The Daily is off to a rocky start. Glitches have kept the free trial period going well beyond the original two weeks that Verizon sponsored. A story on paidcontent.org says the free trial extensions could continue for several weeks. The Daily is also having problems with slow load times.
Maybe enough will stay with it when it comes time to pay, but the glitches will have to be gone. I've been a part of launches, and no matter how well something tests there will always be glitches after you go live.
I had intended to blog about what critics were saying about a week ago. Then today this news is out there. I am sure that Mark Potts, who writes the blog The Recovering Journalist, is not surprised.
Potts wrote soon after The Daily's debut that he was not impressed. Potts spent some time with The Daily, which I haven't been able to do. (Anybody have an iPad they don't want?) He wrote that The Daily was not blazing a trail, that it was old-style journalists still trying to do old-style journalism in a digital format that he doesn't think has a chance to work. And he wasn't impressed with the content either.
I wrote in a previous post that The Daily sounded like something that might work. But after reading Potts' critique and some others, I'm not so sure.
Few can't-miss ideas work, and in the digital news space there are a lot of failed ideas that sound really good. If you want to do something that works online and makes money, copy someone. It's incredibly difficult to bring to market the next great idea. But you can find a model that works, adapt it to your product and make it profitable.
A former page designer colleague used to say "talent creates, genius steals." Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. The Daily is trying to build the latest, greatest news business model. What they probably need to do is steal some ideas from other things that work. Otherwise, The Daily could have a short shelf life.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Seeing online video news for what it really is
In recent years, a priority for online news sites - particularly ones operated by newspapers - has been video. But just having video doesn't mean a your Web audience will grow significantly.
One of the reasons for the difficulty has been the print journalists' affinity for long-form storytelling. As a result, we've produced a lot of videos that would be best classified as features. A lot of good journalism happens this way, but the problem today is that it's not all about traditional newspaper journalism. The bottom line is audience size.
Some newspaper efforts in video have been so lackluster that many newspapers are cutting back on their video staffs because of financial pressures, according to an Associated Press study.
Part of the solution has to be what papers like the Miami Herald and The Roanoke Times are doing by emphasizing breaking news and sports. They have learned that those categories generate the most page views, writes Mallary Jean Tenore for the Poynter Institute. I saw video go through many stages while working at The Roanoke Times from 1997 to 2009. What I learned is that you try new things, then you try more new things until you start to really increase audience.
This doesn't mean newspaper Web sites should abandon good feature videos. But it does mean that newspaper sites ought to be putting more into breaking news and sports. This mindset is no different than the one at the afternoon news meeting when decisions about the next day's front page are based largely on what readers are most likely to read.
It's a simple question: What does the audience want the most?
When we know - or at least think we know - the next question is easily answered. Be sure to give them what they want the most. Then keep working hard at giving them everything else. That might just cause a significant boost to online traffic and revenue.
We have high hopes for video on our student news publication Web site at Cedarville, but it's not easy to start something new. Breaking news and sports will have to be big part of the equation as we make plans for video.
One of the reasons for the difficulty has been the print journalists' affinity for long-form storytelling. As a result, we've produced a lot of videos that would be best classified as features. A lot of good journalism happens this way, but the problem today is that it's not all about traditional newspaper journalism. The bottom line is audience size.
Some newspaper efforts in video have been so lackluster that many newspapers are cutting back on their video staffs because of financial pressures, according to an Associated Press study.
Part of the solution has to be what papers like the Miami Herald and The Roanoke Times are doing by emphasizing breaking news and sports. They have learned that those categories generate the most page views, writes Mallary Jean Tenore for the Poynter Institute. I saw video go through many stages while working at The Roanoke Times from 1997 to 2009. What I learned is that you try new things, then you try more new things until you start to really increase audience.
This doesn't mean newspaper Web sites should abandon good feature videos. But it does mean that newspaper sites ought to be putting more into breaking news and sports. This mindset is no different than the one at the afternoon news meeting when decisions about the next day's front page are based largely on what readers are most likely to read.
It's a simple question: What does the audience want the most?
When we know - or at least think we know - the next question is easily answered. Be sure to give them what they want the most. Then keep working hard at giving them everything else. That might just cause a significant boost to online traffic and revenue.
We have high hopes for video on our student news publication Web site at Cedarville, but it's not easy to start something new. Breaking news and sports will have to be big part of the equation as we make plans for video.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Daily has a chance to be a significant innovation
Did Rupert Murdoch change the news business today, or did he just put another toy out there for mobile users to play with? At 14 cents a day, plenty of iPad owners will give The Daily a few touches. If I had an iPad, I would have spent a little at the iTunes Store today. But would I keep going back?
News executives are sitting in meetings everywhere brainstorming ways to monetize digital news in a significant way. At newspapers, digital is 90 percent of the conversation but still no more than 10 percent of the revenue. The Wall Street Journal is doing it well, and The Daily is expecting to make a statement that news consumers will pay when the news comes to them in a convenient way.
We'll all be watching closely to see if this approach of a daily digital newspaper will be profitable. Not many others will have the cash to be as extravagant as Murdoch, but professional news organizations and student media operations will do whatever they can to copy this if it works.
The one thing Murdoch's product doesn't have is local news, and that's something all of us want. Is that his next step? ESPN has been successful with local Web sites in a handful of major markets, so it can be done at least in places like Chicago, New York and Dallas.
But for the rest of us in medium-sized to small to tiny markets, can small newspapers and Web sites produce something for mobile devices that people will pay for? Mobile devices are probably the only way a paper like the Springfield News-Sun or the Xenia Daily Gazette can ever move much past that 10 percent barrier in the digital world. Making big money on Web sites doesn't seem likely, because the Web at your computer is no more convenient than a newspaper. But mobile has convenience, and we are much more likely to pay when we can read, watch and listen to news any place at any time.
I watched Murdoch's announcement on Fox News today and the demonstration. It was one cool-looking app, that's for sure. And it sure would be fun to be part of the production team.
Every innovation has its naysayers and its optimists. Considering this is Murdoch and Apple, I'm leaning toward optimist.
News executives are sitting in meetings everywhere brainstorming ways to monetize digital news in a significant way. At newspapers, digital is 90 percent of the conversation but still no more than 10 percent of the revenue. The Wall Street Journal is doing it well, and The Daily is expecting to make a statement that news consumers will pay when the news comes to them in a convenient way.
We'll all be watching closely to see if this approach of a daily digital newspaper will be profitable. Not many others will have the cash to be as extravagant as Murdoch, but professional news organizations and student media operations will do whatever they can to copy this if it works.
The one thing Murdoch's product doesn't have is local news, and that's something all of us want. Is that his next step? ESPN has been successful with local Web sites in a handful of major markets, so it can be done at least in places like Chicago, New York and Dallas.
But for the rest of us in medium-sized to small to tiny markets, can small newspapers and Web sites produce something for mobile devices that people will pay for? Mobile devices are probably the only way a paper like the Springfield News-Sun or the Xenia Daily Gazette can ever move much past that 10 percent barrier in the digital world. Making big money on Web sites doesn't seem likely, because the Web at your computer is no more convenient than a newspaper. But mobile has convenience, and we are much more likely to pay when we can read, watch and listen to news any place at any time.
I watched Murdoch's announcement on Fox News today and the demonstration. It was one cool-looking app, that's for sure. And it sure would be fun to be part of the production team.
Every innovation has its naysayers and its optimists. Considering this is Murdoch and Apple, I'm leaning toward optimist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)