Comments on: Media in the maelstrom (part 3)

By: The Times: here’s why we are putting upa paywall « TheWaterRat

The Times: here’s why we are putting upa paywall « TheWaterRat — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:17:31 +0000

[...] my Media in the maelstrom series here Media in the maelstrom part 1 Media in the maelstrom part 2 Media in the maelstrom part 3 Media in the maelstrom part 4 Posted in Business and Technology, SELECT | Leave a Comment [...]

By: Print Publications still hallucinating that the iPad will save their asses « TheWaterRat

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:59 +0000

[...] my Media in the maelstrom series here Media in the maelstrom part 1 Media in the maelstrom part 2 Media in the maelstrom part 3 Media in the maelstrom part 4 Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Five Ways the iPad [...]

By: Media in the maelstrom (part 4) « TheWaterRat

Media in the maelstrom (part 4) « TheWaterRat — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:52:35 +0000

[...] couple of weeks ago, in part 3, I discussed in broad terms how I see the News Publishing industry evolving, and provided some [...]

By: Andrea Favale

Andrea Favale — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:31:35 +0000

Don’t get me wrong. I think his idea is very valid, infact I remember discussing this with James 3 years ago, some sort of video advertorial alongside the main news article; but I am not sure this is enough for the user.

By: Andrea Favale

Andrea Favale — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:29:45 +0000

I think timing is good and I am actually surprised this has not been done before, a combination of the world crisis and the stubborness of the establishment, perhaps.
My feeling is that Apple or someone else and the Publishers will try force on users a solution that is not exactly what readers want. A device that let’s you access papers and magazines is better than what we have now but not good enough for the reasons I mention in the post. I would not be completely surprised if Apple announced the inews alongside the iSlate in the same way they did for iTunes and iPod, but perhaps I am giving them too much credit.
Dave Winer’s idea sounds interesting at first but if you think about it he’s just proposing advertising all over again; i.e. someone paying to gain spotlight in a good spot. I think we are way past that.

By: Nichol

Nichol — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:09:01 +0000

I have totally been thinking about this post… I wonder if the timing of it isn’t just amazing – the maelstrom of hype around the iSlate or whatever it will be has suggested that this will be Apple’s attempt to move again against the Kindle/Nook/etc – and there are some interesting similarities to when they are launching this compared to when they launched iTunes… a newsy iTunes on the horizon?!

Also, don’t know if you know about Dave Winer – Interesting guy that I have been reading and would probably spark some interesting ideas. Check out his most recent missive on solving the NYTimes’ problem – sounds like you would dig some of this stuff.

http://rebootnews.com/2010/01/20/a-breakthrough-for-the-times-possibly/

By: Andrea Favale

Andrea Favale — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:43:25 +0000

Yes and No is my answer. I believe that the outfit that will deliver the right solution is not going to be an existing publisher (because of the legacy culture and cost associated to it) but more likely a technology company like it happened for Apple in music. In my view a ‘big’ brand name would make things easier but instead of Apple/Google/Microsoft it could simply be a small start up that manages to get a relationship working with one well known publisher. I have been thinking a lot about this and I think I know what the right combination is. Happy to discuss further.

I agree that the brand value of NYTimes is more important than that of music labels, today, and I think that will survive. The tool I have in mind will be incredibly flexible so that you can pick and chose your feed as you prefer. An attempt of this, which perhaps I should have mentioned is what is happening with ebooks; I think the approach is wrong there, but you can subscribe to multiple sources of content via the Kindle and other devices.

As for the analogy, you’re right; it’s only fitting to a point. There are differences between journalists and musicians and I don’t think that, in general, journalists can reach the same status or influence as musicians. But, within the Publishing world other factors count as well. I’ll mention only 2: Advertising – this is the main business model right now for most publishers and is very different from the labels model; UGC – users can create music and publish it right now but it’s much easier and cheaper for citizen journalists to publish their content; this aspect will play a big role in the way the publishing industry will change.

By: Nichol

Nichol — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:14:38 +0000

really interesting analysis. i’m wondering, based on all this, in your opinion, is there room for an entrepreneurial solution? can a small outfit build a “newsy iTunes”? or do you think this has to come from one of the big publishers with the relationships and power to get the deals done?

while in general i agree with everything you are saying, i would raise one issue with your analogy of the NYTimes to EMI. I do have a brand affinity to the NYTimes, say, over the Daily News (depending on what I want to read about, I guess). I believe the NYTimes influences the news it reports in a way that I trust or am interested in, where as I have no such illusion about EMI or Virgin. Though, I wonder if in the olden days, labels didn’t have a similar cache – for example the Verve jazz label?

one of the interesting implications of the analogy that you don’t mention, however, is that if content makers are to be successful in the new news business, they must become rock stars. they must create and maintain a public persona of sufficient weight as to influence reading choices. are there many journalists out there who embrace this thinking or who do much to create their own personal brand as being something apart from where they write? i’m not sure, or if there are, they haven’t yet reached superstar status.