. But, as I am seeing first-hand, they're hooked not just as viewers, but as contributors. Though I don't have any data, it sure seems as if making videos and posting them to YouTube has become an adolescent obsession.
The latest example for me came last Friday from a former colleague describing how his 15 year-old son and friends had produced 3 videos that had made them quasi-rock stars in their freshman high school class.
That's on top of another buddy of mine telling me how his 13 year-old son has been begging to get a Mac and an upgraded video camera though he'd just received one last year. And then there was my recent trip to Florida, when three 14 year-old girls approached me poolside wielding a tripod-perched video camera and scripted questions for an impromptu interview.
What's going on here? Are we becoming a world of Spielberg-wannabees? Should film schools expect a tidal wave of application in a few years? My guess is no and no. Nevertheless, what I do think is clear is that many teens have discovered a bona fide new outlet for their creativity, passion and self-promotion.
Think about what a different world YouTube, and others have created for today's teens. I don't know about you, but when I was in high school if you were interested in video, you'd be among the handful of kids in the A/V club, (which wasn't exactly the coolest place to hang around), or if you were a performer, you'd be in a school-organized play. Today, kids are taking things into their own hands, seizing today's technology and tools to "roll their own" productions.
The teen projects I've seen show a generation utterly unafraid of being on camera or intimidated to be behind it. They're also unencumbered by any need (or desire it seems!) to make money from their efforts, setting them apart from the professionals. To be sure, many of the results are goofy and juvenile, and of course parents need to stay alert that their kids aren't doing anything that's inappropriate. Still, it's pretty exciting to see these kids jump in and just go for it. Combine video with social networking, teens' other obsession, and it's obvious that trend has a long way to run.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hello gang,
Here is an interesting article from the MediaShift Idea Lab blog; expanded from an item in The Nieman Reports.
---------------------------------
Massive layoffs with no end in sight. Wave after wave of acquisitions and mergers fueled by the excesses of artificially cheap capital. Widespread fear that an entire industry and its contributions will stall or simply stop.
This describes the news industry today, but it also described the high tech industry in the late eighties and early nineties. Digital Equipment Corporation laid off people by the tens of thousands; Data General and Apollo Computer sank beneath the waves; Prime Computer fought off a hostile take-over attempt by corporate raiders only to die of its wounds; there was no Sam Zell to step in for Prime. IBM and Hewlett Packard survived, but never regained their roles as central innovators in their industry.
I am not a journalist. Today, I run a site that others often call an example of "citizen journalism," but I am a high-tech person from a family of high-tech people. My parents met over a minicomputer; my marriage comes with free lifetime technical support; our kids will know their emacs from their vi. I haven't gone anywhere, but your profession, journalism, has drifted steadily closer to mine. What's happening to you and yours now - layoffs, being out of work, thinking about taking up teaching, wondering if your kids should follow in your footsteps - happened to me and mine a few decades ago, and it made for a few miserable Thanksgiving dinners paid for with unemployment checks and spent with laid-off aunts, uncles, and cousins.
When our central institutions blew up, people asked many of the same questions I hear among journalists today. Without these institutions, who will fund the mission? How will we attract the talent we need to make the transition? Just as journalism without newspapers seems inconceivable now, it seemed inconceivable to many then that innovation could continue without the might, resources, and sheer heft of the companies that formed the core of the high tech industry. Who would write the next operating system? Create the next generation of microprocessors? Today, journalists ask how democracy will fare in a country without a robust free press. Then, technologists asked how the United States could retain its leadership position without big, powerful computing companies.
There's no underestimating the pain of the tech implosion: people who got laid off expected to be out of work for a year or more; people lost their houses, got divorced, left the industry entirely; lucky ones took early retirement packages. To make matters worse, many of them had deep loyalties to the companies they worked for and spoke with pride of the "HP way," the "IBM way." The breakdown also wasn't sudden: from beginning to end the dismantling took nearly a decade.
We decamped from the Titanic and dispersed in every direction in a fleet of kayaks: small, self-propelled, and iceberg-proof. We learned to be loyal to our friends and to the ideas and ideals that we had genuine passion for: because it was our friends who were going to pull us out of the cold water, and our ideas that would get us going again after a setback.
What we discovered, of course, was that innovation survived the death of its institutions. Only ten years after DEC founder and CEO Ken Olsen stepped down amid layoffs, Google had its IPO. If you are reading these words on the Web, both of us are the beneficiaries of LAMP, the "web stack" that serves the vast majority of websites to browsers across the world. An acronym for its components - Linux, Apache (a web server), MySQL (database), and PHP (scripting language) - each started as the contribution of an individual and is maintained by a distributed cast of thousands. The central innovations of the web today don't emerge from the labs of giants but from the dorm rooms of kids. And on them is built a big and varied industry with, yes, actual paychecks.
Do not mistake this message as a prediction that the news industry's current misery is mere stage-setting for a glorious resurgence. It isn't.
As the web, software, and news become a single industry, the stability and security we knew when our founding institutions were big and strong are gone and will never return. Gone with them are the sclerotic bureaucracy. Gone with them is the feeling of giving up changing anything because you can't even figure out how many people to ask for permission. All of these and more are as dead as IBM's dress code of blue blazer, red tie, white shirt.
Good riddance!
On the decks of a career Titanic, you don't have much choice but to sit back and let others ensure your safety and set your course. With a career in a kayak, you can and must set your own direction and learn the skills to keep yourself safe. You'll discover what thousands upon thousands of tech workers discovered: you can do great work outside of an institutional, big-company context, and you can make a living doing so. High tech companies didn't own innovation; the innovators did. News organizations don't own journalism: journalists do.
Here is an interesting article from the MediaShift Idea Lab blog; expanded from an item in The Nieman Reports.
---------------------------------
Massive layoffs with no end in sight. Wave after wave of acquisitions and mergers fueled by the excesses of artificially cheap capital. Widespread fear that an entire industry and its contributions will stall or simply stop.
This describes the news industry today, but it also described the high tech industry in the late eighties and early nineties. Digital Equipment Corporation laid off people by the tens of thousands; Data General and Apollo Computer sank beneath the waves; Prime Computer fought off a hostile take-over attempt by corporate raiders only to die of its wounds; there was no Sam Zell to step in for Prime. IBM and Hewlett Packard survived, but never regained their roles as central innovators in their industry.
I am not a journalist. Today, I run a site that others often call an example of "citizen journalism," but I am a high-tech person from a family of high-tech people. My parents met over a minicomputer; my marriage comes with free lifetime technical support; our kids will know their emacs from their vi. I haven't gone anywhere, but your profession, journalism, has drifted steadily closer to mine. What's happening to you and yours now - layoffs, being out of work, thinking about taking up teaching, wondering if your kids should follow in your footsteps - happened to me and mine a few decades ago, and it made for a few miserable Thanksgiving dinners paid for with unemployment checks and spent with laid-off aunts, uncles, and cousins.
When our central institutions blew up, people asked many of the same questions I hear among journalists today. Without these institutions, who will fund the mission? How will we attract the talent we need to make the transition? Just as journalism without newspapers seems inconceivable now, it seemed inconceivable to many then that innovation could continue without the might, resources, and sheer heft of the companies that formed the core of the high tech industry. Who would write the next operating system? Create the next generation of microprocessors? Today, journalists ask how democracy will fare in a country without a robust free press. Then, technologists asked how the United States could retain its leadership position without big, powerful computing companies.
There's no underestimating the pain of the tech implosion: people who got laid off expected to be out of work for a year or more; people lost their houses, got divorced, left the industry entirely; lucky ones took early retirement packages. To make matters worse, many of them had deep loyalties to the companies they worked for and spoke with pride of the "HP way," the "IBM way." The breakdown also wasn't sudden: from beginning to end the dismantling took nearly a decade.
We decamped from the Titanic and dispersed in every direction in a fleet of kayaks: small, self-propelled, and iceberg-proof. We learned to be loyal to our friends and to the ideas and ideals that we had genuine passion for: because it was our friends who were going to pull us out of the cold water, and our ideas that would get us going again after a setback.
What we discovered, of course, was that innovation survived the death of its institutions. Only ten years after DEC founder and CEO Ken Olsen stepped down amid layoffs, Google had its IPO. If you are reading these words on the Web, both of us are the beneficiaries of LAMP, the "web stack" that serves the vast majority of websites to browsers across the world. An acronym for its components - Linux, Apache (a web server), MySQL (database), and PHP (scripting language) - each started as the contribution of an individual and is maintained by a distributed cast of thousands. The central innovations of the web today don't emerge from the labs of giants but from the dorm rooms of kids. And on them is built a big and varied industry with, yes, actual paychecks.
Do not mistake this message as a prediction that the news industry's current misery is mere stage-setting for a glorious resurgence. It isn't.
As the web, software, and news become a single industry, the stability and security we knew when our founding institutions were big and strong are gone and will never return. Gone with them are the sclerotic bureaucracy. Gone with them is the feeling of giving up changing anything because you can't even figure out how many people to ask for permission. All of these and more are as dead as IBM's dress code of blue blazer, red tie, white shirt.
Good riddance!
On the decks of a career Titanic, you don't have much choice but to sit back and let others ensure your safety and set your course. With a career in a kayak, you can and must set your own direction and learn the skills to keep yourself safe. You'll discover what thousands upon thousands of tech workers discovered: you can do great work outside of an institutional, big-company context, and you can make a living doing so. High tech companies didn't own innovation; the innovators did. News organizations don't own journalism: journalists do.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Hello gang,
Last week we talked in class about finding jobs and the future of our business. Here is an interesting blog about finding a job. Let me know what you think.
Jerry
March 27th, 2008 by kiyoshimartinez
You might have heard of the journalism punching bag I created, AngryJournalist.com, and if you’re a college student right now it’s probably a discouraging place to frequent given all the horror stories that’s on there.
It’s not completely hopeless, despite all the doom and gloom, however, you can’t assume that your college education will be all you need to snag a job. Remember, your journalism degree’s probably no different than the thousands of other j-degrees out there that other graduates have. The only thing that’s going to set you apart from the pack and help you land a job is ultimately related to the amount of self-initiative and investment you place within yourself.
I remember looking for a job (and internships) and thinking that I was really unprepared. I had decent clips, extensive college-newspaper experience but still felt as if I wasn’t competitive enough — and this was back in 2005-2006, when Web skills weren’t as in demand as they are now.
So, how should you prepare? Here’s some tips that I think will help you on the job hunt.
+ Get real about your situationTake some advice from Warren Buffett:
“You ought to be able to explain why you’re taking the job you’re taking, why you’re making the investment you’re making, or whatever it may be. And if it can’t stand applying pencil to paper, you’d better think it through some more. And if you can’t write an intelligent answer to those questions, don’t do it.”
You know that journalism jobs don’t pay much money, so be smart about entering the field. Know how much money you need to pay your bills (student loans, car payment, rent, utilities, insurance, etc.) and also basic cost of living. Adjust for taxes that will be taken out of your paycheck.
You might think you can take a job that pays less than $30,000 a year, but can you really? Do the math. Look through your spending habits in college and see how much money you burn through in a month. Be realistic about what you need to stay above water.
Once you know this number, don’t compromise downward — or better yet, ask for more should you get a job offer. You might think this is the only offer you’re going to get, but if you’re good enough you’ll be able to find a better offer. Don’t be a sucker.
It’d be nice if journalists could just focus on the job and say pay doesn’t matter, but that’s not the case. Logically approach the idea of entering the field. Make sure it makes financial sense for you to take an offer. Don’t bother applying to places that you know won’t meet your salary requirements. Have standards and stick to your guns. Remember your starting salary will determine your next raise or pay jump when you switch publications.
+ Know the business and the industryYou might think you know journalism. It’s writing articles for a newspaper. Or shooting photographs. Or designing pages. Or maybe even that new media stuff people keep mentioning. Wrong. Those are skills.
Knowing the business and industry means realizing the broader challenges journalism as a whole is facing. Look beyond what job you’ll be doing and take a look at the snapshot portrait that’s being developed right now about the profession. Do you know about the mass layoffs Wall-Street-Layoffs , buyouts, paycuts and hiring freezes? How about the declining or stagnating advertising revenues? What do you know about what stock analysts are saying about the price per share on the major newspaper chains? Do you know the stock history of the parent company of the paper you’re applying to? More importantly, do you know how all of this will affect your job (should you get it) and the benefits, raises (or lack thereof) that you receive?
If your answer to any of that was “no,” then you need to find those answers. Why would you enter an industry you know nothing about? There are greater external forces acting on your newspaper than just what happens within the paper’s distribution. Start by reading (daily) Romenesko, Editor & Publisher, NYT’s Media & Advertising section, OJR, AJR, Reuters MediaFile and Gawker. Then, read even more. Read the State of the News Media 2008 report, especially the advertising section and the economics portions.
Learn about the trends in journalism. Learn what the buzzwords words are and decide if you think they’re bullshit or not: hyperlocalism, crowdsourcing, etc. Look at what direction the business side of journalism is pushing the industry side of journalism into. Watch to see how these forces change the type of journalism you’ll be doing at a certain publication.
Remember: journalism is a business first in most cases — maybe not for you, but it is for those who cut your paycheck. Money will end up dictating the editorial process in every way, for better or worse. Be honest with yourself and decide if you can ride the wave that’s overtaking the field.
+ Don’t be stupidWith Google and Wikipedia you no longer have any excuse to be stupid. Ever. Have a question or curious about something? Type it into Google.
Don’t know HTML, how to install blogging software or shoot and edit video? Too bad, you’re out of excuses because you have the Internet. Take the initiative to learn these yourself. Add value to your skillset and make yourself more marketable to an employer.
Your college education isn’t the reason why you don’t know new media — you are. Saying, “I’m really bad with computers” won’t make people pity you and hand you a job. In a competitive job market, there are no more free rides.
No one’s saying you have to be the expert, but ignorance isn’t tolerable. Spend your free time online learning something new and stop wasting time with Scrabulous on Facebook The-New-Faces-at-Facebook ! And once you learn these new things, take it a step further and think, “How can I use this to be a better journalist and tell better stories for the consumer?”
+ Think of yourself as a brandI’ve written about this idea before. You might think you’re too young in your career to build a brand. Wrong. You need to start developing it now. Literally, your employer is purchasing your skills over someone else. You have to sell that idea to them. This requires you to think in marketing and advertising mode. This means doing more than joining Facebook and LinkedIn (although, those are good starting points).
Get a professional-sounding e-mail account that uses your real name. Get a domain name with your real name and server space to setup a homebase for yourself. Make sure it’s SEOed properly (search engine optimization, if you didn’t know that, then you should’ve Googled it). Start blogging there. Feature your new media projects and post your clips and portfolio. Keep it professional and well designed, because the idea is you want your employer to Google your name, find your site and say “damn, I want to hire this youngblood.” Don’t know how to do this? Ask friends. Google it. Remember, no more excuses.
Get into the Web 2.0 stuff. Grab a Twitter, del.icio.us, Flickr, Digg, etc. account with your real name. Link in your profiles on those sites back to your homepage. Build up your identity using your real name. When you comment on blogs, newspaper sites, etc., again, use your real name and link back to your personal site. Establish your presence online while building SEO. Not sure what to do? Howard Owens has a list for you. You’ll need this to start building your personal social network.
Finally, don’t ruin your personal branding by putting stupid photos up on Flickr and Facebook. Think before you write a drive-by comment on a blog or newspaper Web site. When you contribute to the conversation online, make sure it’s adding value, not destroying it.
+ Stop blaming othersMaybe you wanted to start blogging for your college paper, but they’re too incompetent, lazy or slow to let that happen. Same goes for video. Or soundslides. So, you’re sitting around and doing nothing now.
Screw them. Do it yourself. Buy a domain name, camcorder, digital camera, digital recorder, etc. or whatever you need and make it happen today. If you still get birthday and holiday gifts from parents and relatives, ask them for the higher-priced items. Tell them it’s an investment in your own career development The-New-Road-to-the-Top . Or maybe you’re willing to invest in yourself to do quality journalism. Either way, that’s the path you need to take.
We’re in an era where you don’t have to be officially affiliated with “legitimate media” to be a journalist. Start your own on campus blogging network of writers. Find contributors and give your college paper a run for their money online. Break news. Advertise with spray chalk your URL. Post it in classrooms. Use Facebook. Put some of that marketing and advertising you learned about to get students excited about what you’re creating. Become your own part-time publisher.
When you’re in a job interview, you can be one of two people. You can say, “Well, we didn’t have blogs at our college paper,” or you can say, “We didn’t have blogs at my paper, so I decided to leave and create my own publishing network on campus.” Which candidate would you hire? Don’t waste your time waiting for others to catch up, because that’s the kind of thing a traditional newspaper would do and we know how well that’s worked out for them.
+ Know where you want to workGet a good idea about the publication’s strategy and vision — and not the bullshit one that they’ll spin you. What have they actually done? Where have they spent the cash? Do they have an online strategy beyond just “we’ll put videos and blogs up”? How are they looking to monetize the Internet? What’s their definition of innovation and what was the last good thing they did online (and is it crap)? Google the names of their top executives and management and see what these people are saying about where they’re taking the company. Read the Romenesko memos and see what’s being said internally. Does this sound like a place where you’ll be comfortable working and confident that you’ll be on a ship headed in the right direction?
What about the environment? Are the editors and management incompetent or are they inspiring? Try to get to know people on the inside of the company and ask them for the dirt. What do the front-line journalists in the trenches have to say about the management? How many of them have left recently or taken buyouts? What about the sales and advertising staff? They’re important, too, as they bring in the money. Do they find that it’s harder or easier to sell ads for the paper, and what about online? Even if the market isn’t competitive, is it shrinking?
And remember, this is your first job, not your last. Where can you go from here? Can you prove yourself at this publication and get the portfolio you’ll need to find another job or move up within the company quickly?
When you get to the end of your interview, you should have more questions than they had for you. I think it’s easy to get enamored with the fact that someone actually called you back for an interview that you’ll tend to let the interviewer off the hook. Hold their feet to the fire like you would a source and get the answers you need to make an informed decision. After all, it’s your career.
+ Don’t limit yourself. Finally, I want to leave you with this thought: It’s not the end of the world if you don’t get a newspaper job.
There’s online publications, non-profits, activist publications, etc. Yes, you can also be like me and join the so-called “dark side” and go into public relations. If you’re talented, marketable and passionate, then you can find yourself with opportunities beyond what you’d traditionally think of as a journalism job.
You might think that, right now, all you want to do is work at a newspaper and be a reporter. But you’ll probably quickly find that you might not enjoy that as much as you thought. And it’s also likely that you’ll find that your interests extends beyond deadtree editions. To me, it didn’t make sense to close any doors and restrict myself narrowly. You can be happy doing a variety of things.
Last week we talked in class about finding jobs and the future of our business. Here is an interesting blog about finding a job. Let me know what you think.
Jerry
March 27th, 2008 by kiyoshimartinez
You might have heard of the journalism punching bag I created, AngryJournalist.com, and if you’re a college student right now it’s probably a discouraging place to frequent given all the horror stories that’s on there.
It’s not completely hopeless, despite all the doom and gloom, however, you can’t assume that your college education will be all you need to snag a job. Remember, your journalism degree’s probably no different than the thousands of other j-degrees out there that other graduates have. The only thing that’s going to set you apart from the pack and help you land a job is ultimately related to the amount of self-initiative and investment you place within yourself.
I remember looking for a job (and internships) and thinking that I was really unprepared. I had decent clips, extensive college-newspaper experience but still felt as if I wasn’t competitive enough — and this was back in 2005-2006, when Web skills weren’t as in demand as they are now.
So, how should you prepare? Here’s some tips that I think will help you on the job hunt.
+ Get real about your situationTake some advice from Warren Buffett:
“You ought to be able to explain why you’re taking the job you’re taking, why you’re making the investment you’re making, or whatever it may be. And if it can’t stand applying pencil to paper, you’d better think it through some more. And if you can’t write an intelligent answer to those questions, don’t do it.”
You know that journalism jobs don’t pay much money, so be smart about entering the field. Know how much money you need to pay your bills (student loans, car payment, rent, utilities, insurance, etc.) and also basic cost of living. Adjust for taxes that will be taken out of your paycheck.
You might think you can take a job that pays less than $30,000 a year, but can you really? Do the math. Look through your spending habits in college and see how much money you burn through in a month. Be realistic about what you need to stay above water.
Once you know this number, don’t compromise downward — or better yet, ask for more should you get a job offer. You might think this is the only offer you’re going to get, but if you’re good enough you’ll be able to find a better offer. Don’t be a sucker.
It’d be nice if journalists could just focus on the job and say pay doesn’t matter, but that’s not the case. Logically approach the idea of entering the field. Make sure it makes financial sense for you to take an offer. Don’t bother applying to places that you know won’t meet your salary requirements. Have standards and stick to your guns. Remember your starting salary will determine your next raise or pay jump when you switch publications.
+ Know the business and the industryYou might think you know journalism. It’s writing articles for a newspaper. Or shooting photographs. Or designing pages. Or maybe even that new media stuff people keep mentioning. Wrong. Those are skills.
Knowing the business and industry means realizing the broader challenges journalism as a whole is facing. Look beyond what job you’ll be doing and take a look at the snapshot portrait that’s being developed right now about the profession. Do you know about the mass layoffs Wall-Street-Layoffs , buyouts, paycuts and hiring freezes? How about the declining or stagnating advertising revenues? What do you know about what stock analysts are saying about the price per share on the major newspaper chains? Do you know the stock history of the parent company of the paper you’re applying to? More importantly, do you know how all of this will affect your job (should you get it) and the benefits, raises (or lack thereof) that you receive?
If your answer to any of that was “no,” then you need to find those answers. Why would you enter an industry you know nothing about? There are greater external forces acting on your newspaper than just what happens within the paper’s distribution. Start by reading (daily) Romenesko, Editor & Publisher, NYT’s Media & Advertising section, OJR, AJR, Reuters MediaFile and Gawker. Then, read even more. Read the State of the News Media 2008 report, especially the advertising section and the economics portions.
Learn about the trends in journalism. Learn what the buzzwords words are and decide if you think they’re bullshit or not: hyperlocalism, crowdsourcing, etc. Look at what direction the business side of journalism is pushing the industry side of journalism into. Watch to see how these forces change the type of journalism you’ll be doing at a certain publication.
Remember: journalism is a business first in most cases — maybe not for you, but it is for those who cut your paycheck. Money will end up dictating the editorial process in every way, for better or worse. Be honest with yourself and decide if you can ride the wave that’s overtaking the field.
+ Don’t be stupidWith Google and Wikipedia you no longer have any excuse to be stupid. Ever. Have a question or curious about something? Type it into Google.
Don’t know HTML, how to install blogging software or shoot and edit video? Too bad, you’re out of excuses because you have the Internet. Take the initiative to learn these yourself. Add value to your skillset and make yourself more marketable to an employer.
Your college education isn’t the reason why you don’t know new media — you are. Saying, “I’m really bad with computers” won’t make people pity you and hand you a job. In a competitive job market, there are no more free rides.
No one’s saying you have to be the expert, but ignorance isn’t tolerable. Spend your free time online learning something new and stop wasting time with Scrabulous on Facebook The-New-Faces-at-Facebook ! And once you learn these new things, take it a step further and think, “How can I use this to be a better journalist and tell better stories for the consumer?”
+ Think of yourself as a brandI’ve written about this idea before. You might think you’re too young in your career to build a brand. Wrong. You need to start developing it now. Literally, your employer is purchasing your skills over someone else. You have to sell that idea to them. This requires you to think in marketing and advertising mode. This means doing more than joining Facebook and LinkedIn (although, those are good starting points).
Get a professional-sounding e-mail account that uses your real name. Get a domain name with your real name and server space to setup a homebase for yourself. Make sure it’s SEOed properly (search engine optimization, if you didn’t know that, then you should’ve Googled it). Start blogging there. Feature your new media projects and post your clips and portfolio. Keep it professional and well designed, because the idea is you want your employer to Google your name, find your site and say “damn, I want to hire this youngblood.” Don’t know how to do this? Ask friends. Google it. Remember, no more excuses.
Get into the Web 2.0 stuff. Grab a Twitter, del.icio.us, Flickr, Digg, etc. account with your real name. Link in your profiles on those sites back to your homepage. Build up your identity using your real name. When you comment on blogs, newspaper sites, etc., again, use your real name and link back to your personal site. Establish your presence online while building SEO. Not sure what to do? Howard Owens has a list for you. You’ll need this to start building your personal social network.
Finally, don’t ruin your personal branding by putting stupid photos up on Flickr and Facebook. Think before you write a drive-by comment on a blog or newspaper Web site. When you contribute to the conversation online, make sure it’s adding value, not destroying it.
+ Stop blaming othersMaybe you wanted to start blogging for your college paper, but they’re too incompetent, lazy or slow to let that happen. Same goes for video. Or soundslides. So, you’re sitting around and doing nothing now.
Screw them. Do it yourself. Buy a domain name, camcorder, digital camera, digital recorder, etc. or whatever you need and make it happen today. If you still get birthday and holiday gifts from parents and relatives, ask them for the higher-priced items. Tell them it’s an investment in your own career development The-New-Road-to-the-Top . Or maybe you’re willing to invest in yourself to do quality journalism. Either way, that’s the path you need to take.
We’re in an era where you don’t have to be officially affiliated with “legitimate media” to be a journalist. Start your own on campus blogging network of writers. Find contributors and give your college paper a run for their money online. Break news. Advertise with spray chalk your URL. Post it in classrooms. Use Facebook. Put some of that marketing and advertising you learned about to get students excited about what you’re creating. Become your own part-time publisher.
When you’re in a job interview, you can be one of two people. You can say, “Well, we didn’t have blogs at our college paper,” or you can say, “We didn’t have blogs at my paper, so I decided to leave and create my own publishing network on campus.” Which candidate would you hire? Don’t waste your time waiting for others to catch up, because that’s the kind of thing a traditional newspaper would do and we know how well that’s worked out for them.
+ Know where you want to workGet a good idea about the publication’s strategy and vision — and not the bullshit one that they’ll spin you. What have they actually done? Where have they spent the cash? Do they have an online strategy beyond just “we’ll put videos and blogs up”? How are they looking to monetize the Internet? What’s their definition of innovation and what was the last good thing they did online (and is it crap)? Google the names of their top executives and management and see what these people are saying about where they’re taking the company. Read the Romenesko memos and see what’s being said internally. Does this sound like a place where you’ll be comfortable working and confident that you’ll be on a ship headed in the right direction?
What about the environment? Are the editors and management incompetent or are they inspiring? Try to get to know people on the inside of the company and ask them for the dirt. What do the front-line journalists in the trenches have to say about the management? How many of them have left recently or taken buyouts? What about the sales and advertising staff? They’re important, too, as they bring in the money. Do they find that it’s harder or easier to sell ads for the paper, and what about online? Even if the market isn’t competitive, is it shrinking?
And remember, this is your first job, not your last. Where can you go from here? Can you prove yourself at this publication and get the portfolio you’ll need to find another job or move up within the company quickly?
When you get to the end of your interview, you should have more questions than they had for you. I think it’s easy to get enamored with the fact that someone actually called you back for an interview that you’ll tend to let the interviewer off the hook. Hold their feet to the fire like you would a source and get the answers you need to make an informed decision. After all, it’s your career.
+ Don’t limit yourself. Finally, I want to leave you with this thought: It’s not the end of the world if you don’t get a newspaper job.
There’s online publications, non-profits, activist publications, etc. Yes, you can also be like me and join the so-called “dark side” and go into public relations. If you’re talented, marketable and passionate, then you can find yourself with opportunities beyond what you’d traditionally think of as a journalism job.
You might think that, right now, all you want to do is work at a newspaper and be a reporter. But you’ll probably quickly find that you might not enjoy that as much as you thought. And it’s also likely that you’ll find that your interests extends beyond deadtree editions. To me, it didn’t make sense to close any doors and restrict myself narrowly. You can be happy doing a variety of things.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Hello gang,
Last week in class we talked about CNN and its effort to offer people the opportunity to post pictures and video without anyone vetting the material. I thought this was an interesting post by Will Richmond and what YouTube is doing or hoping to do and what that means for the future of journalism. Enjoy.
Jerry
YouTube: "Over-the-Top's" Best Friend
Will Richmond
The announcement a couple of weeks ago that YouTube was partnering with TiVo got me to thinking that YouTube is probably the best friend that so called "over-the-top" or "cable bypass" aspirants could have.
As a quick refresher, "over-the-top" and "cable bypass" refer to the emerging category of devices and service providers seeking to bring broadband video to the consumer's TV, but without the involvement of existing video providers such as cable and satellite. Some of these efforts (Apple TV, Vudu and Internet-enabled TVs) are positioned as augmenting incumbent providers, while some (Building B, others) are meant to compete directly.
Today's players share the common trait of being closed, "walled gardens," offering only certain content that they select. This contrasts with the open Internet/broadband model, where users are able to access any content they choose. Many of you know that I have been a strong proponent that open is the winning competitive path for aspiring over-the-top players.
If the over-the-top crowd adopts the open approach, YouTube is their perfect ally; it is the best-known brand name in broadband video, has the largest library of both user-generated and increasingly premium video and has huge loyalty. Positioned properly it could be a killer value proposition for over-the-top players. I've previously argued that Apple missed the boat by not adopting this positioning for Apple TV.
I talked last week with David Eun, VP of content partnerships at Google and Chris Maxcy, head of biz dev for YouTube, and they both made clear that the goal is to morph YouTube from a consumer destination site to a full-fledged video platform distributing video everywhere - devices, mobile, web sites, others. To this end, YouTube recently published an expanded set of APIs to allow 3rd parties to gain easier access to YouTube's content. This of course is great news for over-the-top devices, who should have considerable flexibility for how to incorporate YouTube into their offering. For now TiVo is leading the way in offering YouTube, albeit to a very small audience.
If you were wondering whether YouTube or Google itself will enter the device business, that seems unlikely. David and Chris were clear in saying that devices are not their core competency, and they'll leave it to others to decide how to implement the YouTube APIs and create and test various user experiences. Meanwhile with more premium content flowing into YouTube, its value as an over-the-top partner only increases.
Last week in class we talked about CNN and its effort to offer people the opportunity to post pictures and video without anyone vetting the material. I thought this was an interesting post by Will Richmond and what YouTube is doing or hoping to do and what that means for the future of journalism. Enjoy.
Jerry
YouTube: "Over-the-Top's" Best Friend
Will Richmond
The announcement a couple of weeks ago that YouTube was partnering with TiVo got me to thinking that YouTube is probably the best friend that so called "over-the-top" or "cable bypass" aspirants could have.
As a quick refresher, "over-the-top" and "cable bypass" refer to the emerging category of devices and service providers seeking to bring broadband video to the consumer's TV, but without the involvement of existing video providers such as cable and satellite. Some of these efforts (Apple TV, Vudu and Internet-enabled TVs) are positioned as augmenting incumbent providers, while some (Building B, others) are meant to compete directly.
Today's players share the common trait of being closed, "walled gardens," offering only certain content that they select. This contrasts with the open Internet/broadband model, where users are able to access any content they choose. Many of you know that I have been a strong proponent that open is the winning competitive path for aspiring over-the-top players.
If the over-the-top crowd adopts the open approach, YouTube is their perfect ally; it is the best-known brand name in broadband video, has the largest library of both user-generated and increasingly premium video and has huge loyalty. Positioned properly it could be a killer value proposition for over-the-top players. I've previously argued that Apple missed the boat by not adopting this positioning for Apple TV.
I talked last week with David Eun, VP of content partnerships at Google and Chris Maxcy, head of biz dev for YouTube, and they both made clear that the goal is to morph YouTube from a consumer destination site to a full-fledged video platform distributing video everywhere - devices, mobile, web sites, others. To this end, YouTube recently published an expanded set of APIs to allow 3rd parties to gain easier access to YouTube's content. This of course is great news for over-the-top devices, who should have considerable flexibility for how to incorporate YouTube into their offering. For now TiVo is leading the way in offering YouTube, albeit to a very small audience.
If you were wondering whether YouTube or Google itself will enter the device business, that seems unlikely. David and Chris were clear in saying that devices are not their core competency, and they'll leave it to others to decide how to implement the YouTube APIs and create and test various user experiences. Meanwhile with more premium content flowing into YouTube, its value as an over-the-top partner only increases.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hello gang from back in the states. As we have spent a lot of time talking about blogs here is a gentleman who thinks he has the reasons why most blogs fail.
1) They're just not very good. Everybody has different talents and skills and some people just aren't very good writers. In the blogging world, people who can't write either tend to pump out dreck or do huge excerpts of other articles with a line or two of their own content attached. That sort of post has its place, of course, but if it's all you're doing, it's not a good sign.
On the upside, if you write every day, you will get better at it over time -- but, it's still a good idea to have a certain minimal level of ability before you start. If you don't have it, it's hard to see how you are ever going to build an audience.
2) They don't cover interesting material. After 7 years of writing about politics, it generally takes me longer to find interesting material to write about than it does to actually write the material.
The best bloggers have something to say about the big issues of the day, but they also tend to have a knack for finding unusual stories or angles on those stories that everyone else is missing.
Are you willing to spend the time it takes looking for stories or are you just going to write about whatever is on the Drudge Report today? The answer to that may determine whether you will ever build an audience or not.
3) They're not unique enough. There are hundreds and hundreds of right-of-center political blogs out there, many which have been around longer than you. Many of them are also run by very talented bloggers.
So, why should anyone read you? Why are you different? How do you stand out from the crowd? What do you deliver that no one else is putting out there? If you don't know the answer to that, you better think about it, because there really isn't much of a market any more for different people saying the same things that are being said on 50 other blogs.
That's why I suggest to people that they find a niche or a hook they can use to draw people to their work. Be funny, be a specialist, cover something interesting that isn't being adequately covered elsewhere, or talk about things in a way that other people don't.
Stand out and you will move up. Blend in and you will never lift off.
4) They don't network. Some people think there's a "good ol' boys club" in the blogging world that determines whether people are successes or failures. I can tell you for a fact that's not true, because if there was one, I would be in it.
But, what is true is that meeting people in this business can be very helpful. For example, I don't generally link people JUST BECAUSE they're my friends. However, do I regularly check out my friends' blogs? Yes. If I am iffy on whether I am going to link a post, am I more likely to link it because he/she's my friend? Yes. If I run across the same story in 5 different places, am I more likely to give the "hat tip" on RWN to a friend of mine than the other 4 people? Yes. Are all these same things likely true for lots of other bloggers besides me? Yes. Plus, you can bounce ideas off of friends, ask them to help you get your foot in the door in certain places, use them as references, etc., etc.
Additionally, even if they can't help with your blog, there are a lot of really incredible people out there on the Right and it's a lot of fun talking to them. So, make an effort to connect to other bloggers. Worst case scenario, they'll ignore you. Best case scenario, you'll meet some fascinating people to have mutually beneficial personal and professional relationships with.
5) They don't promote their work. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Better question: If a blogger does an incredible post and no one knows it exists, does it do them any good? The answer is, "no."
If you do something really exceptional -- note very carefully that I said, really exceptional, not just run-of-the-mill pap -- don't be afraid to send a promo email suggesting that other bloggers take a look at it.
Now, don't get me wrong; You DO NOT want to send these emails out constantly for every little thing or it will annoy people. But, if you've done something stunning, don't be afraid to let the blogging world know about it. We get a bazillion emails a day from Congress, interest groups, other bloggers, and everybody else you can imagine promoting their work, so why shouldn't you do it, too?
If you don't want to do that, I understand, but just remember: if no one knows you wrote something great, how can anyone link it?
6) They're not consistent enough. They take days off. Usually, the first sign that a blog is about to die is that the blogger takes time off without notice or for a longer period that expected. Then, it often turns into a vicious cycle. When you're off, you bleed readers and then when you come back, you're even less motivated than before because your readership is smaller, so you take more time off, you bleed more readers, rinse and repeat.
That doesn't mean you can't ever take time off, but what it does mean is that you should try to keep it to a minimum, get guest bloggers if you can, and be very clear about when you are coming back. If your readers start to think you may not show up tomorrow, they may not show up tomorrow either.
7) Doing their initial promos too early. This is a pet peeve of mine.
Good idea: After you've gotten your blog designed, all the links work, and you have a few days worth of posts ready to go, you should send out an email introducing your new blog to the rest of the blogosphere and inviting them to link you.
Bad idea: Sending out the above mentioned email when you have two posts up and/or a website that isn't finished yet. This is a bad idea because most bloggers who look at your page won't be impressed and won't bother to link.
In other words, get your ducks in a row before you start asking people to link you or they'll write you off before you've even gotten started.
8) They don't link out enough. I cannot tell you how many small blogs I have read and/or linked for the first time because they wrote about something I said on RWN and it either showed up in my statistics tracker or on Technorati.
It's flattering to be linked and when you do it and people notice, they will often consider linking to you. If you don't link out, you may find it difficult to get links coming back in your direction.
9) They don't post enough each day. On a typical day, there are 6 posts that amount to roughly 2500 words or so of copy on RWN. Most successful blogs churn out at least 1500 words a day and most of them do considerably more.
In other words, you have got to put out enough material each day so that people can find something entertaining on your page that will keep them coming back. Ideally, I'd like it if people enjoy everything I write on RWN, but if they enjoy a post or two, they'll probably come back tomorrow.
On the other hand, if you only do a post or two each day and someone doesn't like either of them, they may never be back. That means each day, -- not, if you feel like it, not depending on what you are doing, not just if you get enough sleep -- each day, you have to commit to churning out these posts.
Personally, I get my posts out no matter what. If it means I get 3 hours sleep today, so be it. If it means I miss a movie I want to go see, I can always go watch it tomorrow.
If you're not that dedicated, you may not have what it takes.
10) They don't hang around long enough. The other day, a friend of mine was asking me how long it took me to build up to where I could do RWN full-time. Just to give you an idea, here's a rough idea of my progression,
November 2000: I decide to start a political blog.
January 1, 2001 (I think): RWN starts up
August 2001: 300 daily uniques per day (*** I switched formats at this point ***)
November 2001: 1000 daily uniques per day
November 2002: 3000 daily uniques per day
November 2003: 5000 daily uniques per day
July 2004: 6500 daily uniques per day
November 2004: 10,000 daily uniques per day
December 2004: 8,000 daily uniques per day
Feb 2005: Went full-time.
March 2008: 9,500 daily uniques per day
Long story short: for most people, it takes a long time to build an audience. So, if you don't love blogging enough to do it for free and for a few hundred people, you're probably not ever going to stick to it long enough to build up a decent sized audience.
John Hawkins 08:30 AM
I'm sure he would not consider my blog a success and he would probably be right. But I of course don't care what he thinks. I care what you think. So let me know.
Jerry
1) They're just not very good. Everybody has different talents and skills and some people just aren't very good writers. In the blogging world, people who can't write either tend to pump out dreck or do huge excerpts of other articles with a line or two of their own content attached. That sort of post has its place, of course, but if it's all you're doing, it's not a good sign.
On the upside, if you write every day, you will get better at it over time -- but, it's still a good idea to have a certain minimal level of ability before you start. If you don't have it, it's hard to see how you are ever going to build an audience.
2) They don't cover interesting material. After 7 years of writing about politics, it generally takes me longer to find interesting material to write about than it does to actually write the material.
The best bloggers have something to say about the big issues of the day, but they also tend to have a knack for finding unusual stories or angles on those stories that everyone else is missing.
Are you willing to spend the time it takes looking for stories or are you just going to write about whatever is on the Drudge Report today? The answer to that may determine whether you will ever build an audience or not.
3) They're not unique enough. There are hundreds and hundreds of right-of-center political blogs out there, many which have been around longer than you. Many of them are also run by very talented bloggers.
So, why should anyone read you? Why are you different? How do you stand out from the crowd? What do you deliver that no one else is putting out there? If you don't know the answer to that, you better think about it, because there really isn't much of a market any more for different people saying the same things that are being said on 50 other blogs.
That's why I suggest to people that they find a niche or a hook they can use to draw people to their work. Be funny, be a specialist, cover something interesting that isn't being adequately covered elsewhere, or talk about things in a way that other people don't.
Stand out and you will move up. Blend in and you will never lift off.
4) They don't network. Some people think there's a "good ol' boys club" in the blogging world that determines whether people are successes or failures. I can tell you for a fact that's not true, because if there was one, I would be in it.
But, what is true is that meeting people in this business can be very helpful. For example, I don't generally link people JUST BECAUSE they're my friends. However, do I regularly check out my friends' blogs? Yes. If I am iffy on whether I am going to link a post, am I more likely to link it because he/she's my friend? Yes. If I run across the same story in 5 different places, am I more likely to give the "hat tip" on RWN to a friend of mine than the other 4 people? Yes. Are all these same things likely true for lots of other bloggers besides me? Yes. Plus, you can bounce ideas off of friends, ask them to help you get your foot in the door in certain places, use them as references, etc., etc.
Additionally, even if they can't help with your blog, there are a lot of really incredible people out there on the Right and it's a lot of fun talking to them. So, make an effort to connect to other bloggers. Worst case scenario, they'll ignore you. Best case scenario, you'll meet some fascinating people to have mutually beneficial personal and professional relationships with.
5) They don't promote their work. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Better question: If a blogger does an incredible post and no one knows it exists, does it do them any good? The answer is, "no."
If you do something really exceptional -- note very carefully that I said, really exceptional, not just run-of-the-mill pap -- don't be afraid to send a promo email suggesting that other bloggers take a look at it.
Now, don't get me wrong; You DO NOT want to send these emails out constantly for every little thing or it will annoy people. But, if you've done something stunning, don't be afraid to let the blogging world know about it. We get a bazillion emails a day from Congress, interest groups, other bloggers, and everybody else you can imagine promoting their work, so why shouldn't you do it, too?
If you don't want to do that, I understand, but just remember: if no one knows you wrote something great, how can anyone link it?
6) They're not consistent enough. They take days off. Usually, the first sign that a blog is about to die is that the blogger takes time off without notice or for a longer period that expected. Then, it often turns into a vicious cycle. When you're off, you bleed readers and then when you come back, you're even less motivated than before because your readership is smaller, so you take more time off, you bleed more readers, rinse and repeat.
That doesn't mean you can't ever take time off, but what it does mean is that you should try to keep it to a minimum, get guest bloggers if you can, and be very clear about when you are coming back. If your readers start to think you may not show up tomorrow, they may not show up tomorrow either.
7) Doing their initial promos too early. This is a pet peeve of mine.
Good idea: After you've gotten your blog designed, all the links work, and you have a few days worth of posts ready to go, you should send out an email introducing your new blog to the rest of the blogosphere and inviting them to link you.
Bad idea: Sending out the above mentioned email when you have two posts up and/or a website that isn't finished yet. This is a bad idea because most bloggers who look at your page won't be impressed and won't bother to link.
In other words, get your ducks in a row before you start asking people to link you or they'll write you off before you've even gotten started.
8) They don't link out enough. I cannot tell you how many small blogs I have read and/or linked for the first time because they wrote about something I said on RWN and it either showed up in my statistics tracker or on Technorati.
It's flattering to be linked and when you do it and people notice, they will often consider linking to you. If you don't link out, you may find it difficult to get links coming back in your direction.
9) They don't post enough each day. On a typical day, there are 6 posts that amount to roughly 2500 words or so of copy on RWN. Most successful blogs churn out at least 1500 words a day and most of them do considerably more.
In other words, you have got to put out enough material each day so that people can find something entertaining on your page that will keep them coming back. Ideally, I'd like it if people enjoy everything I write on RWN, but if they enjoy a post or two, they'll probably come back tomorrow.
On the other hand, if you only do a post or two each day and someone doesn't like either of them, they may never be back. That means each day, -- not, if you feel like it, not depending on what you are doing, not just if you get enough sleep -- each day, you have to commit to churning out these posts.
Personally, I get my posts out no matter what. If it means I get 3 hours sleep today, so be it. If it means I miss a movie I want to go see, I can always go watch it tomorrow.
If you're not that dedicated, you may not have what it takes.
10) They don't hang around long enough. The other day, a friend of mine was asking me how long it took me to build up to where I could do RWN full-time. Just to give you an idea, here's a rough idea of my progression,
November 2000: I decide to start a political blog.
January 1, 2001 (I think): RWN starts up
August 2001: 300 daily uniques per day (*** I switched formats at this point ***)
November 2001: 1000 daily uniques per day
November 2002: 3000 daily uniques per day
November 2003: 5000 daily uniques per day
July 2004: 6500 daily uniques per day
November 2004: 10,000 daily uniques per day
December 2004: 8,000 daily uniques per day
Feb 2005: Went full-time.
March 2008: 9,500 daily uniques per day
Long story short: for most people, it takes a long time to build an audience. So, if you don't love blogging enough to do it for free and for a few hundred people, you're probably not ever going to stick to it long enough to build up a decent sized audience.
John Hawkins 08:30 AM
I'm sure he would not consider my blog a success and he would probably be right. But I of course don't care what he thinks. I care what you think. So let me know.
Jerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
