Commentary
Extra! Extra! Tweet All About It: The News Is Social
- by Joe Marchese , June 16, 2009
Sure, I know there is that pesky little matter of making money, but staying the course isn't exactly solving that issue. Why would people pay money, or tolerate their attention being traded to advertisers, when the industry isn't providing them with the best product? That is, when the industry isn't delivering to the fullest potential, given available technology.
advertisement
advertisement
In his keynote at the American Association of Advertising Agencies in New Orleans, Bob Schieffer said that if the railroad companies had thought of themselves as being in the business of transportation, rather than just the business of railroads, they'd likely own all the airlines today. If the news media believes itself in the business of selling newspapers or aggregating television viewers, rather than being in the business of delivering the highest quality news experience over the best available media, they have already lost. Even worse is if news media outlets believe themselves in the business of delivering advertising rather than news.
A few weeks ago the New York Times was the news, when it appointed Jennifer Preston (http://twitter.com/NYT_JenPreston) its first Social Media Editor, to mixed reviews (to my surprise). To me it made an immense amount of sense for the Times to establish a role like the one described for Preston in a leaked internal memo.
Figuring out social media isn't as easy as understanding what tools are out there and how they work, and even that is a tall order with how fast the social landscape changes. For the Times, this means understanding how to better serve their readers using social media, while establishing a business model that can sustain a world-class news organization.
In a recent segment ("End Times"), "The Daily Show"'s Jason Jones delivered scathingly funny and at times overly harsh commentary on how dated particular methods of news distribution are fast becoming. As it's said, it hurts most when it's true. Interviewed by Jones, Bill Keller, the Times executive editor, noted that the paper is "the best package of firsthand witnessed, thoughtful analysis, intelligent commentary on what what's happening in the world that you ought to know." RIGHT. And nowhere in that sentence did Keller point to the Times' ability to distribute newspapers or sell advertising, nor should he. The winning combination would be for the Times to deliver the package that Keller describes in a way that takes full advantage of the all the mediums at the paper's disposal.
Sure, there are times when the idea of news outlets using social media goes totally wrong -- usually when the outlets use social media just because they can, regardless of whether it adds value to the delivery of the news. CNN is probably guilty of this more than anybody, but that's OK. It's better to be misusing/overusing it, rather than not using at all. Trial and error is the best way to learn. Even local news is tapping into social media's potential and starting to see some success -- maybe.
I don't have answers to how the business model evolves for news media, but it seems to be clearer every day how the consumption of news will change -- or more accurately, evolve. I am a huge believer in the need for news organizations like the New York Times, which can afford to be an unbiased, well-informed -- and, most important, accountable -- voice. So, knowing that you can't fight the social nature of the Web, and the social nature of news: What's the best way to be in the business of delivering the news, and not end up owning all the railroads?
Leave a comment below, or drop me a line and
get involved in the conversation on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joemarchese
With all due respect to Bob Shieffer, his comments about railroads "owning the airlines" (if only they thought of themselves being in the transportation business) is dead wrong.
Railroads tried many times to enter the air business and the trucking business. They didn't have a conceptual problem: their hands were tied by regulators, including the all-powerful Interstate Commerce Commission. I wish we could put this ancient canard to rest, because it belies such extraordinary ignorance on the part of people who should know better.
The railroads don't provide a useful example of how old models fail, for the reasons that Steve Baldwin describes. All media can evolve into new media. They don't have their hands tied. It's only the lack of understanding how to build working business models. It's still tricky because online media blends all formats, text and video. In other words, an online media solution can be like TV, radio and newspapers all at the same time. Costs issues with monetizing video have still not been resolved (but soon will be). CNN online is headed in that direction. Social participation will find its rightful place in this but Bill Keller's definition of the news as, "the best package of firsthand witnessed, thoughtful analysis, intelligent commentary on what what's happening in the world that you ought to know," is perfect. Note that most of this can only be provided by a trusted, professional journalist (not through a social commentary by consumers) The real challenge right now for the news industry, lies in the dwindling number of customers that want this because we continue to dummy down as a nation. Too many consumers find satisfaction in thoughtless analysis and unintelligent commentary. That is the real threat to the news industry.
The railroad analogy may or may not be accurate, but the point that if Newspapers figure out how to monetize these new digital opportunities it can only be good for them. Print and digital are not mutually exclusive.
@Steve - Thanks for the history lesson. I am sure Mr. Schieffer would appreciate it, I know I do! Although when arguing someone's ignorance, you might want to mind the spelling of their name.
In other news...the Tortoise didn't actually beat a the Hare in a foot race, but the lesson remains...strange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare
Unfortunately, management in newspapers have been and still rely on the cya model. They also have been on the reactive than ever on a proactive channel. Presently, they have added employee intimidation and literal minute by minute oversite. Not to bore anyone by adding first hand examples that are almost unbelievable on how many millions and millions of dollars newspaper management unnecessarily lost and translates into continued deftness, the best here is to listen to Bruce.
Joe, great treatment as usual. This subject is evolving right now right under our noses in Iran. So the authorities have shut down the cell phones, limited local and international media and turned off the internet (or just certain sites, not sure) but still the message is getting out. . . by Twitter. Since news is about communication of issues at the time of their exposure, or as close as possible to it, having the ability, no matter the medium, to inform the public, even a small part of it, when the authorities have decided otherwise, having real time media outlets (or avenues of communication) is critical. The folks in Iran that are using the only means of communication open to them, Twitter, and are using it with good effect. Are news papers the best medium to communicate what is going on right now in the world, no. They are a good way of communicating what went on in the world yesterday and giving it with certain analysis. CNN's iReports, Twitter and other, real time, media outlets will replace traditional print news simply because I want it now, not tomorrow. In the mean time, continue to follow the events in Iran on the New Media outlets of the future. Thanks again Joe.
Considering my interests and career - I'd disagree with your intro, and argue sports is more social than news since it evokes more debate and discussion (thus why sports radio has been so successful).
That aside, I think most media - particularly cable - is trying to get involved with social, however its still fledgling and nobody has figured it out (as we all keep saying).
Two points I want to make. First, as Bruce alludes to, we still need authentic media to report the real stories. Social media is more of a discussion or a platform for individuals - its NOT a replacement for journalism. Second, the goal with social should be to change the reader/viewer interaction from 1-way to 2-way. Deliver the news downstream, then allow the feedback and comments flow upstream from the consumers. Let them steer the coverage after the initial news is delivered.
According to the cover story in the June 15 issue of Time magazine by Steven Johnson, Twitter is "changing the way we live, and showing us the future of American innovation". In this age of short attention spans, Twitter is the one social networking site that adapts perfectly to our fast-paced lifestyle, and is adaptable to most mobile devices. Twitter is gaining on social networking sites like Facebook because it is quicker and more efficient. The 140-character limit allows users to publish "tweets" from anywhere using their laptops or Blackberrys. Although Twitter still trails Facebook, the Nielsen ratings service shows that it's usage has grown by 1,298% since last year. Indeed, Facebook has grown by 217% in the same one-year period, and Twitter is still way behind, with 17.10 million visitors in April of 2009 compared to 71.29 million for Facebook. Because there are so many demands on our time, and many different ways we can spend it on our computers, hooked up to the Internet, Twitter is growing precisely because of it's limitations. Originally, people scoffed at the 140-character updates that limited people to just a few short sentences. But, according to Johnson in his Time article, "hearing about what your friends had for breakfast is actually more interesting than it sounds." Instead of one "tweet," we end up with an endless stream of small messages that can add up to a media event. For instance, Britain's oddball talent show sensation Susan Boyle gained Internet acclaim largely through Twitter chatter, with links to her YouTube site, where views reached record numbers. As it turns out, with millions of people using Twitter, the way it is being used is changing constantly, and it's the users themselves who have been redesigning the site. For example, the grouping of a topic or event called a "hashtag" (#inauguration, for example), the use of the @ symbol for replying to one another, and the ability to search a live stream of "tweets" were all developed by users, not Twitter itself. Thanks to these innovations, following political debates or discussions about our favorite TV shows have become commonplace. "It's like inventing a toaster oven and then looking around a year later and seeing that your customers have turned it into a microwave," wrote Johnson. Twitter is still evolving, and whether it continues to grow at the current astounding rate is not what's important. The fact that such a simple idea can create such a powerful form of communication shows us that anything's possible. In this economic climate, when banks and car companies are going bankrupt, an idea as simple as Twitter is an example of thinking small and making it big. The founders of Twitter reportedly turned down a $500 million offer from Facebook to purchase the site and they may be waiting for a more lucrative offer. Who knows, it might be worth a lot more. I'm just trying to figure out how to put all my ideas down in 140 characters or less.