First time I’ve ever heard this (unless we are talking fashion–just look at a US edition of Cosmo and you will see what I mean):
“The U.S. is so behind,” said Terry S. Semel, the chief executive of Yahoo, in a recent speech in London. “It’s certainly lagging the U.K. by at least a year or two.”
After all that talk about the US being sooo very far ahead, so webified etc, and then The New York Times goes and drops the truth on us. (Its an article about relative ad markets and includes the infamous statistic: UK digital advertising is growing at a startling rate of 40% year on year).
December 4th, 2006
The Washington Post adds to the local media feed frenzy with a typically well written story on Gannett’s attempt to remake itself into a set of federated, hyperlocal papers. Its a great story for ideas (I love the ‘mojos’ or mobile journalists, sent out into the world with but a computer and camera to protect him/her) but I was particularly struck by one bullet point
Next spring, the paper plans to run a large story on a topic it would not identify. It did, however, say that the reporter on the article will accompany News-Press ad salespeople on trips to advertisers as the paper seeks a sponsor for the article. The logic: The reporter understands the project and can explain it best to potential advertisers. Though the reporter will be in sales meetings, he or she will not be part of the sales pitch. Nevertheless, the practice violates one of journalism’s fundamentals — maintaining a leakproof wall between the news and business sides of a newspaper.
Now I know it breaks rules and it could be a bit dubious (consistent, direct and authorized access to the reporter for advertisers could breed some dangerous bedfellows) but it can work–these days advertising is just as much about sponsoring people and their passions as it is about a ‘brand’ or ‘media company’.
December 4th, 2006
Ask.com, a local company for me (they are right downstairs) is getting local for everyone with their Google Local clone. GigaOm has a nice interview with CEO Jim Lanzone.
Zdnet had more Google local coverage (Careful, the incessant self-linking makes its almost unreadable).
December 4th, 2006
Emily Bell writes persuasively in her column today about the inbred complacency of big media to the so-called Web 2.0 movement.
It is said on an alarmingly frequent basis that although Web 2.0 has so far belonged exclusively to the smartest web developers, there is a very large opportunity for any of the traditional media companies who can really nail the elements of true webbyness and community into their offerings. It is surprising in some ways that it hasn’t happened already. Perhaps it is because the default position for many broadcasters or publishers is that this inspiration will come from the core of its current activity, when in fact it will be a case of developing the margins or what shiny MBA students might describe as edge competencies.
And for all the executives who thought that this would not be their problem, that seems rather optimistic, unless of course they are retiring tomorrow.
Of course she is right on. Two weeks ago, I would have said this is a bit naive, like totally last year. Look at the US, I would have nicely pointed out, look at CBS late embrace of YouTube, look at Conde Nast’s purchase of Reddit, look at Diller’s IAC growth and so on and so on. I dont know for sure, I would have said in alternate universe world, but it seems to me that the biggest names in traditional media, the ones with the most to lose, are right there on the edge with the rest of us, experimenting and massaging and remixing their vaunted brands into new media players. But history me was totally wrong and present Emily is totally right.
And here is how I know:
Last week, Richard and I gave a little presentation (very inadequately taking the place of mega-super-duper-blogger and Yahoo man Tom Coates) at a seminar for LSE’s new Polis thinktank about what we thought were the 10 guiding lights of new media journalism (you can see what we did here, nothing amazing but I think it is pretty right on and even slightly amusing; Lloyd Shepherd, formerly of the Guardian, currently Director of News, Finance and Sport at Yahoo Europe and all around nice guy, also summarised it pretty well). I imagined snores and rolled eyes. But it turned out we were the most radical people in the room, and that has me even more scared.
We gave our little talk and then discussion began. It was clear right from the beginning that the things that Richard and I see as the gospel–things like the burgeoning power of groups and individuals outside of traditional brands to make significant and important contributions to the media world, or the growth of personalization, or that networks are powerful in ways we hadn’t realized–are actually very much up for debate. It was very surprising to hear these people, people who presumably live this stuff, talk like we were in the mid-90’s.
Of course, these people were very bright and articulate, etc, and when speaking about certain topics, utterly persuasive. In the end it was clear the gorilla in the room wasn’t “The New Media Landscape” but rather the BBC. Indeed, all of the most cogent conversation was about the competitive advantage of the behemoth broadcasting company. Ironically, and rather predictably, the BBC representative in the room was one of the most fluent in new media concepts. Its a shame that sometimes we can’t see past the license-fee and look at the pretty amazing forward-thinking work they are actually doing.
Polis, and director Charlie Beckett, has something here–listening to the real practitioners of big media talk about theory and the future in an unguarded way is an invaluable experience. They are funny and earnest (one TV news director, “We lose £10m a year and I am proud of that”), quick and articulate (”News has never been a money-maker, why do we suddenly think it will fill all our pockets?”) and just generally good company. Now if we could just convince them that this whole web thing is really happening…
December 4th, 2006
