Below the Fray. Above the Fold?

Is it ironic that a lot of the conversations happening in media is about media? I'm not sure ...

From people stating that blogs are the new newspapers to Democracy dying because of newspapers' demise to people predicting/wishing for all major papers to become online-only to how newspapers need to engage their audience more and on and on and on, the fact is: Newspapers will never die. There will always be a newspaper on paper (until paper is too expensive and/or rare a resource. Then, maybe, back to papyrus?). Though publications continue to file for Chapter 11, cut staff, and even cut days, newspapers will be around for a very, very long time. That said; Newspapers need to change dramatically in order to thrive.

The Press is the Fourth Estate. Unfortunately for the many thousands of journalists and editors who have been victims of gross mismanagement and a complete ignorance to the wave of internet publications and the threat that all websites pose to newspapers, they are still very much one of the most instrumental pieces of our Democratic puzzle. If not for writers, we'd still be living in a pre-RegFD, pre-SarBox, pre-Enron, pre-WorldCom, pre-Walter Reed, pre-Watergate, pre-countless stories.

With the nature of this ubiquitous Web 2.0 world, some forget that mainstream media (TV, Print, Radio) are the main sources for stories on blogs and other social sites. Yes, some bloggers have broken many important stories (iPhone, RatherGate, Tim Russert's death, etc.) but they predominantly get their news the same way their parents did, from newspapers, albeit very often via RSS feeds and Google/Marketwatch Alerts.

I read newspapers but I’m not one of those fanatics that read papers because I love the feel of paper and ink on my fingertips. I read newspapers because that’s where the best and most thorough news is.

I don't often buy newspapers. When I do, I buy newspapers because I’m about to get on a plane or train or I just feel like looking at the Sunday circulars. Are newspaper sales being hurt due to people shopping less and looking at circulars less? Maybe.

More often than not, I just don't buy newspapers because I get them free during the week outside of the subway stops. By the time I get to work, I’m then able to filter through all my RSS feeds and find out what I need to know from those subscriptions, from twitter, or from other sources. For those people lucky enough to have access to Metro International's papers or AMNY, you don't need to buy a daily paper anymore. The best part about these papers is that they cater to the audience better than the New York Times, Daily News, NY Post, Newsday, etc.

These papers are made with commutes in mind. The average New Yorker's commute is 38.4 minutes, according to the U.S. Census (source 2 and 3). This is the longest commute time in the nation. What is worse, New Yorker's probably live closer to their place of employment than almost anyone else.

Despite it being the paper of record, the New York Times cannot be read in 40 minutes (none of the ‘major’ NYC papers can). Yet, this and all the other major dailies are the ones getting the big advertising dollars. I think that the ‘commuter papers’ should be the ones getting bigger ad dollars than many papers. They are being read in full, and for communications purposes, they’re actually being read by several people per paper (I’m not the only one that leaves it on the bus or subway, am I?).

News is now available everywhere… it’s available on your computer, it’s available on your blackberry or iPhone, on your Kindle, iTouch, Palm Pre, etc. However, the most convenient and simplest place to read all your news is in your hands in long form. Nothing beats a newspaper in ease of use, battery life or data plans. Nothing.

So, what is the future of the newspaper? The New York Times has consistently shrunk in size and in bredth over the last few years. Circulation for the NY Times was down nearly 4% last year. Major papers have been seeing enormous declines for a long time. The writing has been on the wall, yet no one has done much about it.

If the NY Times wants to regain the circulation numbers it had it has to do something drastic.

The future of the newspaper is free. While they should and could still charge for Sunday papers, weekday papers should be free and available to as many people as possible. This would increase the circulation numbers and will allow the company to sell ad space for a much higher price. Since the majority of classified ads (for all papers, but especially metropolitan papers) have gone online to Craig’s List and other online sites, the only revenue left to grow is advertising. The NY Times did sign a distribution agreement with Metro International for Classified Advertising distribution (though I haven’t seen the ads as being incredibly valuable).

The NY Times should buy out Metro International (they currently own 49%) completely and run briefs of all of their stories in it. Currently, it appears that Metro employs its own staff and piggybacks on news from the day before. The NYT briefs should all direct people to the website where the NY Times could double their ad dollars by having the eyeballs in both print and online.

The days of multiplying eyeballs by two and one-half are gone. There is no pass-through rate anymore. There’s hardly circulation like we were used to. The future of the paper is smaller and cheaper. Free, cheaper.

This is not a bad thing. The only bad thing is that our kids won’t know what “Above the Fold” means …

Is This The End Of Twitter?

Usually, by the time a fad or emerging technology goes mainstream it's the sign that it's no longer a fad, emerging, or cool. We have seen Twitter rise as an astronomical success ... despite all the Fail Whales and identi.ca's. Twitter will be around for a while. It's not dying. It may just be that it will become less useful if the users continue down the same track. It will, eventually, become way to noisy for the major voices (Chris Brogan, Robert Scoble, Guy Kawasaki, etc.) to follow everyone that follows them. It's just untenable. Despite all the tools that allow you to group your friends and maintain conversations, Twitter wasn't built well enough to truly show the evolution of a conversation ... certainly not as well as FriendFeed.

One other ironic thing is the way that traditional media has grasped onto this '2.0' technology. As we can see from this compilation, there are hundreds of reporters on Twitter. If only they were this fervent about blogs when they were in their infancy ... maybe we wouldn't be saying goodbye to our local news and hello to hyperlocal news.







Share on FriendFeed

Is Second Life Getting a Second Wind?

In boardrooms across the country, screenshots of twitter still evoke chuckles every once in a while. I still play the word association game when it seems appropriate (What's the first word that comes to mind when I say "Twitter?"). While I still hear the words noisy, chaos and waste of time, it does not elicit anywhere near the reaction that Second Life does.

Over the weekend CNBC covered, in great detail, the business of Second Life and the growth it has allegedly seen since September (a 30% increase in user transactions). While many people have their doubts about the 'world,' the business model, and the statistics, what is astounding is the resurgence and apparent need Second Life has cultivated due to the economic conditions (who do I owe a nickel to for saying that phrase?). Trying to think of an analogy for this situation is somewhat futile, but fun nonetheless. It's kind of like going back to Friendster because the lines are shorter ... no, It's kind of like going back to MySpace because the new TOC at Facebook impinge on your social liberties. No. It's like going back to the BBSs because you can only afford to use the web over your 14.4 baud modem. Maybe.

Regardless, I think this resurgence in Second Life is more of a last gasp than a Second Wind. Second Life is doomed (and has always been doomed for the mainstram) to fail because it fosters fantasy and caters to people trying to obfuscate from their real persona. Social Media is succeeding because it allows people to connect, engage, participate and affect. While Second Life does meet these curt criterion, Social Media, generally, exists to build the brand and network of real people. And though you can't argue with the business being done on Second Life and the fortunes being spent there, you can still make fun of it (if you wish). After all, the internet is serious business.

Yes, we will see a short uptick in the use of Second Life for Corporate Events, Trade Shows and other business uses. But I don't think anyone that's not a Furry is Long on Second Life.


UPDATE: Reuters closes bureau in Second Life today!

Share on FriendFeed