Category: Media

The Guardian is launching a print edition that is a product of their website, rather than the other way around. G24 is a 12-page A4 pdf that can be downloaded and printed by the reader. It is updated every fifteen minutes with information from the Guardian’s site. The Guardian’s goal is to reach the lunchtime and commuter audiences. It can’t hurt that readers use their own paper (or their employers’) to print the thing.
The idea of a automatically-updated pdf edition is pretty cool. The Guardian has already announced tha they are no longer holding stories for their regular print edition.
There’s a lot to like about this model, and G24 has some interesting potential as an advertising vehicle. At the Media Giraffe conference last week, I’ve begun hearing online publishers say, “Our online edition is for our readers, but we do a print edition for our advertisers”. The physicality G24 should come as a comfort to many of them.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

It’s exciting to see a social news aggregator from a major media company, and the new Netscape beta is a bold step in that direction.
I agree with David Card that it’s an aggressive implementation of current thinking in social news coupled with some new ideas — notably the use of editors. I also agree with him that the current implementation is something of a mess visually. It manages to be cluttered even though its information density is really low. Simplicity is more than a design cue of Web 2.0. It’s a hallmark of the new Web culture and a major visual trend in its own right.
The success of the project hinges on whether social news works for vague demographic groups. Digg.com’s take on daily news would serve an unmet need in the news marketplace, if they can keep a coherent audience identity as they grow. But the typical Netscape.com homepage user is (a) average and (b) passive. Can Netscape harness the interests of average, passive folks to produce a front page that is more compelling to other average folks than the ones produced by the editors at CNN, USAToday, and Yahoo?
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

On Monday, I participated in a panel discussion that perhaps the most fun I’ve ever had in front of an audience. With several people who had run online news operations at one time or another — Bob Cauthorn (SFgate.com), Merrill Brown (MSNBC.com), and Lisa Stone (BlogHer) — we discussed what we’d do if we were the publisher of a medium-sized newspaper. One of the groundrules was not to criticize the industry, but to offer useful suggestions.
I’m not sure I heard anything radically new, but what I did hear was an emerging consensus on what news operations should do next: rededicate ourselves to local news, change the newsroom culture, get replace editors who can’t change, seek honest paid circulation, provide competitive customer service to advertisers, keep startups at arm’s length from the core property, and more.
What I began to understand is that while the coming decade is going to be filled with pain for news organizations who can’t change, it’s also going to be a lot of fun for those who are forcing change on the industry.
I’m beginning to wonder if one test of the validity of a strategy (necessary but not sufficient) is whether you’re excited to come to work in the morning while you’re implementing it.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

The striking feature of the projects for the New Voices grants for innovative journalism projects is the diversity of the media even more than the diversity of voices selected: blog, wiki, radio, datacasting, VOIP, and a web-based “wire” service. There were no podcasts, audio or video, on the list. I’m not sure how they missed that particular bandwagon.
J-Lab, The Institute for Interactive Journalism, selected the ten projects from 185 applicants to receive $17,000 grants for innovative community news.
Bloggers, and others who have been watching them push the boundaries of news collection and distribution are beginning to explore the use of other media to do their reporting. As with the blog revolution, they are exploiting the infrastructure that is already in place.
There’s nothing technically new about these ideas, and the systems they’re using are relatively mature. What’s different is the way they’re being used, and who’s using them. I anticipate that services like Google Video and YouTube will become repositories for primary news materials, along with amusing dogs and unfortunate accidents.
The biggest revolution here may be that news producers will choose the media (words, pictures, video, animation, audio, podcast, whatever) that is the best way to tell a story, rather than shoving every story into whatever medium happens to pay their salaries.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

Working too hard to preserve our existing margins can lead us to ignore longer-term opportunities.
Between 20 and 100 additional online users are needed for every print reader lost by a newspaper, according to an article in today’s UK Guardian. This is because print has a much greater revenue per reader. The article is based on the work of Vin Crosbie, for whom I have a lot of respect.
However, this assumes that print revenue per user will remain at its current high levels. With the newspaper industry already managing its own decline, it’s time to acknowledge that current revenue per reader figures are pretty meaningless in the long run. Revenue per print reader is the result of an unstable dynamic system of print circulation figures, the cost of newsprint, a declining base of classified and retail revenue, the lower cost of printing a smaller paper, newsroom cuts, and massive capital infrastructure. It might be impossible to model, but it’s a safe bet that revenue per reader in long-term decline.
Meanwhile, we’ve only begun the transition of our audiences from print (or TV) to online and to tap the revenue potential of each of those new readers we’ve acquired.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

As a general rule, the correct strategy for most publishers, and other content producers, is to give away their content on the Web in order to make money from advertising. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule. It may not make sense for monthly magazine publishers, who have serious cannibalization issues, and who may not want to make their print content available free to nonsubscribers. There is an analogy in public radio.
I was on a panel titled “Following the Online Money” at a public broadcasting Integrated Media Association conference in Seattle last week. In preparing for that meeting, I came to the conclusion that for public radio stations, it probably doesn’t make economic sense to make their live streams available to nonmembers for free.
Membership revenue is the lifeblood of public broadcasting. They’re membership organizations. And their live streams are of interest only to their members and people who should be members. As I told one attendee, “If you could bill everyone who listens to your station, you would. And online, you can require membership to listen to a live stream.”
I say, “Make ’em pay.”
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

XM Satellite Radio has posted much greater than expected losses as its cost per new listener rose 40% over last year in an effort to counter Sirius’s Howard Stern blitz with more marketing. The current cost of $140 per gross new subscriber is almost exactly one year’s revenue on a subscription that can be cancelled at any time.
XM says that its CPGA (cost per gross addition) will drop again after the Stern wave has passed. But XM’s marketing cost rose much faster than its subscriber numbers in this period, indicating that there is a natural limit on how quickly satellite radio can grow while keeping costs in line. This is consistent with the cautions I raised in US Satellite Radio Subscriber Revenue Forecast, 2005 to 2010:

Satellite radio providers must achieve this growth rate while keeping marketing costs per subscription down and without increasing churn rate.

One of XM’s directors has resigned in a dispute related to escalated marketing costs.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

Giving cable consumers the opportunity to buy cable channels a la carte is insufficient, as long as the cable operators are stocking the cart.
Elsewhere, Todd Chanko makes the case that we need a more edited selection of cable programming. And that the editors should be the dealmakers at the big cable companies. I think we can do better.
We’re rapidly approaching a point where real a al carte–fine-grained Internet-style a la carte–is a real possibility for television. And consumers should be given the option of buying directly from the programmers, with the cable companies providing source-neutral common carrier access to all programming. We should be paying our cable companies a monthly fee for the one area where they add value to the transaction, which is a speedy and reliable connection to the entertainment and information we want from the vendors we choose.
The variety and quality of choices we’d have in that world would make the current cable programming lineup look like the Soviet supermarket it is.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

Small dailies, such as the Bismarck Tribune, are not being hit by the same virus that’s attacking larger papers, according to yesterday’s WSJ. You’ll have to search for it, because I can’t find a URL for this story that I can reliably link to.
The story suggests that their circulation and margins are healthy because Internet penetration in the rural areas of the country isn’t there yet. But if you read between the lines, it’s clear that these are community papers that are focused on what’s happening in their towns. The front pages of the papers shown in the story make no pretense to covering national and international news.
That kind of orientation should not only make the Bismarck Tribune Internet-proof, it enhance their with Bismarck residents who are using the Internet every day.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.

Jason Kottke has taken a nice analytical approach to the competition between mainstream media (especially the NY Times) and bloggers for the attention of the public.
Googling the top eight stories of 2005, he shows that blogs and citizen media often top the mainstream media. His analysis is dead-on: citizen media is winning the race, one reason this is happening is that their stories are persistent and designed to be linked from the get-go, the NY Times is squandering its Google credit (a PageRank of 10!), and citizen media are becoming indistinguishable from the “professional” media.
His discovery that CNN (with a PageRank of a mere 9) routinely trounces the Times on Google is yet another indication of why subscription barriers and archives in paid databases may generate more cash in the short term, but can be bad strategy in networked media.
Originally published on my blog at JupiterResearch.