On the brink of innovation…and a few other thoughts

September 4th, 2009

THIS IS A TEST

We just completed week one at the Herald with the new staff and already I have felt the change throughout the newsroom.

By launching our website on Friday, people have already bought into an approach that has been unseen at the Herald before. Just this weekend our new approach is working. We’ve kept the website fresh, adding content multiple times through the weekend constantly giving people something new.

By Tuesday when we have an issue’s worth of content on the new site it will really be working towards its’ potential.

We’ve kept the website fairly simple. The features that really help us are on the back end, things like Google Analytics that will give us a greater idea of our audience as well as help us to make the website a source of revenue by sharing our visitor data with potential advertisers so that they understand the potential power of our website.

For the reader it’s extremely clean, there are so many features out there that we can give readers that we could potentially overwhelm them and often times I think news organizations’ websites try to offer too much rather than specifically focusing on what makes them successful. For us, that’s stories, photos, video, etc.

I’m also excited about the chance to share documents and other links that we can insert into stories. You’ll already notice that there are PDFs attached to both the football and basketball stories.

We’ll also be able to insert color graphics online that have only appeared in the print edition before.

Essentially our goal is to look at a story and think, ‘how can we enhance this story by adding links, graphics, maps, documents, etc?’ 

As far as our print edition goes, there will be numerous changes and some changes are still in the works. I personally can’t wait for the next couple days for the first issue to come together.

Things are happening

August 7th, 2009

We’re back! We’re front! We’re sideways!

And we’re all watching AnnArbor.com to see if the future of newspapers is at hand.

Read the rest of this entry »

Going off the grid

July 17th, 2009

I’m going off the grid for two whole weeks!

But there are big things in the works. Hear more here next month.

Ann Arbor redux

July 14th, 2009

Anyone interested in the future of the news business is undoubtedly watching Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Next week, the tech-savvy college town will see its one newspaper fold up and be replaced by a shiny new web site.

The paper and the web site are both owned by Booth Newspapers, which also owns the Kalamazoo Gazette. All are owned by Advance Publications, which was formerly known as Newhouse News Service, which is in turn owned by Conde Nast, which owns the New Yorker and Wired and stuff. Whew!

So maybe they know what they’re doing. I’ve been following the stream from the blog at AnnArbor.com and I think there’s a lot to respect. They seem to be developing something that is genuinely different from what a lot of their print colleagues are trying.

It doesn’t hurt that Jeff Jarvis, the frequent and noisy critic of all things media, just happens to be the former head of Advance’s internet arm and an advisor on the Ann Arbor project.

Specifically, AnnArbor.com seeks to be more lightweight, tech-savvy and community connected than its printed predecessor. Their method of rebirth involved laying everyone off from the newspaper and rehiring from scratch for the web site. One of the stated goals of hiring was to take from the local pool as much as possible.

The whole experiment is seen as a test and a possible trial for conversion of other properties in Michigan and elsewhere. Ann Arbor may be perfect for this as the town is heavy in intellectuals and tech-enabled college students. However, as Rick Edmonds at Poynter points out, AnnArbor.com is a little late to the game. Ann Arbor already has a wealth of community news sites.

That doesn’t take away from Booth’s efforts, though. Booth has money, talent and a reputation. And all that could make them a leader in a bold new media future.

Apologies and layoffs

July 11th, 2009

Apologies first.

I said yesterday I would talk about my plans for launching and growing an online-only, Kalamazoo-centric news company. (Yeah, I know, all two of you waiting can quit holding your breath.)

It seems writing this out is a slightly more complicated task than I had intended. Don’t get me wrong, I know what I want to do, how I want to do it and the order I want to do it in. It’s just a little more difficult quantifying it and boiling it all down into a simple and readable list.

Nonetheless, it is important and I am working on it and I may wind up splitting it into multiple posts.

In the meantime, down comes the news of another round of mass layoffs at Gannett. The paper over in our sibling city of Battle Creek doesn’t seem to have been affected. At least there was no mention in its site of its owner’s announced cutbacks. On the other hand, I’m not sure there’s much left to cut over at the Enquirer following the December slashing of half its staff… not if they intend to keep publishing a paper that is.

More next week!

Save a journalist today

July 9th, 2009

Pimp My News
(or 16 ways to get your stuff out on the streets and working for you)

July 8th, 2009

(What I’m Thinking, Part 7)

Is that headline offensive? I don’t know. Whatever.

So, we have all this info and all these posts and images and video and such. What do we do with it? Well, I’m glad you asked, because there are lots of ways to distribute the news. I’m going to split them out into three categories: Past, present and future.

1.    The Future!!!

The web is so last week. Seriously. You know once Booth Newspapers begins re-evaluating its web strategy, that boat has already sailed. That doesn’t mean the web won’t be a significant part of our portfolio, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

There are several future-tools I want to invest significant time and effort in developing. The most significant of these is mobile technology.

a.    Mobile
Cell phones are becoming bigger and more powerful while laptops are getting smaller and more portable. There’s bound to be a convergence at some point. Mobile technology improves on traditional computers in several important ways. First, it’s mobile (duh), which means it can be anywhere you are. My cell phone is less bulky than my laptop, which means I can access it it tight spots or when I want to do so surreptitiously. Also, cell phones like the Blackberry or the iPhone include many of the functions of a laptop with all the capabilities (camera, calendar, SMS) of a cell phone.
We can distribute news to mobile equipment through traditional RSS subscriptions, custom news applications like some outlets are doing with the iPhone, and text messaging such as Twitter. There are bound to be more options as this technology develops. I have no doubt that this is where the technology is going and if we want to get a jump on everybody else this is what we should be experimenting with now.

b.    eReaders
Sony has one. Amazon has its Kindle. Supposedly there are some very fascinating things being worked on in this sphere. I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this (some people do), but I think it’s an interesting area of technology to watch and possibly get into as it develops. I kind of hope this merges into cell phone development.

c.    Desktop App
Imagine if every time you turn on your computer or flip open your laptop all the latest news is right there ready to go. This could be sort of a browser-RSS reader type thing but specifically dedicated just to news aggregation and display. We could open this up so users could subscribe to other news outlets as well. This would improve on the browser by being smaller, faster and always-on in the background. It would improve on the RSS-reader by beefing its the display capabilities.

d.    Collaboration
We have to start taking our product to where people are instead of trying to make them come to us. What this means is hooking up with Google News, Technorati and the like. It also means maybe developing a Facebook app that would actually be a tool for distribution.

e.    Immersive Web
I’m a little vague on this one. But, you know that scene in Back to the Future II where Marty sits down at his future TV and turns on, like, 20 channels at once. I’m imagining it kinda like that but with less overlap, more text, graphics, options… I’m still working on this one. Basically, though, we could have an always-on AVT (that’s Audio-Video-Text) stream that just shoots out like a hyper-caffeinated CNN. You could choose to interact with it if you want — skip a story, click something to find out more, explore comments, pause, rewind — or just sit back and let it wash over you while you’re making dinner.

2.    The Present

Everyone is on the web now, or at least it often seems that way. But there are multiple ways of distributing information over the magical series of tubes.

a.    Homepage
Current wisdom is that most people do not enter a web site through the homepage. They get to a site through search or links. Nonetheless, the homepage is the definitive face of our organization. Our homepage should be simple and streamlined with a basic overview of what’s going on within the site itself. The goal of the homepage is to get people to dig deeper into the site.

b.    Custom Homepage
Subscribers could customize their own homepage to display what they choose. Imagine this like the iGoogle homepage, filled with widgets. Speaking of which…

c.    Widgets
We should develop a news widget that users could customize to display just the news they want. They could put these on their iGoogle homepage or their own web site.

d.    API
That stands for Application Programming Interface. Basically, an API describes how people can interact with a web site’s backend. It’s what allows people to customize Google Maps or do mashups with things like Flickr and Twitter. The philosophy behind this is it would allow web developers and geeks direct access to our raw information (or at least some of it) so they can program their own systems for interacting with it.

e.    RSS
Obviously, we would need to have a wealth of customizable RSS feeds.

f.    Email
Like the RSS, people could sign up for email alerts on subjects of importance.

g.    PDF
A daily or weekly downloadable “print” edition? Maybe?

3.    The Past

Just ’cause it’s dead, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use some of the legacy systems to distribute our products.

a.    Print
Believe it or not, I’m a total print fetishist. I love well-designed printed materials. The key here is to do it better, smarter and prettier than the newspapes. That means we are not going to buy a giant multimillion dollar press. We will probably never do a daily edition. We should rack our imaginations to come up with a dynamic and changing printed publication. I envision a weekly mini-magazine that would come out on a Thursday or Friday that would be professionally “designed” by local artists using some of the longer lasting content from our web site.

b.    Radio
I’m not planning to buy a radio station anytime soon, but we could produce a local events program to run on WIDR, or an interview program to run on WMUK, or something along those lines. I don’t know that this would do any more than help promote our web product and brand.

c.    Television
Similar to radio, we could buy time on local TV stations, produce a program for cable access or promote one of our own staff as an expert guest on existing news programs similar to how James Sanford would go on WWMT to review movies.

d.    Live
We could produce live forums on important public issues and involve experts from academia as well as other local news outlets. We could also host debates during election season (in fact, I think we should do this!).

Note: I’m sort of leaving out social media as a means to distribution, but I think that is an essential part of anything we do. Editors should be encouraged to interact through Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and anything else that comes along. I also think we as an organization should develop a social networking strategy, but I’m not going to go into that right now.

Tomorrow: Growing Pains (how we start and how we expand)

The meek shall inherit the mediasphere

July 8th, 2009

I don’t actually know that the meek shall inherit anything, but this report from the Inland Press Association seems to indicate that the smaller newspapers in America are the ones that are surviving the best in this down economy.

The sole circulation group showing a hopeful sign was the under 15,000-circulation category, which actually showed a 2.5 percent growth in gross revenues during the five-year period ending in 2008.

There are several possible conclusions one could draw from this data.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Newsroom of the FUTURE!!!

July 6th, 2009

(What I’m Thinking, Part 6)

Sorry to anybody waiting for the next post. I got sick. And busy. And… sleepy. Without, further ado:
A walkthrough of the e-Newsroom of Tomorrow! (said in a deep, booming voice with echo effects!)

The e-Newroom of Tomorrow! is deprofessionalized, decentralized, technologized and crowdsourced.

1.    Deprofessionalized
In the e-Newsroom of Tomorrow! anyone can be a reporter. In fact, right now, lots of people who probably couldn’t even spell “journalism” are reporters. Anyone who texts about a traffic jam or posts about a public issue is in effect reporting. If anyone has paid attention to the protests in Iran (or dozens of similar situations over the past few years) you’ve noticed this happening. If you go on Facebook or to the Michigan Buzz Boards or any locally produced blog, chatroom or forum, you’ll see this happening: people reporting what they know about things affecting themselves and their communities.

Journalism is no longer the sole domain of trained professionals. That means we trained professionals have to adapt. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as simply reporters, writers or photographers. Instead we are editors, producers and taxonomists. Our usefulness no longer lies in simply recording and relaying information. Now, our importance involves organizing information so it is useful, verifying information to ensure accuracy and making sure that information doesn’t fall through the cracks.

The practical application of this comes in our news streams. Think of our site as a social news gathering platform. It’s a place for members of a community to exchange information with other members of that community. Each stream will have an editor — a single person who’s job it is to moderate the discussion. Each stream will ideally draw information from a variety of sources: From the head of a community organization to a neighborhood resident; from a citizen journalist covering a local issue out of a sense of civic duty to freelancers writing for cash. Each stream could have more than one editor and each editor would be responsible for more than one stream. Ideally, there would be a certain amount of overlap (redundancy) with much of the actual content eventually coming from members of the community.

2.    Decentralized
The e-Newroom of Tomorrow! is not really a room at all. We would have a small home base, probably in downtown Kalamazoo somewhere (Park Trades?). But that would primarily be where the mail goes and where the some of the equipment lives.

Editors’ home bases would be out in the communities which they cover. Their “desks” would be mobile and it would be their responsibility to physically get out and know their communities.

Additionally, each editor would act independently of the organization as a whole. Similar to how two separate newspapers within a conglomerate would have two separate editorial staffs, each news stream at Kalamazoo Currents will have independent editorial control (with some shared central organization). This allows editors to be responsive to their own communities as well as to be responsible for their own stream’s content.

3.    Technologized
The e-Newsroom of Tomorrow! is unwired, web-enabled, internet-optimized and some other tech buzzwords I can’t think of right now.

This is not about having the latest and greatest tech gadgets. It is about understanding the technology that people are using and might be using in the near future.

Editors will have several tools with them:

  • cell phone – much more than just a voice communications device, the cell phone needs to have text messaging capabilities, multimedia messaging capabilities, a still camera, a video camera and voice-recording capabilities
  • laptop or netbook – this is a portable workstation from which editors can write, edit, work on photos or video, check email and do just about anything else that old-school reporters are able to do from their stationary desks
  • wireless connection – wifi hotspots are still pretty iffy, though great when you can find ‘em. Editors should also have either a Mifi-style device or be able to tether their laptop to their phone for a mobile wireless connection
  • flash drive – for storing and exchanging files
  • pen and paper – yes, though tech stuff is great, sometimes you just gotta go back to the old standby. When all else fails, you can still take notes

Then there’s the cloud. The internet overmind will play host to all the software necessary for storing and submitting information to our web system.

4.    Crowdsourced
Everybody is a part of the e-Newsroom of Tomorrow!: You, the head of the local Red Cross, the spokesperson for the cable company, the secretary at city hall, even your mother!

This obviously comes with a bevy of strengths and weaknesses. Crowdsourced information has the potential to be better, more accurate, broader and more diverse. It also can be gossipy, inconsistent and prone to intentional manipulation.

Take the example of Wikipedia. As a whole, it is the broadest, most consistent source of edited narrative information in world. Post by post, though, it suffers from uneven quality. So, the entry on calculus may be indisputable and comprehensive, but an article on Sarah Palin may contain unverified and biased information and articles on Michigan’s legislature may be outdated and lacking in depth. These facts don’t devalue Wikipedia as a source of information; every medium has its problems. In our case, a public system of news gathering can be supplemented by professional oversight.

And another thing: It seems to me that you can’t ask people to be reporters, but you can give people the opportunity to report. As a news outlet, WIDR was inconsistent. That was because you simply can’t get volunteers to cover city hall for free. However, a system that allows people to contribute small amounts of information over time will attract community. I cite the web site gasbuddy.com as evidence. GasBuddy allows people to post small bits of information about a subject of general interest. The aggregate then becomes an important product. I think we can do something similar with our site.

Tomorrow: Gettin’ it out there (How we deliver the news in the 21st century)

Cheers!

What I’m Thinking, Part 5

June 30th, 2009

Disclaimer: Assuming that change is constant, this is totally subject to evolve. I welcome input, advice, refutations, criticism, alternatives, epithets and name-calling.

INCORPORATION (to profit or not to profit)

There are really, basically only two forms of organization (ignoring, for the moment, the option of not organizing, which is also a choice). We can be For-Profit or Not For-Profit.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each and complications involved in the incorporation of each. Both options involve a certain amount of cost and regulatory filing. For the moment, I’m going to ignore issues associated with money and paperwork. I’d rather pick the best path than simply the easiest.

1.    Money
Here’s the big difference. For-profit corporations can make money; nonprofits cannot. Seems obvious, but let’s dig down into that a little.

As a for-profit corporation, we would presumably have a certain number of investors (including, possibly, ourselves). These investors aren’t just hoping to make the world a better place, they want money (cash, dough, benjamins, filthy lucre). They want the business to do well so that they will do well.

The nonprofit world also has “investors” but they don’t expect any financial benefit from their “investment.” That’s because any extra cash the business makes must be plowed right back into the organization.

PS: Payment and salaries and such are also affected by the business structure. Nonprofit salaries must be “reasonable,” whatever that means. For-profit businesses, meanwhile, may feel free to offer exorbitant salaries to its higher officers while paying its regular employees minimum or sub-minimum wages. Basically, some people get rich in a profit model, while nobody gets rich in the nonprofit world.

2.    Purpose
This is somewhat tied to the money question. Essentially, a for-profit business exists primarily to make money. A nonprofit is governed by its mission and is not allowed to make money…

3.    Power
… which doesn’t mean that the folks who run the nonprofit organization get to steer their own ships. Nonprofit groups are required to have a board of directors. In Michigan, they have to have at least three board members. These folks set policy, direct growth, coordinate operations and basically ensure the organization stays on task.

For-profit bizes can have boards, but at the lower end of the scale they’re generally just run by the folks doing the day-to-day work, i.e. you and me. That doesn’t mean they are totally free to do what they want; they still have investors to answer to.

4.    Income and taxes
For-profit businesses must make money. Aside from investors and stocks and such, businesses are expected to make enough money (and then some) to cover their own expenses. They also have to pay tax on all profits.

Nonprofits exist outside traditional market models. They don’t have to pay taxes on most things. They aren’t expected to be able to cover their own expenses and can turn to grants and donations to keep themselves afloat. The donations are tax deductible for the donors.

The practical upshot of all this is that while businesses can fail (close down, go bankrupt, etc.) nonprofits cannot.

Also, financial data of nonprofits must be open to the public, while most businesses don’t have to tell people anything.

5.    Assumptions
There are some typical assumptions about each type of organizational model. There’s a hint of truth to each of them, though these aren’t gospel.

  • Nonprofits are driven by volunteer labor, while businesses pay people.
  • Nonprofits have limited administrative costs and staff, while businesses can have lots of layers of bosses.
  • Nonprofits spend money inefficiently, while businesses’ focus on the bottom line lead them to conserve as much money as possible.
  • Nonprofits are only interested in the public good, while businesses primary motivations are to make their owners rich.

I think that’s most of it. If you want to do more reading on the subject, here’s where I’ve gotten some of my info:

Next: Structuring the online newsroom
And Then: Delivering the news (every way we can)