Evan Rudowski: Web Transplant

Why I'm Not Buzzed About Google Buzz

So here's the problem I have with Google Buzz.

It's not the privacy issues; these don't seem to affect me although I understand how troubling they could be to someone who has relied on Google in a different way. I use Gmail as my catch-all for mailing list subscriptions and as an archive of my other email accounts; my primary activity happens elsewhere.

The problem for me is that I just don't have enough time to maintain and curate my presence on all these social graphs and networks. I've got Facebook for personal relationships, LinkedIn for business relationships, and Twitter to broadcast to people who choose to follow me. That kinda works.

Now along comes Google Buzz, and it seems I've got to be there because, well, it's Google and everything flows through Google. If you make your living on the internet, as I do, and your reputation is derived from your "presence" on the internet, then you can't ignore a big new social graph or you risk a loss of visibility.

Ideally, of course, you are also getting something from your interactions with people on the various social networks. On Facebook, I get to hear from friends and learn what they're doing. On LinkedIn, I learn about the endeavors of business colleagues.

On Twitter, I mostly get to broadcast outward, but at the same time I can learn and glean new information thanks to its open API and the many searching and filtering tools available -- so Twitter effectively is my newsfeed and my replacement RSS feed. There's a lot of clutter on Twitter, but at least each message is short and I can get past it quickly.

On Google Buzz I'm now a participant, or observer, in many conversations -- most involving people I don't know in any way whatsoever. These are looong conversations. I just don't have the time.

Yes, I know, we get out of it what we put in. But I've only got so much to give. Too many social networks, not enough time. 

So hey Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter -- let me know when you've got it all sorted out. Thanks guys.

Guardian Media Group CEO: Niche Content Could Sell

via paidcontent.org

Guardian Media Group CEO Carolyn McCall says paid content may work, according to the FT, as reported by paidcontent.org.

McCall echoes Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger's recent proclamations that a broad paywall can never work at the Guardian -- but adds that they have considered charging for certain high-value, niche content.

This is encouraging to hear, as there's been so much focus on the concept of a paywall that one could only wonder whether any consideration was being given to areas where a paid model might work.

No one who understands newspapers well would argue that a solid paywall around all of a newspaper's content would make sense -- which is why it's frustrating and perplexing to see so much energy still expended arguing against the concept. We don't know of any newspapers actually doing this anyway.

But there's plenty of evidence that people will pay for content that is unique, high quality, timely, actionable and valuable to a given niche or special interest. Certainly a newspaper like the Guardian, with its solid editorial staff, is capable of creating such content.

The worry is that with financial losses so great at the Guardian and elsewhere, staff cutbacks may gradually render newspapers less and less capable of creating the kinds of content that people will pay for. Their challenge is to innovate before slashing and burning.

Of course, if great journalists do get cut, we can count on many of them using their own redundancies as an impetus to finally go out and start the kinds of online content endeavors that will leverage their talents effectively and make money in the process. They'll be able to do this without all of the costly overhead carried by a typical newspaper.

So newspapers need to get on with it. They can argue against paywalls all they want, but they ought to start figuring out where paid content can work for them so that they can add this to their arsenal of tools to deploy to reverse losses and generate profits.

iPad: The Mediamorphosis is Finally Happening

Today's article by Stan Schroeder in Mashable does a good job of articulating what the iPad is likely to be - a device for consuming content.

Content creators and website developers will increasingly need to begin to think about how to deliver their content to the iPad, presuming it enjoys wide adoption over time. If Apple gets the form factors right -- and they seem to be good at this -- as well as the marketing, adoption should follow.

People have been trying to build tablets for a long time, and the time may be right now that the technical limitations (battery life, memory, screen cost) can be overcome.

Those who remember their media history would probably agree that a shout out is due to Roger Fidler, who for many years ran the Knight-Ridder New Media Lab and as long as two decades ago was advocating in the newspaper industry for development of a tablet device. Roger, now program director for digital publishing at Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute in Columbia, Missouri spent years building prototypes and articulating the future vision that Apple may have delivered yesterday. His 1994 video on the subject is below. That's 16 years ago.

Roger's 1997 book, Mediamorphosis, is still available on Amazon.

Staci Kramer gets the Newsday story right

via paidcontent.org

Staci Kramer of PaidContent.org has put in perspective why the disclosure of 35 paid subscribers to Newsday.com is not relevant to paid content efforts at other newspapers.

We are already seeing the "anti-paywall" contingent latching on to this bit of information in an attempt to support their position -- Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian gleefully tweeted the 35 subs number almost as soon as it came out. If we are to have a useful discussion about the benefits and the risks of paid content efforts, we need to be willing to understand what's really going on. Staci's article helps.

Commented on "ContentNext Network"

Staci, this is some good coverage that puts the information in perspective. Well done. We are already seeing the "anti-paywall" contingent latching on to this bit of information in an attempt to support their position -- Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian gleefully tweeted the 35 subs number almost as soon as it came out. If we are to have a useful discussion about the benefits and the risks of paid content efforts, we need to be willing to understand what's really going on. Your article helps.

Originally posted as a comment by evanrud on ContentNext Network using DISQUS.

Report: Only 35 People Will Pay To Get Past Newsday's Paywall

via www.businessinsider.com

It's been reported that Newsday.com has had only 35 sign-ups to its paid website. 

Opponents of so-called "paywalls" will cite this as evidence that they don't work. And it is stupid of Newsday to put its entire website behind a subscription barrier.

Nevertheless, there are some mitigating points:

1. You can get a seven-day print subscription to Newsday for $4.50 per week. As a subscriber you get Newsday.com access for free. So why pay more to get only the website?

2. Subscribers to Cablevision (Newsday's parent) also get free access. Cablevision has several million subscribers in the New York area who also get free access to Newsday.com.

So there is very little reason to subscribe just to Newsday.com. These numbers are not very instructive for The New York Times or anyone else.

Rusbridger Fights a False Battle Against Paywalls

Alan Rusbridger is a thoughtful man but he's aligned himself with an absolutist point-of-view -- no paywalls.

Along with Jeff Jarvis (whom, unsurprisingly, he's hired as a columnist), Rusbridger is quickly becoming one of the leading opponents of the paid content strategy. However, the entire term "paywall" is a mischaracterization.

There may be some who think they should erect a wall completely around their content. However, in reality an effective paid content strategy is more subtle and nuanced.

It should be entirely possible for a newspaper like the Guardian, filled with fantastic talent, to create successful paid content products alongside the core free product. Considering the Guardian is losing £30 million per year, creating additional revenue streams ought to be a priority. It's certainly better than laying off more journalists and editors.

Paid content products might not close the gap entirely, but they will help. And if the core free product continues to erode, their importance will only increase.

Yet Rusbridger keeps arguing against the straw man of paywalls. There is no nuance to his argument - - it's black and white. Paywalls or free.

For such a thoughtful man, it's a surprisingly simplistic and narrow view. And because he's gone so far out on a limb, it will be that much harder for the Guardian to climb down and try new things.

Rusbridger is certainly a great philosopher regarding the future of journalism. But he is offering no new business ideas, and his current model is broken. So instead of pondering, and arguing unnecessarily against the false construct of "paywalls," he'd be better off getting on with finding some new revenue streams.

Originally posted as a comment by evanrud on ContentNext Network using DISQUS.

Murdoch Ends What He Started

Rupert Murdoch today ended what he started.

Twelve years after anointing Tony Blair the next prime minister with a critical front-page endorsement, and ushering New Labour into power, Murdoch's Sun newspaper declared the Labour era over.

      

The Sun may only be following public sentiment, and this may have been the case in 1997 as well. Nevertheless, when Murdoch says it's over, it's over.

And if anyone doubts that a media mogul can still wield huge influence over the public debate, look no further than Murdoch. He does it in Britain and he does it in the US via his Fox News network which fans the flames of right-wing political sentiment, creating a huge backdraft for the Obama administration.

In the meantime, back here in Britain, it's time to wish Gordon Brown goodbye and good luck.

Newsday’s Decision to Charge for Content is Desperate and Stupid

I began my career at Newsday in 1986 when I was hired at the age of 23 to work on some of their very first online services. I spent seven years working on online services there and got to know some fantastic people. My final presentation, before leaving in 1995, was an introduction to this new thing called HTML and linking. I haven’t been at Newsday for a while now, and its changed owners and management a few times, but somehow I still care about the place.

My company, SubHub, enables people to build subscription websites quickly and easily. So you’d think I’d be applauding Newsday’s move to such a model. But I’m not. It’s going to fail.

Charging for content works when the content is unique, actionable, highly targeted and from a trusted source. Newsday ticks perhaps two of the boxes – it’s a trusted source, and maybe some of the content is actionable (restaurant reviews, business news, etc.).

Charging does not work for commodity content, and that’s mostly what Newsday has. National and international news is readily available elsewhere. Sports coverage, syndicated features – all available elsewhere. Movie reviews, music reviews – virtually everywhere.

Newsday’s knowledge of its local market is more unique and valuable, but even that too is available in general news coverage from numerous online and offline competitors.

In short, Newsday has little to charge for. This doesn’t mean it couldn’t create some online content that meets the criteria for charging successfully. The Wall Street Journal keeps coming up with new online packages it can get audiences to pay for. But I haven’t heard that Newsday plans to do this.

Just putting the existing stuff behind a firewall isn’t going to help. Bundling it with programming from parent Cablevision – well what’s that all about? Is Cablevision going to create new local video content that people would pay for? Or does access to Newsday online just become another throwaway incentive to buy a cable subscription?

Putting Newsday’s existing content behind a firewall is just a way to deprive it of oxygen and kill it. Unfortunately, the kind of creative thinking necessary to create content that people will pay for is not likely to come from a cash-starved newspaper company or its cable operator owners. It’s more likely to come from the smaller players and individual entrepreneurs, like the ones we see at SubHub.

Newspapers are crashing and burning all around us now, and Newsday and its owners have found another way to do it. I wish them well, but I’m glad I’m not on the online team there anymore.

Why Facebook Will Eventually Go Premium

There's more bad news for Facebook as it seeks to justify its huge valuation -- the world's largest advertiser is not finding Facebook to be fertile ground, according to Randall Stross in The New York Times.

The most successful effort that Procter & Gamble was willing to point to on Facebook was a 2006 page for Crest Whitestrips, which attracted 14,000 fans at its peak -- many apparently lured by free giveaways such as concert tickets. Out of Facebook's 130 million users that's not a rousing success.

That the Crest Whitestrips experiment left a funny taste in P&G's mouth was reinforced by the comments of a senior P&G marketing executive, who said, "I really don't want to buy any more banner ads in Facebook."

(The article also brought me a bit of deja vu when it described P&G's "America's Favorite Stains" campaign for Tide detergent on Facebook. This took me back to a meeting I participated in with P&G for Excite about 12 years ago, when they eagerly described their desire to have an online stain finder application on Excite -- an idea that as a product guardian made me feel a bit dirty. Apparently P&G persists in its noble quest to bring stain information to the world online. I felt vindicated to learn the Facebook version had attracted only 18 comments.)

There is further evidence of problems at Facebook when we consider the news that Facebook CFO Gideon Yu was in Dubai in October seeking to raise additional funding. Why Dubai? Because U.S. investors weren't interested at the proposed valuation, the reports said. And seemingly Dubai investors weren't either, as we've yet to learn of any recent new investment.

There was more bad news last week when it was reported that Facebook cancelled plans to allow employees to sell some of their shares at a $4 billion valuation. Why? Because potential purchasers were balking at the valuation.

It's not difficult to understand why this is happening. Facebook is the latest to apply the classic Silicon Valley model which says build a big audience first, and then figure out how to monetize it. Investors, meanwhile, pile on in hopes of enjoying a big payout once monetization happens.

But, oops, monetization looks like it's going to be very difficult on social networks such as Facebook. At least, it will be if it's dependent on advertising. Investors are looking for some evidence that Facebook is succeeding in leveraging its vast audience to generate advertising revenues, and so far the evidence is scant.

The many of us who use Facebook addictively can certainly attest to its value in our lives. However we can also probably attest to just how irrelevant advertising is to us on Facebook. That's Facebook's problem, and it's a huge one.

The solution? Start charging a premium for access to certain Facebook features. The basic Facebook membership would continue to be free, but enhancements would be extra. This might include photo and video storage beyond a certain limit, or sharing of certain data, or friends beyond a certain amount. I'm just guessing at the ideas. But given how essential Facebook has become for so many of us, it's easy to envision many users paying a monthly or annual fee for an enhanced membership.

At 130 million members, if 10 percent paid $5 per month for enhanced memberships, Facebook would be clearing $65 million per month or $780 million per year. There are other revenue streams to develop too.

That's not enough to justify an overly inflated valuation, but it's a pretty good start. And it's likely a lot better than they're going to do helping P&G teach young people about stains.

So watch this space. Subscription is increasingly the future, and Facebook will eventually join the bandwagon.