Tom Altman’s Wedia Conversation

This is a great post from Publishing 2.0 called “Five Guiding Principles For The Transformation Of Media Companies” – I liked what they have…but I thought I would add my comments to it. Here we go:

Networks are the new distribution channels
Media used to be about controlling monopoly distribution channels. On the web, the network is the new distribution channel, and it can’t be controlled in the same way by a single media company. But there is huge power in networks. Just ask Google, the first media company to harness the network.

The most successful media companies will be those that learn to how build networks and harness network effects. This requires a mindset that completely contradicts traditional media business practices. Remember, Google doesn’t own the web. It doesn’t control the web. Google harnesses the power of the web by analyzing how websites link to each other.

Tom’s Comments:
Yes, yes and give me second helpings please. Wow – how accurate is that? I say again: “The most successful media companies will be those that learn to how build networks and harness network effects.” That may be the best sentence of the whole article.

People are more powerful than institutions
Media used to be about institutions — nameless, faceless brands. But on the web, people are empowered. Individuals matter more — but they matter most when connected as a network. Networks of individuals will transcended traditional media company and media brand divisions. (The last bit is a combo of principles #1 and #2)

The most successful media companies in 2008 will be those that empower and create networks of individuals — both outside and inside their corporate walls.

Tom’s Comments:
I like this as well. With an emphasis on the “empower and create networks of individuals — both outside and inside their corporate walls” I think media has to embrace this concept. We have to understand that this is global and mobile. Lots of people “get it”.

The best content comes from many sources
So many people use search engines on the web because they understand intuitively that search gives them access to ALL the content on the web. Most media companies are still limited on the web to delivering their own content. In the age of limited distribution channels, this made sense.

But on the web, where consumers can access any content from any source, and where high-quality content sources continue to proliferate (on top of all the garbage), media companies cannot serve consumers well just by delivering their own content.

The most success media companies will be those that offer consumers links to the best content on the web, not just their own content (and also those media companies that harness the “power of the link” — related to #1 and #2).

If media companies don’t do this, Google and other web-native aggregators will (and already do).

Tom’s Comments:
This is a close second as to best concept. Content does come from many sources and I think media companies are having a hard time figuring this out. Media needs to realize that we USED to be the information provider of choice…why? Because we were the only way to get some information.

Now, information has much more reach and flow. Anyone who has access to the internet can be a publisher. Take blogs, podcasts and numerous video sharing sites…people are the sources of content. This is about the relationship…not the content.

Search still rules
Search is currently the most powerful force on the web. Any media company that fails to embrace search, does so at their own peril. Search is, at least for now, the new newsstand.

The most successful media companies will be those that harness the power of search. The New York Times made perhaps the most striking acknowledgment of this reality by basing the decision to kill TimesSelect on the need to increase search traffic by exposing all of their content to search engines.

Tom’s Comments:
This is my only point of contention. I don’t think search is king. I think community is king. I would bet most people do not find a lions share of their content consumption via search…I think they find it from others recommendations.

This would backup my “community is king” statement. People want to do what the cool kids are doing. It’s our nature.

Advertising must create value
Google turned search advertising into the most profitable media business on the web by following the basic principle that advertising must create value for consumers. Search advertising is so powerful because the ads are relevant and USEFUL.

The most successful new advertising models will be those that create huge value for consumers, not those that manipulate users or violate their privacy (i.e. be like Google, not Facebook)

Tom’s Comments:
This is pretty good. And as far as facebook is concerned…wow. If you have not been part of that – you need to check it out. They ads on facebook are a train wreck. If this doesn’t kill them, Google’s open social may.

So we shall see - thank you Scott for sparking my interests on this one!

IPTV (Internet Protocol TeleVision) is starting to creep its way on the web. We’re starting to see more and more TV shows pop-up as their own little mini-stations - plus the whole miro and joost thing.

TV Shows via the Internet
I was looking at Mashable this morning and saw a banner ad for The IT Room, a new IPTV show starting sometime soon. It seems like a take off of the British show The IT Crowd, it really feels to me by watching the promos that it is a big media company trying to play small. The props are almost too good and then “dumbed-down” to look bad. (So my mini-prediction is this will turn out to be one of the netowrks trying to be cute and viral - you read it here first.) But either way - the concept is solid.

Another show gaining traction, which is backed by MySpace,is called QuarterLife. As describe on the site, QuarterLife is:

What is quarterlife about?
Both the new online series and social network take on the crucial years between 20 and 30, when so many of life’s important decisions are made. The “quarterlife” series tells the ongoing stories of six creative people in their twenties. As with Herskovitz’s and Zwick’s earlier television series, at the center of “quarterlife” is a commitment to realism, the recognition of universal human themes through the truthful depiction of the way young people speak, work, think, love, argue, and just goof around. Starting with Dylan, a young woman whose overly truthful video blog (on quarterlife.com of course) spills the closest secrets of her friends, the show’s characters – filmmakers Danny and Jed, actress-bartender Lisa, geek-extraordinaire Andy, and still-tied-to-her-parents Debra – chart the sometimes excruciating, sometimes comic, often emotional experiences that comprise coming of age as part of the digital generation.

I really like where they are going with this, they offer up the idea this is a show - but the characters from the show will allow exist virtually:

Can I be quarterlife friends with characters from show?
A profile for each character on the show exists on quarterlife.com. Don’t be shy. Go to their profile and send them a Friend Request.

Talk about blurring the lines of reality. Without showing my age too much - this seems like the modern day 90210 or OC - but utilizing the “media of choice” and social networking for the medium.

Miro and Joost thing:
If you’re not familiar with Miro and Joost - they are IPTV projects on the web.

Joost is a fairly new product which was created by the guys who built Skype. They have 15,000 shows on their “network” which you get by having a broadband connection and downloading their free client. And understand - we’re not talking 15,000 shows of internet crap…channels from CBS, VH1, ComedyCentral, Yes Netowrk are popping up - this is a serious deal.

Miro, formally known as democracy player, is more of the open source alternative. Miro has no DRM and aggregates content from others instead of trying to control the content.

It will be very interesting to see who wins - here is a chart from Miro (so possible a little biased) that shows how they feel they are better. Let me tell you - when I read it…it sure feels like Miro is new media and Joost stole too much from the media dinosaurs.

So what?
Well - things are interesting, the big gotcha right now has to be the state of broadband in the US. It stinks. Until broadband speeds catch up (see Google, Microsoft, Verizon and the 700 MHz band) we will see these independent show flourish. Plus, if you think of the cost to produce one of these - it has to be a fraction of a full blown TV show. When the broadband speeds get there we will see IPTV really get some legs.

Until then, mainstream TV station need to figure out how to get their content “on the wire” and available for consumers to get it any way they want, when they want it.

This is a great article on Jeff Jarvis’s site about WWGD (what would google do) if they were competing against itself.

So how should we compete with Google or at least challenge its monopoly? Openness. I’ve argued for sometime that we need an open-source ad infrastructure. If the rest of the world other than Google — that is, those who have the other half of advertising Google doesn’t yet have — can gather together and create standards…

Sounds like a win-win…build something we (media) all need - an ad network;  and then do what we do…share the wonderful content we own.

Easy - right?    :)

I’m not sure how much of the jockeying you’ve been following - but there has been an interesting topic I have been following with Republican candidate Ron Paul.

If you look at Paul’s number back in July from a USA Today/Gallup poll:

Neither former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore nor Rep. Ron Paul registered any support.

But, if you look at what online polls say - he’s much better off. (This from a USADaily article)

Polls that have been showing Ron Paul at 1% for months are slowly adjusting to reality with one poll showing Paul at 7.4% in New Hampshire. Paul’s campaign may prove that polling methods are obsolete.

So the interesting thing to me is that much of the mainstream media was so out of touch with reality and not giving the “internet people” their due justice. So it will be very interesting to see what comes of it.

Other Articles/Blog Posts:

• GOP State Leaders Are Beginning to Take Ron Paul Seriously
• Ron Paul Money Bomb Weblog

Jeff Jarvis is just hitting on all cylinders all the time!

His post today nails a point I know we’ve been talking about at the company I work for around the idea of “networked journalism” and building data repositories in a easy to use manner.

“Among the tools for networked journalism I’m wishing for is a simple one for creating collaborative data bases.”

and also this comment

“Here’s another one I want: When a reporter, pro or am, uses a camera phone to take a picture — or, for that matter, to upload text, video, audio, anything — wouldn’t it be wonderful to attach the data the device knows: time and date, of course, and also GPS. This then allows gangs of reporters to submit information that can be plotted on maps and timelines and then associated with other data.”

I just really like where this guy stands in terms of  “getting the job done”.

I found an interesting blog post by Jeff Jarvis from Aug. of 2005 this morning called “Who wants to own content?” (If you’re not familiar with Jeff, he writes a blog called Buzz Machine which focuses on media and news)

In this model, newspapers have a problem: They want to control information and the means of sharing rather than enabling that sharing.

…

It’s hard for someone raised on the value of owning content and owning distribution to let go of exclusivity and instead value openness and participation.

EDITED:
I found a great comment at the end of the article by “DAR” that said:

You make it sound as if all they (old media) need to do is adapt to change and they will survive, and that they’re fools not to see that. But I think that’s not true at all - adapting won’t solve their problem. Their existing business model is ending and even the new business models won’t replace it. And THAT is what they’re scared of.

I work for a newspaper organization now - and this is very hard to grasp, because the model has been so much like this for so long. We’re working on innovating our business model and it is hard enough getting people to grasp the fact of separating content and production - I wonder what they will think of this? I wonder what they will say when I tell them it came out two years ago? :0

I’m not sure I have seen this before - but it caught my eye.

Link to video - this video is from an arrest video - but the interesting thing to note is below the video in the related links section they have a link to the raw video.

I like that - it lends credibility to the story when I can go back and see all the video - not just what was “canned” for me.

Cool!

So You Tube released over video ads this week. So when we will these hit the small screen?

I figured it out last night while watching “Last Comic Standing” - when I witnessed no less than 249 ads for the new “Bionic Woman”.

Seriously, do you think we could be looking at these ‘over’ ads for all advertising? Or is this is way that we can pack MORE ads into the same “space”? Do we think we could ‘keep’ more people engaged with no traditional ads and all over ads?

So, I’m not sure if I have shared my love for the Tom Green Show yet. And this is not the old MTV Tom Green or the Jay Leno thing - but the internet show…or as Tom calls it the “Nation Web-o-vision” show. He is doing some really innovative stuff - right from his living room…but the caveat is the cost. He has a number of cameras and equipment.

Well, the rules have changed. It takes me to something I found today called Mogulus. This is amazing technology and would offer the individual the opportunity to broadcast their own “news program”. Wow, like kids could sit at home and do cool stuff.

The only component missing is marketing…have I spoke to you about this thing called “viral marketing” yet?

Jason K sent me this link the other day - “You can’t get there from here - Why mainstream media is way up a creek…”

Jason was asking if I thought he should share it with the newsroom - thinking it may freak them out or whatever…and my first reaction was “send it to them”, thinking it would se them off adn makethem think.

Then, I read the article again - and I was like “send it to them”, but for a different reason…to show them what these people are thinking.

But my real question/problem is I’m not sure if I get it. I just have a hard time thinking “people” or “the community” would report news if the media organizations were not involved. Do you really think Joe Shmoe would report on something - do we really think the community is that strong?

I just don’t see it - I would love to hear or find an example to compare this to…any thoughts?