Greetings from Kosovo.
I will probably dispense with the usual article this week just to give you some comments from here and try to relate it the Internet and Web journalism.
Kosovo has eight different newspapers all struggling to make a living and only three of them have a website. And all they do is shovel content from the paper onto the site. There is no real effort to do much with the websites. I don't think the reason is because of interest but all based on economics. How easy it is to forget how people in other parts of the world live.
I would guess the majority of homes don't have computers and the ones that do struggle with the quality of the connection and consistent power outages. When I ask the students if they would like to be on the Internet more the answer is always yes but the opportunity doesn't always present itself.
Sometimes it is difficult to hold their attention in class because they are enjoying being on the computers and searching for sites.
The same holds true then for sites like Facebook and My Space. Most of them think it sounds pretty cool but time, equipment and cost all seem to get in the way.
The independence celebration was pretty impressive to say the least. If you can imagine a party that lasted for four days. People were in the streets, carrying flags, honking horns and drinking everything in sight. I was with some people who took me along starting Saturday night and continuing through Monday.
You can't imagine the passion of the people. They are getting what we take for granted. But what will happen from here is anybody's guess. The economy in Kosovo is a disaster with unemployment sometimes listed at 60 percent. There are demonstrations in Serbian communities in Kosovo and in Serbia itself. So far everything is quiet here. But you can be sure that something is probably going to happen.
That's probably enough for now. I hope everyone is making progress on project number 2 and the paper. I am available by email if anyone has questions.
Jerry
Friday, February 22, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Here is an interesting article from BusinessWeek.
Why We Should Mourn Yahoo
The Web giant will probably fall to Microsoft, and that's too bad, because it could have become the model for a new-media empire .
by Sarah Lacy
"To say that a lot has already been written about Microsoft's (MSFT) proposed Yahoo! (YHOO) takeover would be understatement in the extreme. But I'm offering my two cents anyway, from a perspective that's uncomfortably unique.
Starting on Feb. 11, I'll be spending part of my time as the Silicon Valley host of Yahoo Finance's new show, TechTicker. (Not to worry; I'll still be in print as BusinessWeek.com's Valley Girl and as a contributor to Henry Blodget's SiliconAlleyInsider blog). Part live news cast, part video blog, TechTicker will cover the technology industry from Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
One guess as to what's the biggest story we'll be reporting right out of the gate.
It's not like reporters at other outlets aren't placed in similarly awkward positions. Consider The Wall Street Journal reporting on News Corp. (NWS), CNBC covering General Electric (GE), or BusinessWeek writing about The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP). But the comparison only illustrates what I consider lamentable about Microsoft's irresistible bid for my new employer.
There's plenty not to like about Yahoo's predicament. I agree with those who have said this deal will go through. No, it's not a good thing for Yahoo, the Valley, or the Internet. And no, in the long run it may not do Microsoft much good either. I don't agree with Google's (GOOG) alarmist view that Microsoft will monopolize the Internet, but I am concerned Yahoo won't flourish under its new owner. I'm equally concerned that the best employees won't stay. But Yahoo didn't leave investors any other choice. Former CEO Terry Semel blew it, and current CEO Jerry Yang didn't do enough to help. Yahoo has simply run out of chances.
Snapped Up
Yet given my new role as a television journalist, I can't help but consider this deal from the media angle as well. And it's from that perspective that I find Microsoft's acquisition most troublesome—and tragic. Web companies revolutionized the way we distribute and consume news and information, yet none has been able to emerge as a standalone media titan.
MySpace was snapped up by News Corp. And as much as I'd like to think TechCrunch, Gawker Media, or even Digg could become the model new-media empire, they're more likely to get flogged to old media names. CNET Networks (CNET) may not long be able to resist pressure from the consortium of activist investors agitating for board control, and Time Warner (TWX) is still unraveling the debacle that was its takeover by AOL (BusinessWeek.com, 2/7/08).
Yahoo is (or was) the closest we've come to creating a media empire on the back of the Web. Granted, the bulk of its content is aggregated, not homegrown. Yet that content is a big reason Yahoo draws hundreds of millions of visitors a month. Yahoo Finance is among the biggest personal finance portals on the Web, and some of the world's most prestigious publications depend on Yahoo for a big chunk of traffic. I'd argue Yahoo is the biggest force in media that's not called a media company.
This is one reason I took the job at Yahoo. Sure, I could have joined a hipper startup or a storied print publication. But the traditional media business is disintegrating and in desperate need of a new business model that supports high-quality journalism and makes money. People want the brevity of a blog, the vibrancy of video, and the in-depth reporting of magazines and newspapers—all via the Web. Yahoo was one of the few sites poised to bring those elements together, to put original and aggregated content in front of more eyeballs than a printed paper or TV screen could promise.
As a business, it's hardly Google-sexy, but Yahoo wasn't going to beat Google in search anyway. At least Yahoo was making money and growing. And if that, along with one of the largest audiences online, wasn't enough for Wall Street, will any public company ever have sexy enough numbers to become the next great media empire? Time was, they didn't have to. Media companies were frequently private, there were fewer activist hedge funds demanding over-the-top growth, and empires were often built by families who felt a thriving press was vital to national interests.
Not that I'm letting Yahoo off the hook. But as a reporter, I'm sad to see a media platform that could have been so promising turn into Microsoft's latest conquest."
Sarah Lacy has been a business reporter for 10 years, most recently covering technology for BusinessWeek. Her book, Once You're Lucky, Twice You're Good: The Rebirth of Silicon Valley and the Rise of Web 2.0, will be published by Gotham Books in May, 2008. She is also Silicon Valley host of Yahoo Finance's Tech Ticker.
The business side of the Internet journalism continues to evolve and that could have a major impact on reporters in the future. What do you think of Sarah Lacy's article and the entire corporate mentality of our business?
Jerry
Why We Should Mourn Yahoo
The Web giant will probably fall to Microsoft, and that's too bad, because it could have become the model for a new-media empire .
by Sarah Lacy
"To say that a lot has already been written about Microsoft's (MSFT) proposed Yahoo! (YHOO) takeover would be understatement in the extreme. But I'm offering my two cents anyway, from a perspective that's uncomfortably unique.
Starting on Feb. 11, I'll be spending part of my time as the Silicon Valley host of Yahoo Finance's new show, TechTicker. (Not to worry; I'll still be in print as BusinessWeek.com's Valley Girl and as a contributor to Henry Blodget's SiliconAlleyInsider blog). Part live news cast, part video blog, TechTicker will cover the technology industry from Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
One guess as to what's the biggest story we'll be reporting right out of the gate.
It's not like reporters at other outlets aren't placed in similarly awkward positions. Consider The Wall Street Journal reporting on News Corp. (NWS), CNBC covering General Electric (GE), or BusinessWeek writing about The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP). But the comparison only illustrates what I consider lamentable about Microsoft's irresistible bid for my new employer.
There's plenty not to like about Yahoo's predicament. I agree with those who have said this deal will go through. No, it's not a good thing for Yahoo, the Valley, or the Internet. And no, in the long run it may not do Microsoft much good either. I don't agree with Google's (GOOG) alarmist view that Microsoft will monopolize the Internet, but I am concerned Yahoo won't flourish under its new owner. I'm equally concerned that the best employees won't stay. But Yahoo didn't leave investors any other choice. Former CEO Terry Semel blew it, and current CEO Jerry Yang didn't do enough to help. Yahoo has simply run out of chances.
Snapped Up
Yet given my new role as a television journalist, I can't help but consider this deal from the media angle as well. And it's from that perspective that I find Microsoft's acquisition most troublesome—and tragic. Web companies revolutionized the way we distribute and consume news and information, yet none has been able to emerge as a standalone media titan.
MySpace was snapped up by News Corp. And as much as I'd like to think TechCrunch, Gawker Media, or even Digg could become the model new-media empire, they're more likely to get flogged to old media names. CNET Networks (CNET) may not long be able to resist pressure from the consortium of activist investors agitating for board control, and Time Warner (TWX) is still unraveling the debacle that was its takeover by AOL (BusinessWeek.com, 2/7/08).
Yahoo is (or was) the closest we've come to creating a media empire on the back of the Web. Granted, the bulk of its content is aggregated, not homegrown. Yet that content is a big reason Yahoo draws hundreds of millions of visitors a month. Yahoo Finance is among the biggest personal finance portals on the Web, and some of the world's most prestigious publications depend on Yahoo for a big chunk of traffic. I'd argue Yahoo is the biggest force in media that's not called a media company.
This is one reason I took the job at Yahoo. Sure, I could have joined a hipper startup or a storied print publication. But the traditional media business is disintegrating and in desperate need of a new business model that supports high-quality journalism and makes money. People want the brevity of a blog, the vibrancy of video, and the in-depth reporting of magazines and newspapers—all via the Web. Yahoo was one of the few sites poised to bring those elements together, to put original and aggregated content in front of more eyeballs than a printed paper or TV screen could promise.
As a business, it's hardly Google-sexy, but Yahoo wasn't going to beat Google in search anyway. At least Yahoo was making money and growing. And if that, along with one of the largest audiences online, wasn't enough for Wall Street, will any public company ever have sexy enough numbers to become the next great media empire? Time was, they didn't have to. Media companies were frequently private, there were fewer activist hedge funds demanding over-the-top growth, and empires were often built by families who felt a thriving press was vital to national interests.
Not that I'm letting Yahoo off the hook. But as a reporter, I'm sad to see a media platform that could have been so promising turn into Microsoft's latest conquest."
Sarah Lacy has been a business reporter for 10 years, most recently covering technology for BusinessWeek. Her book, Once You're Lucky, Twice You're Good: The Rebirth of Silicon Valley and the Rise of Web 2.0, will be published by Gotham Books in May, 2008. She is also Silicon Valley host of Yahoo Finance's Tech Ticker.
The business side of the Internet journalism continues to evolve and that could have a major impact on reporters in the future. What do you think of Sarah Lacy's article and the entire corporate mentality of our business?
Jerry
Friday, February 08, 2008
Kids embrace iPods rather than Radio
From Ad Age:
"Did you know that almost one-third of mp3 player users are kids 10 or younger?
I'll bet you didn't.
Did you know that 40% of 6 to 8-year-olds own an mp3 player?
Or that 60% of 13 to 18-year-olds do?
Our youth are being raised on a diet of media control and extreme customization.
The consequences for how we program and market to this demo today - and as they mature - are profound.
As every smoker knows, lifetime habits are shaped during your youth. We can't prevent a generation of listeners from embracing mp3 players, but we most definitely can make sure we're embracing the listeners who are doing the embracing. We can make sure we're a part of their iPods and a part of their lives.
And to do that we're going to have to care about youth oriented stations and find a way to monetize our efforts there. We're going to have to inject a spark of engagement into these stations like never before. We're going to have to convert the monologue into a dialogue and the dialogue into a conversation. We're going to have to open up the airwaves for their input and their voices and their production and their content.
Staying relevant for the future is not about launching a social network.
It's about being a brand worth joining a social network for."
Hey gang,
This article seems to fit with what we were talking about last week. Radio is going through some changes and this information is not going to make owners happy. But it is a rather interesting way of looking at the situation from an advertising perspective. We keep talking in class about how online news organizations are going to pay for the sites.
I wonder if news Web sites are going to have to brand themselves as well to try and reach a certain audience? Will that dictate content as well? How do you feel about the tone of this article and the statement that "young people are being raised on a diet of media control and extreme customization? I await your comments with anticipation.
From Ad Age:
"Did you know that almost one-third of mp3 player users are kids 10 or younger?
I'll bet you didn't.
Did you know that 40% of 6 to 8-year-olds own an mp3 player?
Or that 60% of 13 to 18-year-olds do?
Our youth are being raised on a diet of media control and extreme customization.
The consequences for how we program and market to this demo today - and as they mature - are profound.
As every smoker knows, lifetime habits are shaped during your youth. We can't prevent a generation of listeners from embracing mp3 players, but we most definitely can make sure we're embracing the listeners who are doing the embracing. We can make sure we're a part of their iPods and a part of their lives.
And to do that we're going to have to care about youth oriented stations and find a way to monetize our efforts there. We're going to have to inject a spark of engagement into these stations like never before. We're going to have to convert the monologue into a dialogue and the dialogue into a conversation. We're going to have to open up the airwaves for their input and their voices and their production and their content.
Staying relevant for the future is not about launching a social network.
It's about being a brand worth joining a social network for."
Hey gang,
This article seems to fit with what we were talking about last week. Radio is going through some changes and this information is not going to make owners happy. But it is a rather interesting way of looking at the situation from an advertising perspective. We keep talking in class about how online news organizations are going to pay for the sites.
I wonder if news Web sites are going to have to brand themselves as well to try and reach a certain audience? Will that dictate content as well? How do you feel about the tone of this article and the statement that "young people are being raised on a diet of media control and extreme customization? I await your comments with anticipation.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Hello gang. We have spent a lot of time talking this semester about the problems facing newspapers. But there are also issues with radio and television. Today we will specifically deal with radio. One of the newest issues is what will happen with stations trying to put their programming on the Web. I asked our local resident expert for his thoughts on webcasting and to discuss some of the key issues.
"The future of college radio station webstreams, and other independent webcasts for that matter, may hinge on reaching a compromise with the Copyright Royalty Board. Under a new system for computing performance royalties that went into effect January 1, webcasters must now chart who is listening on-line at any one moment, and compute the performance royalties based on a "per performance" basis, using "per song, per listener" statistics.
In other words, if twenty people are listening to a particular song on-line, that counts as 20 "performances" of that song for which performance royalties would need to be paid.
The problem for a lot of small webcasters is they don’t have (and may not be able to afford to buy) the logging equipment necessary to keep such exact listening statistics. And while there are some companies who can provide that data, they do so only at a cost that again may be out of reach for many small webcasters – most of whom generate little if any revenue from their operations.
The bottom line is that unless some agreement can be reached allowing reporting exemptions for small noncommercial webcasters, some college radio stations may be forced off the Internet. Independent music and programming lose again."
This is an issue that could also impact news Web sites like ours since we also have use music at times. What do you think?
Jerry
"The future of college radio station webstreams, and other independent webcasts for that matter, may hinge on reaching a compromise with the Copyright Royalty Board. Under a new system for computing performance royalties that went into effect January 1, webcasters must now chart who is listening on-line at any one moment, and compute the performance royalties based on a "per performance" basis, using "per song, per listener" statistics.
In other words, if twenty people are listening to a particular song on-line, that counts as 20 "performances" of that song for which performance royalties would need to be paid.
The problem for a lot of small webcasters is they don’t have (and may not be able to afford to buy) the logging equipment necessary to keep such exact listening statistics. And while there are some companies who can provide that data, they do so only at a cost that again may be out of reach for many small webcasters – most of whom generate little if any revenue from their operations.
The bottom line is that unless some agreement can be reached allowing reporting exemptions for small noncommercial webcasters, some college radio stations may be forced off the Internet. Independent music and programming lose again."
This is an issue that could also impact news Web sites like ours since we also have use music at times. What do you think?
Jerry
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
