Danny Whatmough.com

A report today in TechCrunch reveals that the Associated Press is using their Twitter account to push followers to their Facebook page. Rather than linking directly to news pages on their website, they are linking to pages on their Facebook profile which also features the news.

Techcrunch critises this move: “maybe they think that by hosting the content on Facebook, they’re being impartial with the tweets. But again, why not just use their own site?”

But, I think Techcrunch misses the point here. This isn’t about impartiality. It’s about building communities and it’s a smart move. I’ve written recently about the war that is brewing between Facebook and Google as both networks seek to become the social media (and email/messaging) dashboard.

Facebook is moving from the ‘walled garden’ network to the more open, ‘first port of call’ that, in many ways, Google has been to date. And with its user base soaring, it is perfectly poised to capitalise.

Facebook is also envious of the success that Twitter has had by embracing businesses and news outlets and has taken big steps recently to mirror this. It is a move that seems to be working, with recent research showing that Facebook is becoming a major driver to news networks. Outlets like the NYT has realised this and AP seems to be catching up on the action now too.

AP should be able to make the most of this, open digital world that media organisations now find themselves in. They are all about content. Monetising this content is a challenge. But embracing and building communities and new distribution networks is vital. By distributing their content directly to an engaged user base on Facebook (and Twitter), AP has much more control of how it uses this audience.

The traditional ‘website as a destination’ is beginning to decline. Fast forward to the ’site-less’ web where rather than engaging with audiences on a corporate site, media outlets (and indeed brands) need to go to where the audience is. This is a big challenge for Murdoch et al but is already happening and is happening big-style.

As Steve Rubel says: “The AP is now changing the game for news by not only going where attention spirals are taking us but by also using their content to curate a conversation there and – above all build relationships.”

Monetisation is certainly an issue, but if AP can build up a significant user base on Facebook, the money will come.

As the power of Google News dimishes, can Facebook take over as the web’s news curator? AP seems to think it can…

hat tip to Ben, picture credit

Anyone that knows me, reads this blog or follows me on Twitter will know I’m addicted to my iPhone. Why is it so great? Simple; it’s all about the apps.

The iPhone isn’t a phone at all really, it’s a mini computer giving me access to the web, Twitter, games, news etc.

The Guardian iPhone App

So the launch today of the Guardian’s iPhone app is exciting (especially as this is my paper of choice).

And the app is great. The Guardian have been a bit late to this game, with other national newspapers releasing apps a while ago, but it seems they have been using the time to create an app that is slick, very functional and user friendly, packed with a range of great features.

There is offline reading and audio playback, the ability to favourite articles and even customise the homepage, picture galleries with full screen viewing and the option to browse by subject and author or look at ‘trending articles’.

There are some aspects missing. I’d love to see a ’share on Twitter’ function and also the inclusion of article comments - however, in an interview I did with him over on the Wildfire blog, Guardian Product Manager Jonathon Moore advised this will come.

There is a cost however: £2.39. For me, this is a small amount to pay. I know that all this content is available for free online via a browser, but there are additional features (e.g. offline browsing) and a better interface that I would happily pay for.

The ‘free’ debate

So how does this affect the paid-for debate around news content. I’m happy to pay the equivalent of three print newspapers for this app – for me, that equals value. And surely value is the key thing here. I’ll pay for something if I attach value to it (as long as the value assigned equals the value I attach to it).

The Guardian has said it is unlikely to put up a paywall and I would support this strategy. I don’t think across-the-board paywalls are the answer for newspapers. And I think the Times will suffer with theirs.

Papers needs to work out where they can really add value in contrast to their competition (other papers, bloggers etc.).  The Guardian app seems like a good example of how this can happen in practice.

I’ve always thought there was a real gap for someone to come in and revamp the way we read and discover local news. It’s widely known that traditional, local media is in turmoil with papers disappearing on a regular basis. But surely there is a need for good quality local communication? Surely there is a market for it?

My local online news source Surbiton.com does a good job and has a loyal readership, but I think there is more that could be done in this niche.

So it’s interesting to read today that the Guardian is planning to launch a local news project in a small number of locations – Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh:

“Guardian Local is a small-scale experimental approach to local newsgathering. We are focusing on three politically engaged cities and we expect to launch in early 2010,” said Emily Bell, the director of digital development at Guardian News & Media. Sarah Hartley, the Guardian Local launch editor said: “While researching developments at the grassroots of community journalism, I’ve been impressed by the range and depth of coverage from local websites and blogs. This experimental project reflects both the shifting nature of journalism and the reality on the ground.”

The challenge of course lies in the business model, but it is a bold move and one that, done correctly, could prove very profitable. The social media potential too is obviously limitless…

I’m a huge fan of RSS. It is the glue that holds much of the internet together. It allows anyone to stay on top of the hoards of information on the web quickly and easily, without having to visit a website to get updates.

Publishers have embraced it. RSS feeds are included in all blog platforms as standard and now, more and more, you see that little orange logo appearing in browser address bars.

News organisations can clearly see the advantage too. With the democratisation of the web, readers are no longer loyal (they are too busy meta-reading). They no longer go and buy the same brand of news day after day. They can pick and choose, using social recommendation or aggregators like Google News to pull together the best pieces of the web. This poses problems for these websites however. Problems that RSS solves.

But there is a big problem with RSS. And this is that most people don’t know how to consume RSS feeds. RSS readers (despite the fact I use mine every day) don’t work for the majority. They are fiddly and cumbersome and can quickly become unwieldy.

This is why I believe Twitter might be the solution to the RSS problem. And as far as I can tell, many news organisations feel the same way.

Despite the fact that Twitter is still only used by a proportion of the population of the UK, media outlets have embraced it. Just take a look at this list of newspaper Twitter feeds. Why is this? The answer is that it is a great way for readers to subscribe to what are essentially RSS feeds. And this is making RSS sexy. You can now get your updates from the BBC Today Programme alongside your updates from Andy Murray and Danny DeVito.

And what is even better is that if readers want to read the article, they have to click through (and view some adverts) rather than simply consuming information within the ‘closed’ feed reader.

I’ve increasingly found myself subscribing to feeds through Twitter rather than my RSS reader. It’s usually for websites where don’t necessarily want to see and read absolutely everything published, but I want to stay in touch. I want to stay connected.

With so much more information out there, I still believe that RSS is a great way to sort, consume and reference content on the web. It just needs a more consumer-friendly vehicle to make it work. Most wont even know it’s RSS, but then, often the best technology is kind that works seamlessly in the background, making everything that bit easier.

Mike Butcher’s written a great piece on Techcrunch in response to Paul Carr’s latest column in the Guardian, which lambasts the state of London’s start-up scene. Mike’s counter argument is both well thought-out and winning (which you would expect given his job and stature).

But it’s his comments about the media industry in general that I really want to cover. He flags up Paul Carr’s announcement (via Twitter of course) that he’ll no longer be doing his Guardian column: “The Guardian has slashed its freelance budget. Result – no more column from me. Thought about writing it for free, but meh.”

I think Paul Carr’s great (and I know many don’t!). Yes, he’s arrogant, big headed and likes to name-drop. He’s also prone to putting the cat amongst the pigeons. But that is all deliberate and, whilst I sometimes don’t agree with the point he’s making, it makes you think and is often the start of a wider, more useful debate (of which this is a good example). His column also fills a gap in the Guardian’s output and, as far as I can tell from the sheer volume of comments and tweets, surely drives a significant amount of traffic.

So why is he going?

Well, declining print ad revenues etc. etc. mean less money for expensive freelance columnists – and I imagine that Paul Carr certainly fits into that bracket. Which does seem odd considering his popularity. But, as Mike states:

“…here’s a newspaper culling a column that almost certainly punched above its weight in terms of traffic, and probably got a lot more comments and reader interaction than the average post on that site. How many traditional journos would get this kind of reaction?

“That’s significant because at the same time “traditional” journalists (some of whom are my best friends btw) are doing their best to try and grapple with writing stories, blogging, posting videos and metaphorically washing up the boss’s coffee cup in the staff kitchen at the same time.”

Paul’s words aren’t lost forever! He was well-known before writing for the Guardian, and being on their books won’t have done his book sales any harm at all. But it is yet another indictment of the decline of ‘traditional media’ and the power and rise of bloggers and media ‘personalities’ who don’t need a publishing house behind them to be successful. And that’s great for people like Carr. It’s harder though for less forthright journalists.

UPDATE: Interestingly, Carr has posted an update on his blog:

“Initially I mooted the idea of carrying on writing for free until the economics started to look better but, yunno, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that would be a bad idea.

“The truth of the matter is, I’m rubbish at writing for free. You only have to look at how infrequently this blog is updated, and how badly it is when it is, to see the problem.”

He also suggests that he is likely to be ‘back soon’:

“Flatteringly, since Twittering the news of my most recent parting of ways I’ve had a few interesting offers – both online and off – which would allow me to continue the column. I’ve dismissed a few, shortlisted a handful and am seriously interested in maybe three.”

The Twitterverse was today privy to a debate that, in pre micro-blogging days, might well have taken place behind closed doors.

The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger and outspoken Labour MP (and blogger/Twitterer) Tom Watson engaged in a bit of tweeting on the subject of the Guardian’s treatment of Gordon Brown and Rusbridger’s own anti-Labour editorial last week:

Oh to be a fly on the wall at that morning conference (the daily meeting where the paper’s editors gather to discuss and plan the day’s coverage).

Later, Rusbridger also confirmed that Watson would be writing for the paper tomorrow as well:

Great to watch the media v politics drama unfolding and kudos to the two protagonists both for the offer and the acceptance!

Read the coverage of the story on the Guardian and Journalism.co.uk

I came across the phrase meta-reading today in a post by Judith Townsend on journalism.co.uk. It reports on comments made by Turi Munthe, CEO and founder of the citizen journalism site, Demotix, about how the ‘younger’ generation consumes news content:

“There is a generational split, but not in the way everyone imagines. It’s much more recent than that. They [the younger generation] are getting the Twitter feeds, and the blog posts, and the Facebook messaging and the free papers, and everything else, and are very happy with it. Much more happy with it than I am. Essentially, they process information differently. It’s a ‘meta-reading’. It’s not about individual brands.”

This very much echos comments I have made about the future of news and ‘big-media’. I personally worry less online about who I am getting content from, if the content is good and/or (and here is the interesting part) if the content has been recommended to me by a friend (e.g. socially). Its the content that matters not the creator/owner and the distribution model moves from big media to social media.

I’ll admit I was skeptical about the recent launch of Wired UK. And I’m frequently equally skeptical about the survival chances of print media.

So it didn’t look good.

But, having read the launch issue cover to cover, I have to admit: I love it!

This is how magazines should look, read and feel. Wired UK is filled with great photography, graphics, rich colours and varying textures. Its a great looking issue.

The content is good too. There have been criticisms that articles have been duplicated from the US version, but I didn’t notice it (how would I? I don’t read the US version) and it doesn’t really bother me.

It obviously wont be everyone’s cup of tea. But if you like gadgets and technology, chances are you’ll be gripped too.

It perfectly demonstrates how print media still has a place if done correctly. The features are long and detailed (much longer than anything I would ever read online). And they are be DTP-ed to within an inch of their life, for example, the great 11-page feature looking at the technology of the next 40 years.

As another person put it, the challenge will be whether they can sustain this quality every issue (they will have been planning the launch issue for some time).

I for one, hope they can.

Reading through the latest, revamped issue of Marketing Week (which looks great btw), I was puzzled and slightly distracted by the constant quoting of “your comments from marketingweek.co.uk”.

My question is this:

Is there a place for reader comments in print publications that were originally made somewhere specific online?

To be fair, it’s not just Marketing Week that does this. And they certainly aren’t the first. But it still does strike me as rather odd.

Is it just lazy journalism? Don’t we lack the context? Isn’t the whole point about the comments to engage and create discussion?

So I wonder why publications do it. Is it to try and increase traffic to the website and encourage readers to go online? Is the aim to give additional ‘reader views’ on the topics being discussed?

I imagine the truth is probably somewhere between the two. But to me it just demonstrates the problems that print publications currently face. I’m all for user generated content, but isn’t this just trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?

We’ve always had reader letters, but even these now seem out of place with the immediacy of the internet. The most frustrating thing is that, if one of the ‘comments from the website’ makes you want to add your own thoughts, you are then forced to go and dig out the original article or post on the site (which is probably now pretty old due to print deadlines etc.) and then add your 2p-worth.

Am I being unfair? Or is this just another nail in the coffin for printed media?

picture credit

Interesting post from Wendy McAuliffe looking at how the trade press are (or aren’t) using blogs:

“What’s apparent is that some trade publishers have been nervous about blog content undermining the value of their magazine and online editorial, often failing to grasp where blogging can add value.”

The two examples she cites are particularly telling. NMA and Revolution are titles you would expect to be leading the way, and yet they aren’t. Revolution were very late to the party earlier this year and NMA still aren’t really there (although look out for a newly launched nma.co.uk on Monday…complete with a blog? Who knows?).

But, as Wendy says, there are obvious concerns for publishers whose history is steeped in print.

For me though, it does seem a bizarre and dangerous tactic.

Whilst these ‘giants’ are sleeping, a whole array of ‘amateur’ bloggers are springing up, gathering followers and writing some great stuff. The trad media may still be able to catch up, but what damage has already been done?

The same could be said of the PR industry’s own bible – PR Week. Despite its recent obsession about Twitter and the quoting of blogs in the magazine, the website is hardly 2.0 (and that’s not even discussing the pay wall it has in place – for which I keep forgetting the password!).

And perhaps the problem lies in the fact that these are big publications, ruled by big publishing houses, which find it difficult to ‘change’. And when they do decide to change, it takes time.

Revolution has its new website, Retail Week launched its new site yesterday and NMA has its turn on Monday.

These are all steps in the right direction. But where is the innovation? Are the steps too small and too late?