Monthly Archives: June 2007

What might explain USAToday.com’s traffic drop off?

So what’s up with USAToday’s traffic?

Obviously, before it’s big redesign, traffic was declining, but it’s fallen off a cliff since the relaunch.

Is the problem the design, or is the UGC/participation model failing, or is it something else?

Before we jump to conclusions that its UGC/participation, look at the past 12 months of traffic for Bakersfield.com:

We (clarifying point: I’m no longer affiliated with Bakersfield.com) relaunched the site in March 2006, with the UGC/participation tools being added a month or so later. As the graph above shows, traffic has been steadily climbing.

Bakersfield.com’s success could be related to improved site navigation, or boat loads of more video or the participation tools. The point is, it’s hard to believe participation tools are hurting USAToday.

WashingtonPost.com, a constantly evolving site, but one that went through some significant home page tweaks in about the same time frame as USAToday’s relaunch, is also showing steady growth:

WaPo is also heavy into user participation and conversation.

Based on just these couple of comparisons, either something is terribly wrong with the USAToday design, or there is some other unknown factor that is hurting USAToday’s numbers.

For sake of one last comparison: NYTimes.com

Again, steady growth (so it’s not an industrywide trend against national news sites). Continue reading

Tagged , | 10 Comments

CNN dropping paid service

Here’s more evidence that people won’t pay for online content: CNN is killing Pipeline as a paid site. Continue reading

Tagged | Leave a comment

Spin control: Craigslist stays on the “good guys” message

Over the years I’ve read various quotes from Craig Newmark and Jim Buckmaster defending craigslist’s business practices.

Every time there is a phrase pops into my head: Master politicians. They are as good at spin as any inside-the-beltway veteran.

Let’s parse this quote from Buckmaster:

“Walled garden� is a misnomer — this term arose to describe AOL’s attempts to keep their subscribers from accessing the internet at large — we do nothing of the sort, and in fact encourage users to go elsewhere

Here Buckmaster dodges the question by reframing the its intended meaning. Clearly, the intent is to use “walled garden” as a metaphor for craigslist’s unwillingness to open its site to third-party aggregators. Whether or not the original meaning of the phrase is as Buckmaster says it is matters not. He’s clearly spinning here. Instead of dealing with the criticism, he’s recasting the phrase into terms he can easily dismiss.

Of course, craiglist users can go elsewhere. That’s not the point. The real question is, are the people who supply the (mostly free) content that make craigslist what it is afforded the opportunity to benefit from wider distribution of their content? In that sense of “walled garden,” craigslist is, in fact, a walled garden. No amount of spin changes that.

I don’t mind that craigslist is a walled garden. I just think Newmark and Buckmaster should be honest about it.

Likewise, I have never before heard the term “proprietary� applied to craigslist, given our well-known near-exclusive reliance on free software.

Again, the question is being recast into a meaning that Buckmaster can wave off. Whether craigslist runs on open source software is irrelevant to the question of whether its business practices are proprietary. In fact, it’s ironic that Buckmaster would proudly wave the open source flag while defending very Microsoft-like business practices.

Newmark and Buckmaster are free to pursue whatever business practices they like, but they should stop hiding behind the spin of “we’re just here to serve the users.”

While I’ve said before that newspapers should not blame Craig for their woes, and I’ve also said Craig gets far more blame than he should, craigslist is also clearly not a friend of local newspapers. The company is far from harmless; it’s just that casting craigslist as the main villian is rather foolish.

That said, for all of Newmark’s and Buckmaster’s spin about how they’re not greedy capitalist, how they exist to serve users, how they care about communities, how they regret the decline of journalism, and value solid journalism, etc. — what have they done to help newspapers? Where are the partnerships that might benefit both a local paper and a craigslist site?

Newmark and Buckmaster owe newspapers nothing. They are under no obliation to seek partnership opportunities — opportunities that could benefit local communities on multiple levels — I’m just asking the question because I just don’t buy the craigslist spin that the company is all that White Hat.

Greed isn’t always about money. Sometimes it’s about control and attention. I suspect that Craig Newmark and Bill Gates aren’t all that different inside. Continue reading

Tagged | 2 Comments

Local.com granted local geographic search patent

John Battelle shares an interesting new patent granted Local.com.

If you wanted to run a search of all the content on your newspaper.com and rank it by geographic location, Local.com might have something to say about it. Continue reading

Tagged | Leave a comment

Digital correspondent in San Diego

Cyndy Green sent me the link a few weeks back, and I finally just took the time to look through the blog of Kyle Majors, a video journalist back in my old stomping grounds.

While Kyle is working for a TV station, newspaper video journalists could certainly go to school on his site. He shares his work and experiences, and while his pieces drift toward a “shot for TV” style, they are generally more personal and interesting than straight TV news. He certainly comes up with some good topics to cover.

Also, check out his equipment list.

Oh, and I love his tag line:

It’s not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change – Unknown

Continue reading

Tagged | 4 Comments

Blogging would be good for your news business, too

To what extent should your company — your media company — be blogging?

Consider the example of Microsoft.

A Microsoft (MSFT) Web site for uber-geeks went live in April 2004 and, according to Wired magazine, immediately it became clear “The fears of lawyers, marketers, and PR consultants would, in fact be realized – and it would be good for the company.”

“The 71,000 employee company now has more than 4,500 bloggers posting on every imaginable tech topic,” explained writer Fred Vogelstein. Some of them, like Mini-Microsoft, are anonymous, fearing reprisals from the bosses, while others like Larry Hryb are public and prolific.

Continue reading

Tagged | 1 Comment

A cautionary note about the OPA pre-roll study

OPA commissioned a study of pre-roll advertising, and based on how the results are being presented, it would be very tempting to conclude that you know, what, pre-roll is OK after all.

OPA found pre-roll combined with a banner ad lifted brand awareness.

But here’s the cautionary note: In the early days of pop-up ads, marketers considered them effective because they drove brand awareness and click-throughs.

But few legitimate publishers allow poppers on their sites these days. Why? Because they irritate the hell out users. And their irritation factor eventually meant they were ineffective.
Previous studies found that pre-roll is irritating to users.

Internet trends point toward non-disruptive advertising (such as relevant text ads) as the most effective means to bring businesses and consumers together, while disruptive models lose traction over time (consider the decline of the lowly rotating gif banner).

The danger of pre-roll is that it could create a disincentive for viewers to watch a publisher’s video offerings. I know I’ve personally declined to watch some newspaper videos recently because I didn’t want to be bother with the pre-roll.

Newspaper sites can’t afford hinder audience growth. Using pre-roll is a risky proposition. Continue reading

Tagged | 3 Comments

Looking for a journalism job? Try GateHouse Media

While other newspaper companies continue to announce layoffs, buyouts and hiring freezes, GateHouse Media has a robust pipeline of current openings.

Here’s a JournalismJobs posting of more than two dozen full-time reporter and editor jobs in New England.

More openings listed here.

I’ve mentioned before about the recruitment site in Rockford. We’re also looking for reporters in the Chicago area.

UPDATE: I forgot, more GateHouse jobs listed on the GateHouse Newsroom site. This page will show you journalism openings from papers all over the country. Continue reading

Tagged | Leave a comment

GUEST POST: Rockford editor on Myers-Briggs in the newsroom and the future of journalism

One of the things I love about working at GateHouse Media is how many great, smart, talented, driven, passionate people I meet. There are a lot of such people with GateHouse.

Last week, I was sitting in office of Linda Grist Cunningham, our editor at the Rockford Register Star, talking about all of the work we have ahead of us and the transformations hitting our industry. The subject of Myers-Briggs came up and Linda made an interesting observation about the personality types you typically find in newsrooms and the kind of personality types best suited to our more turbulent media environment. They’re very different people.

As we talked, I thought, “This would be a great topic for a blog post.” But it was clear that Linda knew both more about Myers-Briggs than I do, and had far greater insight into the topic than I could muster.

So I asked Linda to write a guest post, and happily she agreed.

Here is her post:

Here’s what we’ve got: Thorough, exacting journalists who are systematic, hardworking, careful with detail; who want things to be grounded in fact and analyzed logically. Journalists who can thrive in chaos — as long as most of the things around them is structured and well-organized, preferably with deadlines. Journalists who can gather information steadily, then reach an assumption quickly. They’re prone to being comfortable with one (or, maybe) two interpretations of an idea or event, and “two sides to a story” is a religion. They work best with others who are realistic and focused on facts and results.

Here’s what we need: Journalists who are innovative, strategic, versatile, analytical and entrepreneurial. Journalists who enjoy working with others in start-up activities that require ingenuity and unusual resourcefulness; who create innovative, logical, organized and decisive strategic plans around valid concepts — and who can get them done. Journalists who can see a dozen possibilities when others can see only “two sides of a story.” Journalists who delight in a “slippery slope” just for the rush of the slide, and who then figure a way to bring it all together and get it done.

With apologies for a taking liberties with the Myers-Briggs personality type indicators, which I pretty much lifted verbatim above, the men and women whose styles and personalities have been the strong foundations of our print newsrooms struggle to meet the expectations of the “cyber-fiber” integrated newsroom.

I once heard the statistic that 80 percent of our newsrooms were ISTJs (that’s Myers-Briggs shorthand for a version of the “what we’ve got” above.) I can’t cite the stat, but after almost four decades in newsrooms, I happily accept it as true. The ISTJs fiercely uphold the First Amendment, get things spelled right, get the facts, send the bad guys to jail, get the press started on time, and don’t screw up grandma’s obit. They keep their own counsel and aren’t particularly inclined to be openly enthusiastic.

(Think I’m kidding? Ever watched a roomful of journalists listening to a particularly rousing speaker? Nary a one nods, and heaven forbid that they applaud. I have watched 900 editors at an American Society of Newspaper Editors convention sit without a single clap of hands, not even a polite one, at the conclusion of a presidential — that’s U.S. president — speech. When those same editors gave Richard Nixon a standing ovation — years after he “retired” — I was sure I was at a publishers meeting.)

That’s who we are, and that made us a formidable force when we were exclusively about the two-dimensional print newspaper. That’s not going to get us into the new media world. We need — again apologies to Myers-Briggs — a whole bunch of ENTJs and ENTPs (see description above.) Since we can’t and shouldn’t replace the ISTJs, which would be not only insane, but impossible, and since personality styles are non-transferable (we’re born that way, folks), how do we go about building the newsroom staff we need?

Lobotomies are out. So, we do three things:

  1. Capitalize on the strengths of those exacting, fact-driven “traditional” journalists’ brains.
  2. Hire the innovative brains when the openings occur so we move toward a diverse mix of thinking styles and personalities.
  3. Teach new tricks.

*Capitalize: Just because they aren’t the first ones to grab the wireless laptop and video camera doesn’t mean our journalists can’t or won’t transform themselves into the new-fangled models. They will, and they’ll do it well. But, we can’t dump it all on them at once. Customize the explanation and the training; detail the facts and show the logic behind what we want them to do; explain the whys and the pros-and-cons. Develop realistic time lines and implementation plans. Create order and structure around the disruptions to the things they’ve been doing for years. Give them plenty of time to ponder and mull, read and research, ask questions, absorb and analyze. Challenge them to suggest other methods and solutions to arrive at similar goals. Give them plenty of time and room to let go of the past. They’ll get to the same place as the innovators; it just takes longer.

* Hire: We shouldn’t have to spend much time on this one since we’ve said it for decades. Let’s just do it: Instead of filling positions with the same kinds of people and job descriptions as the ones who vacated them, decide what you need to get the new jobs done, and hire for that position, not the one that’s open. None of us are going to get a bunch of additional bodies, so we have to hire smartly, and that may mean no more ISTJs for a while.

* Teach: Your “early adopters” and even your “early adapters” are going to be jazzed by the possibilities multiple platforms bring to “doing news.” They’ll be your leaders and drivers. But, give the ISTJ-type folks a chance. Grab a handful of the undesignated newsroom leaders — those reporters, photographers and copy editors who toil over the traditional print newspaper and to whom everyone listens no matter what. Hold them close. Bring them into the first brainstorming sessions. Give them the cool, new, expensive equipment. Challenge them to try it. Tell them that you need them to help lead the newsroom into the future. Instead of lamenting their lack of enthusiasm, make it important that they be among the leaders — and give them the opportunities to do some serious journalism with some nifty technology. It will work. And, once they find out that they can have fun and do serious stuff at the same time, they’ll tell the rest of the newsroom. Think of it as “Mikey likes it….”

If you haven’t taken Myers-Briggs before, I recommend it. It can be pretty insightful. It’s best if you take it through a professional environment where experts can help you understand better what it means and how to apply what you learn. That said, you might be able to find a free Myers-Briggs test through Google, which can still give you a basic idea of your personality type.

FWIW: I’m an ENTP. Continue reading

Tagged , | 2 Comments

A multidimensional approach is needed for newspaper video strategy

I’m confused by this post from Chuck Fadely.

On one hand, he has this gripe:

This video stuff ain’t easy nor cheap. No matter how many well-intentioned bloggers tell you all you need is a $89 camera and the will to do it, the reality is far different.

It takes good audio gear, reasonable video gear, modern computers, and most of all, time, to produce intelligible video for the web.

But later he says this:

Video clips, on the other hand, can be done by almost anyone with a point-n-shoot. We’re talking the video equivalent of a page 4B traffic accident brief. A video clip appeals to the 17 people who were affected by the wreck (unless it’s a porn starlet).

So, let’s suss this out. You’re a “well-intentioned blogger” if you say low-end equipment is the way to go to get spot-news video, and um, this video stuff isn’t easy and it takes dedicated staff and big, expensive cameras, but, um, that 4B traffic accident should be covered by a reporter with a point-and-shoot camera.

Isn’t this a contradiction?

OK, I see his post is a rant against publishers who think video is cheap and easy and won’t spend money on training, talent or equipment.

But he doesn’t name any publishers who believe that, and I certainly don’t know any publishers who believe that.

So we must be back to the well-intentioned bloggers.

But he doesn’t name these bloggers, either.

I suspect a strawman.

The only bloggers I know who advocate putting inexpensive cameras in the hands of news staff are also experienced professional journalists.

After all, the father of inexpensive news site video is Jack Lail, one of my early online mentors. He runs one of the most respected news web sites in the country. His staff created Random This, which recently won a Digital Edgie award.

But KnoxNews.com isn’t all point-and-shoot. The staff there also produces a lot of polished video shot with quality equipment.

So who is it out there advocating a cheap-only approach to video?

Here’s what Chris Hendricks, VP of interactive for McClatchy, said at an Inland Press Association event earlier this year, which I blogged:

Hendricks on video: It’s part of the critical strategic path. “We need to be in the video business.� Some McClatchy sites have studios, but many just have $99 cameras and reporters are out shooting video. Chris endorsed the idea of doing whatever you need to do to get video on your site. It doesn’t need to be big, fancy or expensive.

So McClatchy is pursuing a duel video strategy: Expensive stuff and low-end stuff. McClatchy has video studios, but also believes in buying $99 cameras.

To me, it just seems smart to do both.

As news companies transitioning to the web we need to:

  • Develop internal video literacy, so we can both produce better stuff with low-end equipment, and become better at shooting great stuff with higher end equipment, or however equipment might evolve;
  • Condition our audience to think of our sites as a go-to place for video of multiple varieties, and the only way to produce a critical mass of video is to include easy-to-produce, reporter-shot video in the mix;
  • Find our video voice, by that I mean figure out what works and what doesn’t and go in the direction of what works, and this means shooting lots of video and getting a lot of people involved in the process;
  • Get our newsroom more engaged in online, and video has some real magic in driving this transformation (I’ve watched it happen in multiple newsrooms now — give reporters the power to shoot their own video and suddenly you have a lot of reporters caring a lot more about online).

Video is too important to our digital future to pursue with just a one-dimensional strategy.

And BTW: It’s not cheap to buy a lot of inexpensive cameras to outfit an entire newsroom. And if you do that, you do need multimedia staff (meaning new FTEs, or reallocating FTEs) to help support the effort. It’s a bit of a red herring to say that publishers are trying to cheap-out by investing in point-and-shoot cameras.

I’m still not sure what Chuck is really advocating, but a quick reading of his post would lead one to believe that he’s slamming the use of low-end equipment for news video and preaching an exclusive high-end-only approach.

Obviously, I disagree. Continue reading

Tagged | 3 Comments