About
Inspire me
Palestine
Home
4th July, 2012

From the fast-paced debate in the opening seconds to the passionate speech delivered by Jeff Daniels soon after, it’s clear what we’re going to get from The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin’s latest TV series.

This is Sorkin doing what Sorkin does best; taking a subject close to his heart and presenting an idealistic vista of what it could or should be. All the while he delivers this vision with his unique brand of fast-paced, reference-laden dialogue.

There are many who don’t like Sorkin and they won’t like the Newsroom. I’m not one of them and I loved the first episode.

Ever since the West Wing, I’ve been a big Sorkin fan and have lapped up most of what he has delivered. I even liked his last attempt – Studio 60 – a series that had a lot to commend it but that ultimately failed to hit home with viewers with its introspective focus on the inner workings of a TV show. On the surface it might seem that Sorkin is a glutton for punishment in returning to this subject, but The Newsroom is different.

While it clearly has many similarities with Studio 60, it will resonate with audiences far beyond the media industry. It speaks in much broader language and the underlying themes are far more universal. And perhaps because of this it feels in places (in the first episode at least) like vintage West Wing Sorkin. From the very West-Wing-esque title sequence to the first ‘walk-and-talk’, it’s comfortable territory.

The acting is slick too. The relationship between Alison Pill’s cute but feisty Maggie and John Gallagher’s Jim (aka Sam Seaborn) is perhaps the most intriguing and some of their set pieces show clear chemistry. Jeff Daniels too is brilliantly cryptic, vulnerable and emotional all at the same time as Will. I thought Emily Mortimer was strong in the first episode but became worryingly screechy and maniacal in the second. Hopefully this will be addressed.

It will take time to see if this ensemble cast can ever approach the summit of that reached by the former residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but there’s no doubt the tone Sorkin is trying to set is similar.

This isn’t dumb TV for dumb people

At one point Sam Waterstone declares “I’m too old to be governed by fear of dumb people”. At another MacKenzie uses the word ‘quixotic’ in a raging debate with Daniels. This one word is a perfect summary of the show and of Sorkin dramas in general. In an interview with NPR last week he admitted as much: “Everybody, at some point in this series, says the word quixotic. The theme of Don Quixote goes all the way through the series.”

With The Newsroom, Sorkin is making a clear point about the state of journalism and the dumbing down of television. Sure, it’s idealistic. It’s liberal. And it’s unrealistic. But we all have longings for escapism TV and I’d take this above all of the other crap out there.

continue reading: The Newsroom – it might be quixotic, but I like it...

23rd June, 2012

First of all, a giant disclosure. I’ve had a large amount of involvement with Econsultancy over the last few years. Econsultancy is a client, I’m one of its guest bloggers, I’ve been to Econsultancy events, parties, training sessions and have worked with them in partnership with several of my former and current clients. I know a number of the guys that work there very well.

With that out of the way, I can say – with a clear conscience – that I was absolutely delighted to learn yesterday that the company has been purchased by Centaur for £50m.

I’ve argued for years that anyone wanting to see whether publishers could make any money out of the web (especially when it came to trade titles) should look no further than Econsultancy for a shining example. I’ve also argued that, in the digital marketing space, Econsultancy is exactly what NMA should have become years ago (Econsultancy was founded in 1999).

The model is fantastically simple. First of all, create great, free content. Don’t regurgitate news that you can get elsewhere, but provide value-add analysis and editorial that meets the needs of the target audience. The Econsultancy blog has become one of the most powerful mouthpieces in the digital industry (and I have the stats to back up that claim) and drives significant, relevant traffic. It also works very well for organic search and helps build a community (the Econsultancy Twitter account hit 100,000 followers this week (NMA has 37,000).

Secondly, create awesome research, training and events that, because it is awesome and proven, companies will be more than happy to pay for.

And there’s your business model.

I’m fascinated by this deal. Fascinated to see if Centaur can leave Econsultancy alone and allow it to do what it does best. Fascinated to see what will become of NMA. Fascinated to see whether the Econsultancy model will be adopted (successfully) by other titles in the Centaur stable.

It’s a big gamble. It’s a lot of money and Centaur have been forced to take out a sizeable loan to see it through.

But if Centaur can retain everything that is great about Econsultancy, enhance it and learn from it then £50m could look like a snip.

continue reading: In praise of Econsultancy; a publishing model that works...

12th September, 2011

The news last week that the FT is to remove its apps from the Apple app store is the latest episode in the ongoing saga surrounding media publishers and their digital content strategies.

If you’ve missed the story so far, then what you need to know is that Apple, in February, changed the rules and forced publishers to run subscription services for any apps on the platform through its in-app purchasing function.

The catch here is that Apple takes 30% of all monies received through in-app purchases. And, as you can imagine, publishers like the FT aren’t very happy about this.

First of many?

The FT has taken matters into its own hands and has pulled its apps from the store and has created a new web-based app for the iPhone and iPad instead. A version for Android will be available soon.

And others will possibly follow suit. Amazon launched a web version of its Kindle iOS app in the summer and it looks as though the WSJ will soon remove all in-app purchasing options to ensure compliance with Apple’s new rules.

Of course Apple is hoping that the sheer number of users on its devices will persuade publishers that the 30% levy is a necessary evil. However, these moves suggest publishers might not have the same mindset.

The data game

Another key part of this that is often overlooked is the data angle. Another part of Apple’s rule change is that no publisher or app developer can retain information about customers that make in-app purchases. For a company like the FT, this is a massive issue. Acquiring data on subscribers and using this for marketing opportunities is absolutely vital to its entire business model.

The irony here is that Apple could be doing itself out of long term app revenues. There has always been an argument over whether platform specific apps or HTML5 cross-platform apps (like the new FT web-app) will be the future with many, myself included, believing the former is unsustainable and the latter will provide much more flexibility for publishers and users alike. This move by the FT seems to confirm that view, albeit the motives are for slightly different reasons.

Going against the app model

It seems that, if anything, Apple is forcing publishers to look at alternatives that might, ironically, do them out of some of the big revenues they currently enjoy from the app store.

The main arguments against web-based apps are they are often slower, less feature-rich and don’t have offline-reading modes. But with HTML5 technology developing quickly, these could soon be irrelevant.

Of course Apple is unlikely to go down without a fight, especially if more high profile publishers move away from the app store. The FT and Apple have apparently held talks over this issue already with neither seemingly willing to budge at this stage.

This is a fight that has many rounds to come. The eventual winners might be uncertain at this stage, but it is another blow for publishers tirelessly searching for answers to the digital conundrum.

First published on the EML Wildfire tech PR blog

continue reading: FT ditches iOS apps – more publishers to follow?...

21st February, 2010

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

continue reading: Clever AP knows Facebook can become the web’s newspaper...

14th December, 2009

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.

continue reading: At £2.39 the Guardian iPhone app adds value...

12th October, 2009

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…

continue reading: The fight for local news...

6th September, 2009

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.

continue reading: Why Twitter will save RSS...

15th July, 2009

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.”

continue reading: Farewell Paul Carr?...

10th June, 2009

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

continue reading: Ding ding – Rusbridger v. Watson...

13th May, 2009

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.

continue reading: Meta-reading – my phrase of the day...