Tag: content

A must-read for all you content types (that’s ‘editorial’) in the old paradigm

recessionwire-logo1Here are 7 non-nonsense rules for any editorial types who plan to survive the 2009 Media Meltdown and transform themselves into the content creators of the future. For the detail, read the original blog on Recessionwire, written by Laura Rich, a journalist and regular contributor there.

  1. Readers are your competitors — and your friends.
  2. Identify your expertise.
  3. Build your brand.
  4. Be transparent.
  5. Crowdsource (actively seek participation in the development of your story).
  6. Use self service tools.
  7. Interact with your readers.

You’ll find the full explanation behind each at the original blog.

Go forth, do good and do well.

More than ever, the medium is the message

mcluhan-book

At the time, he was talking about the fast advent of TV. But if you want to see the truth of his statement in action, you’re already in the right place: online.

  • A message in Twitter is 140 characters long.
  • A message on 12seconds.tv is, well, 12 seconds long.
  • You get about 400 characters to express your thoughts on Facebook.
  • LinkedIn is businesslike; you can’t get as lost as you can on Facebook, and the variety of activities in more limited.
  • Squidoo lets you type in original content, but it’s really about packaging other content — yours or somebody else’s — under a single thematic umbrella.
  • A blog is unlimited, but is accepted as “good” only if it gets updated frequently.

There are at least dozens more kinds of electronic media where you can place your messages. I know people who market themselves online using all of the above media and more.  But if you want to get people to pay attention to what you’re writing, you can’t just cut and paste your blog post onto Facebook and Twitter and Squidoo, etc.

In some cases, there are limitations such Twitter’s infamous 140-character limit. In all, there is the simple and unarguable feedback from the market. If you do it right, people will pay attention. If you do it wrong, they won’t.

Doing it right means integrating strengths, weaknesses and peculiarities of the medium into whatever it is that you’re writing, videotaping, podcasting, etc. If you want to give a lecture, don’t bother putting it on YouTube unless you have strong visuals to go with it. And don’t simply post the transcript of your lecture as a blog if you want anyone to say anything nice about it.

Today, as newspapers face their toughest economic environment ever, they’re trying to figure out how to get people to pay for content online. When I ask people about this, the usual response is that they aren’t sure they’d find an electronic newspaper to be worth reading, let alone paying for.

But they’re imposing their view of newspapers as a print medium on the coming reality of newspapers online.

To be sure, some publishers will make a mess of it. They’ll try to do exactly what they’re doing now — but without the paper costs. And they’ll fail.

Others will figure it out. The paper of the future may provide headlines to your cellphone in the morning, with updates all day. On a Smartphone, the headlines may link to the full story. You may have the choice whether you want to get one section (world news, for instance) in-depth, and another (perhaps sports) on only a cursory basis. The website might offer configuration and search tools, letting you scan for all articles containing a specific keyword, or filter out stories from the opposite side of town. It could give you Tweets as news breaks, video clips of big events, or full context about ongoing, longterm stories. It may led you contribute news in the form of short video and photos. You might be able to read it on a Kindle, on screen or hear it through your ipod. And somewhere in there, they’ll figure out how to not only collect a critical mass of paid subscribers, they’ll also figure out how to serve advertisers.

In other words, newspapers will survive. But they won’t look like they do today, and they won’t DO what they do today either, because they’ll come to us not just through the same old medium, but through a Dagwood sandwich of media.

So McLuhan’s old saw really is more important than ever. When he wrote it, he was dealing with print, TV and radio. Today, because the medium is the message, it means the message changes many times a day depending on where you happen to be when you choose to accept it.

More on the suing of Entrepreneur

UPDATE: Entrepreneur magazine, being sued for publishing information in its “Top 100” list of entrepreneurial companies about a CEO who was subsequently arrested and charged with running a Ponzi scheme, has now asked that the suit be dismissed.

The original suit, for $178 million by a group of 87 investors, alleged that, by printing information about the company Agape World (this was covered in more detail in my previous blog entry, Are Magazines Really That Important?), Entrepreneur magazine played a role in their making a bad investment.

Entrepreneur‘s motion for dismissal strikes me as pretty fair and on-target. I have no sympathy for investors dumb enough to bet millions of dollars on information taken from Entrepreneur magazine.

The strange thing is that’s pretty much Entrepreneur‘s defense. According to Folio:, the magazine cites New York law in stating: “A publisher is under no duty of care to its readers to ensure the accuracy of published information unless it constitutes a breach of contract, obligation, or trust, or amounts to deceit, libel or slander… A publisher, even those who maintain a paid subscription service, such as Entrepreneur, owes its readers no duty to ensure the accuracy of its publications, and thus, cannot incur liability for an allegedly inaccurate statement.”

OK, I agree that magazines make mistakes and shouldn’t be held accountable for the cost to someone who uses that information to make a business decision. But does Entrepreneur really want to be on record saying that it doesn’t need to worry whether the information it prints is accurate?

How fast can one company lose customers?

According to Shelly Palmer at imediabytes, Sirius/Xm Radio lost $36 million in Q1. And that’s nothing. It lost 400,000 customers — which I’m thinking is more customers than Johnson & Johnson lost back in the 1980s when someone started putting cyanide in its Tylenol products. siriusxm_siriusI mean, 400,000 is a mid-size city. It’s a lot of customers. I’m not sure you could get rid of customers that fast if you paid telemarketers to call them up at dinner time and swear at them.

And if you’re the folks at Sirius/XM, it’s the kind of number that puts you into a full-blown panic attack. When you lose 400,00 customers in 3 months, you start asking questions like, “Are we doing the right thing here?” and “WTF?”

My personal experience is that I had been a subscriber for 2 years when I got a note from Sirius/XM in February siriusxm_xmwarning me that I would no longer be able to access programming for free on my computer unless I paid for the full year in advance right away.

It annoyed me, and I immediately assumed it was a cash-grab. But I bought the 12-month subscription because I thought it was important to me. Two weeks later I lost my job, and a week after that, in an effort to cut all unnecessary costs — and because I was irritated at being leveraged in the first palce, I called to cancel my subscription.

Their response? The nice lady with a Punjabi accent asked if they could keep me as a customer if they reduced the annual subscription rate by 50%. Now I was really mad, realizing that all along I’d been paying twice what they were willing to take. I told her no.

A month later, I got a direct-mail piece asking me to come back at 4.99 a month for six months — 38% of the original price. I suppose this was supposed to entice me. But it made me feel even more stupid for having paid $12.99 in the first place.

There’s one other thing: All along, Sirius/XM has advertised that it’s commercial-free radio, which should be worth paying for. But it’s not true. If you listen to any syndicated programming that’s re-broadcast via satellite, you’ll get the same amount of commercial time as you would on commercial radio.

And if you listen to their original programming — some of which is really pretty good — you still get advertising. And it’s the most irritating kind: low-budget stuff for whole-body cleanses and businesses that you can run from home without any skills or experience required.

I originally bought my XM subscription because I didn’t want to be my own DJ; I’d rather have someone else do it for me. But these are hard times, you know. Worst times since the Great Depression. So now, when I get in my car, I plug in my i-pod or put in an old CD. I still don’t want to be my own DJ. But I’m guessing that 399,999 other people agree with me that it’s not all that bad a job.

Quote of the day

From Richard Mitchele, who just won a contest from Sailing Anarchy (without a doubt the best blog, forum and e-newsletter on earth devoted to racing sailboats). His prize was a ride-along on the Puma entrant in the Volvo Ocean Race during the closed-course races sailed in Boston as part of the round-the-world race’s only North American stopover.sailing-anarchy-swag

“You could have knocked me over with a feather when I found out that I’d won the contest on SA. I was kind of thinking maybe I’d score a T-shirt or some other Puma swag. It was as if Jessica Alba called to say that the restraining order had been lifted, that she and Uma Thurman had talked it over and wanted to give my idea a try.”

Are magazines really that important?

Folio:, a trade magazine for the publishing industry, reports that Entrepreneur magazine is being sued for $178 million by a group of 87 investors who claim the magazine promoted a business that turned out to be a giant Ponzi scheme. (Here’s the article.)

ent-mag-cover-may-08In the suit, they claim the magazine “deliberately, willfully and recklessly failed to exercise due diligence in publishing information” about Agape World, according to the Folio: article. That information was contained in a May 2008 ranking of the “Hot 100” fast-growth businesses. Agape World was ranked 73rd, but early this year its owner was arrested and charged with mail fraud to the tune of $375 million+. The company has  been retroactively removed from the Hot 100 list.

This sounds to me like a bunch of crybaby investors looking for someone to blame because they didn’t do their due diligence. And I have little sympathy for them. The investors, according to the article, are also going to sue Dunn & Bradstreet, which apparently provided some of the information Entrepreneur used.

But it also peels back the blanket on one of publishing’s most worrisome and quietly kept problems. Magazine people claim that, despite the advertising/revenue crisis they currently face, they will remain viable over the long-run because their content is so important to readers.

For instance, here’s what Gordon Hughes, president of American Business Media (trade magazine association) said just a few weeks ago, in another Folio: article about the 26% declinein ad sales in 2009’s Q1: “What our industry does, and has always done, is provide information that makes business better and stronger. We will come through this period as a stronger industry, a more creative industry, and maybe even a more dedicated industry.”

He should have included the word “smaller.” Because the great good that he claims the industry performs is more exception than rule.

Take Entrepreneur‘s example. Its Hot 100 list is repurposed information from public databases. OK, somebody has to crunch the data. And I’m not saying there isn’t any original reporting; but even the magazine’s CEO says there isn’t a lot.

Here’s what Entrepreneur‘s COE Peter Shea told Folio: “Given the limited information provided about each company, it was certainly not Entrepreneur’s intention to evaluate or predict a specific company’s investment potential nor expectation that anyone would rely on such information to make investment decisions.”

What a terrible position: In order to defend his product against this lawsuit, he has to make the case that the content is really just trivia.

I don’t mean to condemn all magazines. Many do fine work, which I read and admire. But most of what passes for such is a little bit of data and a lot of promotion. For every magazine that is earning its way by producing content that readers really won’t live without, there are probably dozens that face a real comeuppance.

Advertisers are dropping out of magazines to create their own content, and magazines must finally (they’ve been talking about it for years) get readers to pay a larger share of the actual cost to produce the information they provide. As they do, many will face a truth they probably already know: Their content isn’t all that important.