|
The New Yorker's March 31, 2008 issue (currently online) includes a long piece by Eric Alterman on "The death and life of the American newspaper".
Until recently, newspapers were accustomed to operating as high-margin monopolies. To own the dominant, or only, newspaper in a mid-sized American city was, for many decades, a kind of license to print money.
Not anymore.
Independent, publicly traded American newspapers have lost forty-two per cent of their market value in the past three years, according to the media entrepreneur Alan Mutter.
It seems that all pieces on the future of newspapers contain a passage like this one: (emphasis added)
Among the most significant aspects of the transition from “dead tree” newspapers to a world of digital information lies in the nature of “news” itself. The American newspaper (and the nightly newscast) is designed to appeal to a broad audience, with conflicting values and opinions, by virtue of its commitment to the goal of objectivity.
Insert "theoretical" or "claimed (but not actually followed)" before "commitment" and we might agree.
Moving on to the future of news, Alterman provides some interesting background and details on the 
Huffington Post.
Surrounding the news articles are the highly opinionated posts of an apparently endless army of both celebrity (Nora Ephron, Larry David) and non-celebrity bloggers—more than eighteen hundred so far. The bloggers are not paid.
Michael Gay of the Lost Remote TV Blog points out that Wikipedia lists many of the site's famous contributors.
Co-Founder and Chairman Kenneth Lerer explains their goals: (commas removed for clarity)
this new way of thinking about and presenting the news is transforming news as much as CNN did thirty years ago.
Alterman's reply:
It's an almost comically audacious ambition for an operation with only forty-six full-time employees—many of whom are barely old enough to rent a car. But, with about eleven million dollars at its disposal, the site is poised to break even on advertising revenue of somewhere between six and ten million dollars annually.
Rafat Ali of paidContent.org corrects the misleading $11 million "at its disposal":
that’s the amount it has raised [to] date, and probably spent a big chunk of...
Alterman provides a useful comparison of staff levels:
Even after the latest round of new cutbacks and buyouts are carried out, the [New York] Times will retain a core of more than twelve hundred newsroom employees, or approximately fifty times as many as the Huffington Post. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times maintain between eight hundred and nine hundred editorial employees each. The Times’ Baghdad bureau alone costs around three million dollars a year to maintain. And while the Huffington Post shares the benefit of these investments, it shoulders none of the costs.
Milbloggers (military bloggers) might reply that reader-supported individuals such as Michael Yon have provided far better reporting than the entire Baghdad bureau.
Alterman pinpoints one niche the Huffington Post has carved out:
the Huffington Post has successfully positioned itself as the place where progressive politicians and Hollywood liberal luminaries post their anti-Bush Administration sentiments
(Though I would say "a place" not "the place".)
I've only covered about half the article, so follow the link below for more on:
- some history of "the partisan model of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American press"
- changes advocated by Walter Lippmann & John Dewey beginning in the 1920s
- the rise of conservative alternatives
- liberals like blogger Duncan Black ("atrios") who reject "the myth of the liberal media"
- conservative bloggers who helped to bring down Dan Rather
- Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo on the fired U.S. Attorneys
- big picture: what's next for news?
|
Our 6 (or so) posts per week will resume next year. Meanwhile, here's a quick one.
Today the New York Times rounded up some opinions on whether or not a small business should blog.
The skeptic's quote came from Guy Kawasaki (noted blogger, marketer, author and VC):
If you're a clothing manufacturer or a restaurant, blogging is probably not as high on your list as making good food or good clothes.
Er, right. But that doesn't answer the real question: should a small business that makes a good product use blogging as a means to get the word out? (Important note: Guy may well have had a more useful answer as part of a longer discussion; the above could have been a poor selection by the NYT writer.)
With the popularity of food shows on TV, a restaurant seems like a reasonable candidate for a blog. As for clothing, I happen to know of an example (not covered in the article) of a success story attributed to blogging, English Cut:
I'm very fortunate to be so busy these days. I'm not even able to accept orders from my existing clients, that's how busy it is, so sadly I'm unable to consider any new ones.
(The "motivating force" behind English Cut's blog: Hugh MacLeod of gaping void.)
Read the article for more examples.
Title: Blogging's a Low-Cost, High Return Marketing Tool
Author: Marci Alboher
Publication: The New York Times
Section: Small Business
Length: 1,200 words
Date: December 27, 2007
|
With a story title of Newspapers, bloggers now on same page, one would hope that the "professional journalists" of the LA Times would bury the hatchet. As is, they couldn't resist the fine MSM tradition of insulting bloggers.
The lead:
Once upon a time, newspapers wanted nothing to do with bloggers, those amateurs who opined on anything that caught their fancy, whether it was interesting, or accurate, or not.
And the obligatory quote from someone with a fancy title:
"There's a lot of uninformed opinion on the Internet and not a lot of solid reporting," said Fred Brown, vice chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics committee and a columnist at the Denver Post. A professional journalist "respects the truth and lives up to standards of ethics. Certainly that isn't the case in the blogosphere."
In fact, a key driving force in the rise of blogs covering news & politics is that newspapers do no such thing. For some insight into this history, start with a phrase from a glossary of blog terms:
Fact-check (your ass)verb. To use Internet search engines to ascertain the veracity of dubious claims made in the press.
(coined by Ken Layne)
Usage: "We can fact-check your ass!"
(Per a Google search, the phrase was coined in 2001. For insightful commentary on how blogs can help journalism: here's a useful search of the indispensable BuzzMachine by Jeff Jarvis.)
The article did include one positive view:
The Houston Chronicle, for one, has recruited 50 reader-bloggers whose commentary appears its website. ...
Scott Clark, vice president and editor of Chron.com, said readers' blogs had expanded coverage. "Many of our readers have specialized knowledge and passions," he said. "By adding them to our site, we tremendously expand the scope of information that we're able to provide."
The driving force (per Caroline Little, the chief executive of Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive):
It's about figuring out how to monetize other people's content
Though some of the newspapers do share ad income with blogs. (TBD: research how much for each.)
What's the last word the "professional journalist" wants to share with readers?
Teaming up with a newspaper is a way to establish credibility, said Dave Panos, the CEO of Pluck, which distributes blog content to a handful of newspaper sites, including USA Today's, through a service called BlogBurst."Being picked up by the mainstream media," he said, "is the highest form of flattery."
Open question: what percentage of top 100 (or 1,000 or 10,000) bloggers agree? My money is on "very few".
Hat tip: Techmeme.
|
On Sunday, tech journalist Scott Kirsner's Innovation Economy column (and video) in The Boston Globe looked at blogging by VCs: In venture capitalism, a growing rift over blogs. (In case that doesn't evoke enough tension, the HTML page title is even more pointed: A digital divide: VC's embrace, decry use of blogging.) His thesis:
Some firms blog, and some don't .... an important shift in the way VC firms interact with entrepreneurs.
In favor: Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures.
[Blogging is] a huge benefit to our business. Of course it brings incremental deal flow, but it also filters the deal flow and makes it more targeted and more relevant
Its also a great way to bring needed attention to the companies we invest in
And its a way to do research on new sectors and learn about other companies that compete with our companies
Also in favor: Jeffrey Bussgang of IDG Ventures.
- Definitely less about deal flow and more about transparency and providing accessibility, humanizing the VC process
- Open dialog helps me keep in touch with entrepreneur’s latest issues and hot buttons
- Provides sense of accountability to the entrepreneur community
- Helps me understand social networking, community, blogging, and many other Web 2.0 phenomenon from a practical standpoint as a practioner, not theoretical
(As is common with "old media", the article chops and paraphrases the quotes. The above come from the companion post on Kirsner's Innovation Economy blog. Kudos for providing the full original, and shame on any journalist who doesn't. Also worth noting, a more straightforward title: Why VCs Do (or Don't) Blog.)
Against: Jeff Fagnan of Atlas Venture
It takes a lot of time. We choose to dedicate that time to other outreach and marketing efforts.
Also against: Woody Benson of Prism VentureWorks
Our goal is to share [our experience and intellectual property] in the confines of the meetings that we have with our portfolio companies and potential portfolio companies.
A quick roundup of reactions:
Fred Wilson replies on his blog ("A VC: Musings of a VC in NYC):
That, to me, is the defining argument for and against blogging. There are those who think the best way to manage your "intellectual property" is to hoard it for yourself. There are others who think that intellectual property should be shared, developed out in the open, and that it will grow exponentially. I am in the latter camp.
Mike Feinstein (who appears at the end of the video) takes the middle ground ("The Fein Line: Thoughts about VC, start-ups, sports, politics, and the world in general")
Blogging doesn't necessarily give you an advantage over those who don't. But, if you don't blog, you need to figure out what other means you will use to stay connected to the Web community.
Bijan Sabet (see the video for a 2 minute interview) of Spark Capital tells the world Why I blog?
First and foremost, I don't consider myself a "VC blogger". I don't talk about venture capital/business exclusively. Or even most of the time. Those that read/interact with this blog know that. This blog is about me. All of me - work, personal, family, everything.
My blog is about getting my thoughts, observations & interests down on digital ink. But this blog is also about the feedback from you all. The conversation is a big reason why I keep blogging.
Jeff Bussgang ("Seeing Both Sides: VC Perspectives From A Former Entrepreneur") noted that Scott Kirsner Stirs The Pot:
Scott Kirsner is always good for a little controversy.
No word yet from David Beisel of Venrock ("Genuine VC: David Beisel's Perspective on Digital Change"), though he made an indirect appearance as the organizer of the Web Innovators Group (WebInno) event where several of the video interviews took place.
Or from Jim Savage, who is one of several bloggers at the Longworth Venture Partners Blog.
Also on the list of Boston area VC bloggers (in the article or on Kirsner's blog):
- David Aronoff of IDG Ventures: Diary of a GeekVC
- Mike Hirshland of Polaris Venture Partners: VCMike
- Vinit Nijhawan of Key Venture Partners: Serial Entrepreneur, Venture Capitalist "A discussion of venture capital, entrepreneurship and innovation with particular focus on US, India and China."
- Simeon Simeonov of Polaris Venture Partners: HighContrast "Innovation & venture capital in the post-broadband era"
An aside: mainstream media Web sites could learn a thing or two about Web navigation from blogs. For example, neither the column title nor Scott Kirsner's name is a link. Granted the Columnists link isn't too far away -- but when I follow the link from that page to his column, I get a registration wall. Er, no thanks.
While I'm at it, here's one more reason I read blogs over MSM articles: splitting an article across two pages just to double the number of ad impressions is very annoying. Enough already. The short-term boost may seem like easy money, but I'll bet it's a losing strategy in the long run.
 |
 |
Posts
