Investigative reporting and content marketing

I have a thing about calendars. I tend to think in terms of anniversaries and cycles, and I'm often conscious of completely inane and useless pieces of time-based trivia about my past. It's not unusual for me to remark over dinner, for example, that "it was exactly two months ago today that we last ate this!" Or to comment while getting dressed in the morning "the last time I wore this jacket was on that trip to Boston exactly a year ago on Saturday!"
Needless to say, my family is less than enchanted by this habit.
So I can only hope that you, dear reader, will be less than annoyed when I mention that
a) it was exactly a year ago today that John Bethune published an interview with me about what's gone wrong in B2B content marketing.
b) and it was exactly a month ago today that I submitted my annual predictions to the Content Marketing Institute in which I argued that something is about to go right in content marketing.

You should go read all the predictions at CMI. There are tons of insightful remarks this year by tons of insightful people. Read those. Then come back and we'll talk about what I said.

The Sacred and the Profane

So let's review. My prediction looked like this:

Content marketers have mastered much of journalism: analysis, profiles, how-to articles, etc. But no brand has attempted the most sacred form of journalism: the investigative piece. That changes in 2013. Some brand will do solid, hardcore, investigative work -- not of its industry, but of a tangential subject of interest to its customers.
Imagine a baby-food company, for example, investigating the dangers to children of outgassing VOCs. 

I chose that example deliberately, because it's similar to an example I gave in a comment on an article called "Content Marketing is Not Journalism." Check out the article. Read the comments. Consider the nature of the argument.
If you read that piece I think you'll come to the same conclusion I come to -- this is nuts. They're arguing that content marketing can't be journalism because content marketers wouldn't tell a story about "about killing babies with Bisphenol A."
But as I said in my comment, content marketers have told the story about killing babies with Bisphenol A.
The real issue, it seems to me, is that content marketers didn't break the story about killing babies. Content marketers aggregated it. They added value to it. They distributed it.
But content marketers didn't break the story.
(Note: a review of the coverage of Bisphenol A shows people behaving badly across the publishing spectrum. The best, early work on the dangers of BPA showed up in peer-reviewed journals. After that,  advocacy groups began to receive some coverage in the mainstream press. But that same mainstream press consistently published counter-science pushed by manufacturer's public-relations wings. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious investigative work by journalists on the subject for the first few years of the controversy. What you can find, easily, is the sort of he-said, she-said nonsense that dominates journalism when the subject matter is difficult to digest. The sole exception to this was the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal -- which did the tough, investigative work beginning way back in 2007 and never let up.)

Until some content marketer somewhere breaks a story of such significance -- until someone does solid, hardcore investigative work - then content marketing will remain a lesser form of journalism.

( I feel obliged to interrupt myself and make note of the obvious -- if only to prevent people from posting comments that make note of the obvious:
There's nothing wrong with lesser forms of journalism. Not everything that journalists do is magnificent and holy. There is a place for celebrity journalism, just as there is a place for weekly newspapers that focus on high-school sports, trade magazines that teach people how to sell more widgets, local TV broadcasts filled with gruesome crime stories, and newsletters aimed at spreading paranoid theories in order to promote investments in gold.
Furthermore, not every piece of content that a corporation creates is a piece of journalism. Nor should it be. Corporations, even those that produce "great" content marketing, also produce marcomm, press releases, advertisements, instruction manuals, etc.)

The thickness of skin: the depth of coverage

The problem, of course, isn't that solid, hardcore investigative work is hard (although it is.) The problem is that it generates hate.
If you've worked in journalism for awhile, you know all about hate. People hate journalists. They write nasty letters. They sneer at us. They accuse us of lying, of stupidity, of being in the pockets of corporations and political parties and secret cabals.
And if you've worked in journalism for awhile you've learned to sort of like hate.
Hate motivates us. As does love. For isn't that what we mean when we say that journalism's purpose is "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"?
Marketers, on the other hand, tend not to welcome hate.
As I said in that interview -- did I mention it was exactly a year ago today? -- with John Bethune "my experience has been that the overwhelming majority of these companies don’t have a culture that is open to journalism. These companies don’t have the stomach for news and the confrontations it can promote. They panic when someone complains. They’re afraid of controversy."
But that will change. I believe it's changing now as more and more talented and experienced journalists enter content marketing.
And there's a model we can use to guide us during this change.
Consider this:
Corporations and their marketing and public relations departments are responsible for an extraordinary amount of charitable work. Companies choose a "cause" and they champion it. They sponsor walk-a-thons and volunteer drives. They associate their brand image with some form of "good." In many of these cases they seek to solve a problem -- poverty, disease, lack of education, etc.
This is comforting the afflicted.
Investigative journalism is the flip side of this. Investigative journalism seeks to uncover the roots of a wrong. Why are people in this area poor? Why are children sick? Why can't Johnny read?
What I'm predicting, specifically, is that brands will begin to look at both sides of the coin as part of their content-marketing efforts.
Why can't a baby food maker investigate VOCs?
Why can't one of the companies that associates itself with pink ribbons and the search for a cure for breast cancer also fund and publish investigative work into what causes the disease?
Want an example from B2B? (This is, after all, a blog about B2B journalism.) Have you seen the wonderful work being done to get truck drivers involved in battling human trafficking? That movement comforts the afflicted and seeks to "cure" the problem. Bless them for that.
But why can't a truck manufacturer flip that coin, hire a few reporters and look for the people behind this obscenity?
Of course it will be hard. Of course you might get sued. Of course people will hate you.
But trust me, there is great joy to be found in afflicting the comfortable. There is great joy, too, in feeling the hate.
There are also great branding opportunities for companies that can take it.

This time next year

I was recently named one of 25 journalists to watch in content marketing. That's an honor, and not one I mean to belittle.
But the list that I long to see is something deeper, more meaningful.
I don't expect to be on that list. At present I deserve no such honor.
But the list is coming. I believe this.
Soon there will be list of "content marketers to watch in journalism." And some of those content marketers will be on that list because they have proven themselves to be investigative reporters.

The excellence craze

(Editor's Note: A custom publisher interviewed me last week for its company blog. As it turns out, at least one executive at the company wasn't crazy about my thoughts on the state of publishing. So the company opted not to publish the interview. I, on the other hand, am crazy about my thoughts on the state of publishing. So I'm posting the interview here.)

Question: Content marketing: Integrating print forms, such as a magazine published by a brand, with digital platforms. What kinds of trends are you seeing?

Paul Conley: I don't see much interesting in terms of integration. It seems to me that electronic content has surpassed print in most respects ... particularly quality. There are exceptions (long-form narrative, for instance, still works best in print.) But very little of the print world is making a successful expansion into digital content. Rather, it seems to me that most brands have digital products that are becoming much better than their print products.

Here's why:

Traditional, print-based custom publishing is primarily a way to serve an existing, captive audience. Whether it's an airline magazine stuck in the slot in front of your plane seat, or the four-color magazine that you get every quarter when you join a trade association, the print product is designed to serve an existing audience. A custom-published magazine is a perk that an association gives to members, it's a reward that a company gives to customers.

That made sense given the traditional tools that custom publishers had: print magazines, mailing lists, distribution systems run by clients, etc.

In addition, traditional, print-based custom publications existed for years as part of a very small media universe. This is particularly true in B2B, where an industry might have had one or two trade publications and one or two custom publications serving the entire marketplace.

But with the rise of the content-marketing or brand-journalism movement, suddenly everyone could be a publisher. Companies that would never have spent the money needed to produce a custom-published print magazine, began leaping into online publishing at an extraordinary rate. I saw a study recently that said 26% of B2B marketing budgets in the U.S. are now tied to content marketing. I doubt that print-based custom publications every got more than 1% of the total B2B marketing spend in this country.

Obviously, brands are not dedicating that level of their marketing budget to reach existing customers. Instead, brands have learned rapidly that they can use content as a lead-generation tool. Instead of putting an article in a magazine and sending it their customers, they distribute it online, in social media, through content-aggregation services and syndication networks. They track who has read it, who passed it on, who signed up for more information, etc.

At first, this worked quite well and rather easily. It wasn't expensive. It was certainly cheaper than traditional advertising or custom publishing. But as the early adopters found success, everyone jumped in.

This has led to what I think of as "the excellence craze." In B2B, where I make my living, it seems like every company in every tiny niche of every industry has become a content creator. There are a thousand voices competing for very small audiences.

There's only one way to compete in that environment -- to be extraordinarily good. The only way I can ensure that my voice is heard is if my content is fantastic. That's completely new for B2B, where both trade publishers and custom publishers have seldom felt the need to be great. In a market with only three of four voices, only a crazy person would spend the money to become great. It was good enough to not be the worst.

I'm seeing money spent on content that is vastly more engaging than what was available just a few years ago. The other day I reviewed a bunch of material that UPS created to win customers in the pharmaceutical-logistics world. There were white papers and videos and loads of other items. And they were all great. Now UPS has an extraordinarily large budget. You would expect them to be able to spend the money to be great. But I see similar levels of greatness at loads of small businesses, consulting companies, etc.

All this is a roundabout way of saying this: brands that have put X amount of effort into producing print products are learning that they have to put 10 times that effort into producing electronic content if they want to compete.

Thus the electronic products (Websites, microsites, videos, podcasts, social-media campaigns, white papers, blogs, etc.) are of much higher quality than the print products that share the same brand name.

Question: That surprises me. I would have expected you to predict that the demand for higher quality electronic content would be coming soon, but you’re saying it’s already here. So how are these companies achieving higher quality in content? Especially the smaller businesses that may not have big budgets?

Paul Conley: There's really only one way to get higher quality content. You have to pay for it. What seems to be happening is that the giant brands (UPS, IBM, etc.) are pouring considerable resources into creating high-end material to use for content marketing. Often that involves hiring a content staff. For example, Intel recently launched a news service and hired a number of well-known journalists to run it. Folks like that are following the Symantec model. Symantec is a big player in tech-security news.

But not every company, even the large ones, are bringing content creators in house. Rather, they seem to be spending money on middle men. Sometimes those are well-established players in the advertising and public relations space like Interbrand. (Interbrand, by the way, runs one of the best content-marketing sites I know. Check out BrandChannel.) Sometimes these middle men are newer players ... boutique agencies that specialize in a vertical or a particular medium. LaunchSquad and SocialTract are among the companies in that space.

The smallest brands seem to be the ones that are most likely to do direct hiring. They're recruiting "social media experts" and such to create content. If you look through the ads in places like MediaBistro you'll find lots of gigs like that ... decent jobs for folks with little to no experience. These gigs don't pay a lot. Maybe they pay around $50,000 a year fully loaded. But most brands in B2B can take that money from their ad or marketing budget and move into content marketing in a big way. Maybe they drop the print ads they've been running in a trade magazine to pay for it. But what they get is constant, all-day interaction with their target audience through digital platforms.

The end result of all this is that there's a battle for folks with content-creation skills in digital media. A newspaper reporter with 25 years experience in print is nearly unemployable today. But someone who can write, record audio and video, and has worked with Twitter and Facebook for even a year can pick and choose among lots of opportunities. They can go to work for big brands, middle men or small firms.

Question: Do you expect this trend to higher quality will continue for the next five years?

Paul Conley: I do. The only alternative is to go with the low-cost models offered by the content farms. Those companies (DemandMedia, Seed, etc.) are likely to move into B2B just like they have made tremendous inroads in B2C. But those companies are volume plays. Their material is cheap ... but not very good. It's perfectly appropriate for search-driven content. But you can't engage an audience with it.

Question: Also, what kinds of devices are audiences viewing this type of content on? Are you seeing more content being created for specific devices, such as mobile or iPad? Are they getting any traction?

Paul Conley: I think it's too early to say. You may remember that I wrote on my blog for a long time that I expected we would soon see "an iPod of reading," a device that would change the way we consumed text, just like the iPod changed how we consumed audio. Well that day is clearly upon us. The iPad and the upcoming competitors will change how we read. They are already doing so. Most importantly, they are changing how we find content. I'm fascinated by Chris Anderson's idea that the Web era has ended. Apps may spell the end of search, serendipity, and the possibility of a nobody becoming a major content creator overnight. The Web gave us all that. But apps may take it away.

But as much as these new devices may change things, we can't say yet just how they will change things. It's sort of like those very early days of the Web browser. Anyone paying attention then knew that something remarkable was about to happen. But most of what did happen turned out to be different from what we expected.

But the smart players today aren't waiting around to see how things will turn out. Smart brands are already creating interesting app-based content. I still read and interact with a ton of content on my laptop at work and home. But when I'm not sitting at a desk, I read news (NYTimes and Bloomberg), shop (FreshDirect), plan meals (Jamie Oliver), exercise (RoundTimer), and play games (SmartGo) through branded apps.

But those apps probably don't represent what the market will look like in just a few years.

That's why one of my pet peeves is when executives talk about "needing a strategy" before they do something with apps or with Twitter. That's the same sort of thing that media folks said for years about the Web. But apps and social media will leave you behind, just like the Web did.You don't need a strategy. You need to get excited about possibility. If you wait until some platform has traction, you'll find that the way it gained traction was by spinning its wheels for awhile on top of your carcass.

A tale of two audiences

I visited the campus of Northwestern University a few weeks ago to do some recruiting for a client. Things worked out OK. I met a few interesting students. And at least one of them may get a job out of it.
But the overall experience of my day on campus was a bit disconcerting, as has often been the case when I visit with academics and students.
And, with one notable exception, things were disconcerting in the same way they've been for years now.

The more things change ...
First, let me mention the exception.
For the first time in the five years or so that I've been visiting with students, every single person I met at Northwestern had at least basic multimedia skills and some Web experience. I cannot begin to tell you what a relief that was.
On the other hand, I saw too much of the same-old nonsense I've come to expect on campuses. One student handed me a cover letter with spelling and grammar errors. Most of the students who signed up for an interview had failed to do even cursory research on me or my client. One didn't even know my name. Not one student could correctly answer my all-purpose, do-you-know-anything-about-business questions (1. Approximately where did the Dow close yesterday? And 2. Roughly what would it cost to buy an ounce of gold today? I was willing to accept anything remotely close to 10,000 and $1,000 as answers.)
And, of course, none of the students seemed to have any idea at all about B2B publishing.

When my day ended I left the old, dusty journalism building and walked about 15 yards to a brand-spanking-new building where a colleague was to give a presentation about opportunities in marketing.
And that brief journey was like walking into an entirely new world.
Whereas only two people had attended a presentation earlier in the day with me and a recruiter from the Village Voice, this room was packed with students from Northwestern's new program in integrated marketing communications.
More importantly, the students in the marketing meeting were engaged -- typing notes on laptops, asking good questions. They seemed excited and eager to learn.
I fell in love with those students.
That was the exact opposite of how I felt about my time with the journalism students.
Most of the future journalists seemed, well, disinterested. Only one seemed truly enthusiastic about the profession. They were largely unprepared and disengaged. Most didn't take notes until I suggested they do so. Two of them needed to borrow a pen.

The nice kids
I shouldn't have been surprised.
Because what I saw in those two buildings was, in a nutshell, what's happening across the entire communications industry. Journalists (and journalism teachers and students) are making incremental adjustments to the new world, but marketers and public-relations professionals (as well as teachers and students in those fields) are morphing like crazy.
Most of the marketing people I know love the new world. They're excited. They can't seem to believe their good fortune to be working in a field where the rules are being rewritten.
But many journalism folks I know can generally be described as somewhat less than thrilled. Those differing sentiments among professionals (and academics) must have an effect on students.
There's also no doubt that the economy has had an impact.
Prospective journalists are being told time and again that jobs are disappearing.
Marketing/p.r. students, on the other hand, seem to understand that the skills they are acquiring have value.

If you're a long-time reader of this blog, you know I'm not saying anything new.
It was more than three years ago that I first wrote of my concern that B2B journalists were adopting the techniques of conversational editorial more slowly than were the public relations and marketing executives of the industries we cover.
And it's been more than two years since I started writing about content marketing, which I see as the the most exciting and fastest-growing area in B2B publishing. And content marketing is nothing more (or less) than marketers learning to perform the tasks of journalists.
But what I saw at Northwestern was new, at least to me: that in academia, as in business, the marketing space is attracting an extraordinary new type of communicator; while journalism programs are producing a more skilled, but not-so-very-different-from-the-old-days type of person.

If you're interested in spreading the word about B2B among journalism programs, there are some things you can do.
First, reach out to the j-schools in your area. Offer to do a guest lecture. Make yourself available for interviews.
Second, offer your support to the ASBPE Foundation. Funding for the foundation is in short supply. It could do with your help. Among other academic-related efforts, the group hopes to endow a university chair for an "ASBPE professor of business-to-business journalism."

If you'd like to learn more about what's happening in the world of B2B marketing, public relations and content marketing, the Web is full of great resources.
Three of my new favorites are Mengel Musings, owned by Amy Mengel; the B2BBloggers site, dedicated to "shaping the future of btob marketing;" and Social Media B2B, described as "exploring the impact of social media on B2B."

Penton goes to four-day workweek to cut costs

Penton is moving to a four-day workweek through the summer in an effort to cut costs.

According to a memo sent to employees this afternoon by Penton CEO Sharon Rowlands, the move effectively translates into a 20 percent pay cut. However, the memo also says the company "we will spread the pay reduction in smaller increments throughout the end of the year to reduce the immediate financial stress on you and your families." (Clarification: a comment on this post correctly points out that it's misleading for me to call this a 20 percent cut. If Penton does, in fact, return to a five-day week after the summer, the effective pay cut will be considerably smaller when averaged out across the rest of the year. )
Furthermore, the move to a four-day week "will not impact" benefits, the memo said.

I've pasted a copy of the memo below. I'll be looking forward to coverage from Folio and BtoB magazines in the near future.

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to provide a brief update on how we did in quarter one and share with you some important steps we are taking to further control our expenses going forward.
The first quarter was the toughest in my business career. Not only did many of our properties report results that were significantly below a year ago and well below budget, but while we were reorganizing along the lines of markets, we were forced to eliminate a number of positions across the company. This isn’t uncommon in the world today especially for companies in the media industry and ones that have a heavy debt burden. We squeaked through the first quarter thanks to all of your efforts - but the next couple of quarters aren’t looking easy.
So we have to balance short and long term decisions in times like these. Some of these are really the right decisions for the businesses - like resizing audiences and identifying more efficient ways of doing things. Others may seem counter to what we want to accomplish long-term - like dramatically reducing the sizes of magazines or the amount of content. After all, if our content is so valuable, wouldn’t our readers need MORE of it right now? Sure, but remember that one of our Achilles heels is that we are mostly supported by advertising which has collapsed.
Speaking of advertising, it has not only collapsed in print, but as a company, we haven’t shown the growth we should on the web. Penton is really tracking a long way behind the industry in terms of percent of revenue that is digital, and we are not showing growth. The good news is we have great focus on changing this picture and longer term I am bullish on what we can do here, but it won’t change overnight.

We have some tremendous exhibition franchises that on the whole pulled us through 2008 and contributed a lot of our growth last year. There will be pressure on these businesses as customers are forced to cut back all their marketing spends. Even some of our strongest shows will show negative growth this year.
Despite incredible pressure on our businesses, we achieved a great deal throughout the first few months of the year - we reorganized our business into a market-facing structure; we delivered our audit significantly ahead of prior year; a number of our businesses delivered great financial results given the economy; and in response to my request, Penton employees provided over 150 ideas to help reduce our expense base.

While we are proud of these achievements in quarter one, the stark reality is that our overall revenue picture continues to rapidly decline. This is not a reflection of our efforts but the result of the widespread financial erosion impacting almost every business and importantly the industries we serve. I wish I could wave a magic wand and change the momentum to a positive one quicker, but it’s not possible, and whilst I continue to believe we have tremendous opportunities ahead and we will see this business flourishing in the future, today we still have a tough road ahead for a few quarters.

As you well know, over the past several months, we have attempted to offset our revenue challenges with proactive cost saving measures – as I listed above. These actions, coupled with your contributions in scrutinizing every expense, have lessened the impact. However, with no clear indication that the economy will turn in the short-term and with our revenues continuing to decline, further action is required to ensure Penton remains fundamentally sound.

Please know that the senior management team and I have carefully weighed the need for the measures I am about to announce. We consider our employees our company’s greatest asset. We are committed to doing everything possible to keep our company on track and to provide you with stable and rewarding employment. With that said, in light of the current circumstances, I have made the very difficult decision to implement temporary measures that will impact each employee’s pay.

We are instituting a reduced work schedule during the summer months. From the week before Memorial Day through the week before Labor Day, the Company will reduce its operations from a 5-day work week to a 4-day work week. For many of our businesses this will involve closing our offices on Friday. Other businesses may need to take the reduction in blocks of days. The end result will be the same for every employee at every level however - it will equate to a four day work week and a corresponding reduction in pay to reflect this reduced work schedule.

Whilst the reduction in work week will be contained only to the summer months outlined above, we will spread the pay reduction in smaller increments throughout the end of the year to reduce the immediate financial stress on you and your families. Special rules may apply to employees in California and to non-exempt employees, and we will be reaching out to these employees and their managers with information and specific instructions.
This revised work schedule will not impact your benefits. In some states, you may be eligible for unemployment for the unpaid leave. If you are interested, please contact your local unemployment office. We have prepared a set of Frequently Asked Questions<http://thepulse.penton.com/News/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsRegardingTemporarilyReducedWorkSchedules.aspx> regarding this revised work schedule, which you can find posted on the Pulse. In the next few days, your local leadership will organize group meetings, and there will be follow-up communications from your HR reps giving you more detail.

I understand this is difficult news. Thank you for your understanding and continued dedication. I am confident that if we continue to keep our focus on our customers and commit fully to delivering solutions that drive results, we will not only overcome these short term challenges, we will be better positioned to achieve new levels of success in the years to come. I urge you to try and find some upside in this temporary change and use the extra time for yourself, your family, and your friends – time can be a gift. I don’t say this to belittle the financial impact – I know that this is a big deal. I also want to reinforce that I am determined we will come out of this recession strongly and will go on to do great things. We have some tremendous initiatives across the company that this note isn’t the right vehicle to discuss and plan to share my thoughts with you through a video communication that you will see in the next 10 days. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your manager, any member of our Human Resources Team, or me directly. And thank you again.

Regards,
Sharon

Journalism by any other word would smell as sweet

March is academia month for me.
Each year at this time I visit with college journalists and their teachers. And each year it is both a rewarding and frustrating experience.
This year was somewhat unusual in that I did less college-focused stuff than usual. I had too much work to do much travel. And some academic events were canceled. But I did get to spend a few days at the annual College Media Advisers convention in New York.

I saw many of the same disheartening things this year that I've written about before -- journalism departments that have not converged; students just weeks from graduating with nothing to show for it but a working knowledge of Quark; teachers and students with no understanding of how the media business operates; etc.
On the other hand, I saw less of some of the stuff that upsets me. This year, for example, I was pleased to find that only one person in a room full of journalism advisers didn't own a cell phone or PDA.

As you'd expect, much of the conversation at this year's convention focused on the troubles of the media industry. No one seems to be landing a job. The kids are frightened.
So I spent a lot of my time talking about where I see opportunities.
And the place where I see the most opportunity for the next few years is in content marketing.

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, I didn't meet a single teacher, adviser or student who was familiar with content marketing.
And so, repeatedly, I found myself giving a brief overview: Content marketing is about removing the middleman. Companies that once spent their marketing budget on advertising are now spending it on creating content themselves. Content marketers are free of the greatest pressure that the rest of media faces, i.e., content marketers don't need to make a profit from their content. I talked about some of the content-marketing sites that I've written about earlier such as Security Focus as well as Kraft, WeightWatchers and the sites of Waterfront Media.
And, of course, I talked about Joe Pulizzi's Junta42, which is ground zero for the content-marketing movement.
But what I found was that the folks I talked to seemed to have tremendous difficulty with the word "marketing." No matter how much I talked about content marketing as a new form of journalism, they seemed to think it could be nothing more than a new form of marcom.

So it was with great pleasure and gratitude that I stumbled upon a recent post by David Meerman Scott.
In David's "Open letter to journalists," he talks about the opportunities for "open-minded" journalists in the new world of content marketing.
But most importantly, David introduces a new (or at least new to me) term to describe the content-marketing industry.
So you can expect that in March 2010 I'll be telling students and teachers about the opportunities in "brand journalism."

To read my four-part series on college journalism from last year, click here and follow the links.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education, content marketing, brand journalism

ASBPE and the next generation of journalists

Anyone who knows me knows how much time I put into working with college journalists. It's the part of my career that I enjoy the most.
And although it's true, as my wife likes to joke, that there's something fundamentally wrong with putting lots of effort into the part of my career that I don't get paid for, I don't care. I think the work is both important and fun. And there's just not enough of that in the rest of my working life.

But one of the troubling things I've noted is how little involvement the rest of the B2B world has with college journalism. When I attend conventions, visit campuses, etc., I'm often the only B2B professional for miles around.
So I'm thrilled by the news that the American Society of Business Publication Editors is deepening its involvement with the next generation of journalists.
ASBPE yesterday announced the details of a new, nonprofit organization called the ASBPE Foundation. (The Foundation was first announced at the ASBPE conference in July -- where I had the good fortune to be the keynote speaker.)
According to the foundation's Web site, the organization will "fund travel of ASBPE leaders to journalism schools" to give presentations on careers in B2B media. Even more exciting is that the Foundation plans to endow a universtity chair -- the ASBPE Professor of Business-to-Business Journalism.
I'm so happy about this -- and so proud of ASBPE for taking this step -- that I can't stop smiling.

If you'd like to help the next generation of journalists understand the opportunities in B2B, there are three things you can do.
First, consider a donation to the Foundation.
Second, make plans to visit the College Media Advisers Conference in Kansas City next month. I plan to be there. Stop on by my presentation and meet some of the bright young folks you'll be working with soon.
Three, follow developments in journalism education through the Innovation in College Media blog.

If you'd like to learn more about what I've learned in my recent visits with college journalists, check out my four-part series from earlier this year.

For a look at how journalism students look at journalism education in 2008, check out this post by a student at NYU or this related post by a student at Penn State. (Hat tip to Mindy McAdams for pointing me to those students.)

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education

PaidContent is sold to the Guardian!

Wow!
U.K.-based Guardian News & Media, publisher of the Guardian and the Observer newspapers, has purchased PaidContent.
In a nutshell that means that arguably the most Web-savvy newspaper company on earth has purchased what is arguably the most important Web-only B2B property on earth.

First, let me offer my congratulations to Rafat and his team.
They have built a truly remarkable series of products in less than six years -- largely by avoiding the cost and workflow problems of legacy print companies. As important, Rafat understood what so few people did understand six years ago -- the world of content was moving away from print. And there was need for news product that could cover use online and mobile media to cover developments in online and mobile media.

Second, let me suggest that this news has implications for all of us in the B2B space here in the United States. Here's why: although PaidContent is a global company, with sites dedicated to media news in India and the U.K., it's probably best-known for its U.S.-based parent site. And the purchase seems to represent the first major incursion into the U.S. market by Guardian News & Media's B2B unit, called Guardian Professional.
I happen to know that executives from Guardian spent a lot of time in the U.S. a few months ago, meeting with some of the smartest folks in the online world. They asked a lot of questions. And they impressed a lot of people. And my guess is that they spotted a number of opportunities (such as PaidContent) and a number of vulnerabilities in the B2B space.

The news about PaidContent comes just a day after Bloomberg announced a major reorganization that will separate its Web and multimedia news operations from the "text" news unit that writes for the Bloomberg terminals.
Clearly something is happening here.
And years from now we may look back and realize that this was the week that the B2B industry in the U.S. entered an all-new era.

For more on the deal, check out coverage from ReadWriteWeb, which offers some good background on the Guardian's recent progress online.
For some background on PaidContent, as well as a link to a video in which Rafat explains the journalism theories behind the company, check out this earlier post of mine.
If you're not already familiar with the Guardian, here's a good a place as any to start -- an article from earlier this week about U.S.-based B2B publisher IDG. (Disclosure: IDG is a client of mine.)

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing

Bloomberg restructures. And I ask "why?"

Today is a day when all of us in B2B journalism should pause, look at the news in our industry, and ponder what it means for each of us.
Because it doesn't get any bigger than this: Bloomberg LP is restructuring.

Bloomberg is arguably the smartest and most profitable news operation in history. It is certainly the biggest money-making operation in the history of B2B. (Now that Reuters and Thomson have merged, Bloomberg may or may not be the biggest player in business journalism -- it depends on how you measure things.)
So what does it mean when the best of the best in our industry decides to restructure? Why would it do so? Can other companies extract a lesson?

First, let's look at what is happening.
In essence, Bloomberg News is separating its multimedia operation (which includes the Web, television and radio units) from its text operation (the news and data service that is delivered to Wall Street via dedicated terminals. This same unit will continue to rewrite terminal news for publication in client newspapers. The company's print magazine will also reside in the new text division.)
In addition, the parent company, Bloomberg LP, is splitting into three units -- news, data and financial products. (This part of the revamp is even more complicated than it would first appear. The financial products unit will include "data" products such as the trading systems and analytics tools. Whereas the data unit will house the company's databases and its law unit.)
It's also worth noting that the restructuring is not related to any financial difficulties at the company. No layoffs are planned. The company continues to be a cash-producing machine.

Second, let's look at the why.
My friend Rafat at PaidContent says the restructuring sounds like Bloomberg is planning a spinoff or sale of the multimedia unit.
I agree. Particularly since the restructuring comes amid rumors on Wall Street that Merrill Lynch, reeling from the credit crisis, is looking to sell its 20% stake in Bloomberg. (The most likely buyer is the trust of New York mayor and company founder Mike Bloomberg. Value of the stake is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion.)
It's also worth noting that although Bloomberg continues to print money, the company's core audience of Wall Street bigwigs and traders is hurting. Sales are likely to have declined in recent months. And it would take a very optimistic person indeed to suggest sales will rise in the near term.

Third, let's look at other details.
Under the new structure, Matt Winkler, who has run Bloomberg's news operations since the beginning, will lose control of the multimedia operation. Winkler will maintain control of the text unit.
Bloomberg is also launching an incubator unit, dubbed Bloomberg Ventures, which will presumably look for new opportunities and acquisitions. It will be run by Lex Fenwick, the company's former CEO.
Portfolio suggests that the reorg may mean that Bloomberg's "famously bizarre corporate culture (is) being slowly dismantled." Certainly I hope that is true. Bloomberg is, by far, the least pleasant place I have ever worked. More importantly, it was a place where truly bizarre personalities tended to thrive. The Portfolio piece says that Bloomberg's new president, Dan Doctoroff, had come to realize that, in the words of a company insider, "Matt Winkler's reign of terror and crazy little rules" were hurting the organization.

But here's the part that intrigues me:
The restructuring will create two, distinct groups of journalists in the company.
One team will be dedicated to print and the terminals. It will report to Winkler.
The second team will be dedicated to multimedia and the Web. The company is searching for someone to run that team.
But I have to ask: why the split? and why now?

Bloomberg's move comes as the rest of the industry -- both B2B and B2C -- struggles to merge print, Web and television operations. Everyone from the Washington Post to Hanley-Wood is looking to create some form of Web-first publishing in which journalists are able to produce news for any medium.
But Bloomberg seems to be moving in a different direction.
Perhaps this is nothing more than a convoluted way to dilute Winkler's power without hurting the core product -- terminal sales.
Or perhaps it is nothing more than a way to create two, state-of-the-art news organizations in anticipation of selling one of them.
Or, perhaps, Bloomberg has a very different idea of what it will take to run a news company and make money in the future.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing

Where can "print" reporters go?

A few days ago I wrote a piece for this blog about the financial crisis in B2B publishing. I said that much of the industry had become "weighed down by the twin albatrosses of junk bonds and rising print costs." And I suggested that the "editors, salespeople and designers of B2B... walk away from print."

A reader of that post wrote a comment asking "where -- specifically -- would you suggest B2B writers/editors look for jobs in the digital world? I'm curious if there are even places for all those thousands of print-based folks to go?" And over at Folio magazine, where my blog is republished, a reader asked "But where do we go, especially in this economy? It's easy to say -- not easy to do."

Those are legitimate questions. And I'll do my best to answer them. But be warned -- plenty of folks in B2B publishing won't like what I have to say.

The unwanted
First, the bad news.
As fast as the world of Web journalism is growing, no "print" journalist should assume that there's a place for him in the new world. The truth is that there are not "places for all those thousands of print-based folks to go." And don't kid yourself -- we are talking about thousands of displaced journalists. The newspaper industry alone has lost 10,000 jobs in recent months. I'd put the number of lost jobs in B2B at about half of that in the past 12 months. And all across the media world, the bad news just keeps coming.
(Here's a quick quiz. What is the largest business media company and the world, and what does it mean for the job market? Answer: It's these guys: a brand new company, created by merger, which is expected to soon lay off thousands of the most talented business journalists on earth, turning an already saturated market into something even tougher.)
But the worse news for print-based journalists is that much of the Web journalism world wants nothing to do with them.
What print journalists don't seem to understand is that:
a) A lot of Web folks are pretty tired of print folks. Nearly everyone who works in Web-only or Web-first journalism came from a print background. And for years they toiled in places where the online world was treated with disdain. Then, as Web journalism took off, the online staff found themselves in an all-new form of hell. Every day was filled with the whining, complaining and resentments of the print staff. I assure you -- the Web journalists who have managed to escape that scene are not eager to start hiring the same moaning characters they left behind. The big secret of Web journalism is that it's fun. And we don't want anyone to spoil that.
b) A lot of Web folks think print folks are kind of lazy and stupid. Every Web journalist on earth has put in the time to learn how to be a Web journalist. No one taught it to them. They taught themselves. They put in the extra hours, took courses, read books, talked to smart people and looked for answers. And they did all that because they knew that Web journalism was important. Print journalists, on the other hand, tend to think that they themselves are important. They're the sorts of people who, even as their publications collapse around them, think the boss should invest in training them in the new skills. Web folks don't want to hire anyone like that. Because Web journalists know that six months from now when something new comes around the print guy is going to be demanding more training.

A place where print is valued
Now, the good news.
Although I think it's a very good idea to walk away from the print side of B2B publishing, there is one possible exception. And for print journalists who either can't or won't become part of Web culture, it offers a haven.
It's a media sector that is growing like crazy and where print journalism skills are still highly valued. New media skills are valued there too. In fact, they are valued more highly, as they should be. But print has a strong role. And there is growth.
So it's time to consider a career in content marketing (my apologies to Rex, who hates that term)
The key to understanding content marketing (or branded media, custom publishing, or any of the other terms used to describe the sector) is that it generally does not require the content to pay for itself. Rather, the content is used to spread a branding message or serve a community. Perhaps the most recognized forms of content marketing are the airline magazines in the seat-back cover or the alumni magazine that many of us get from the colleges we attended. In content marketing, a magazine isn't a business, it supports a business. In content marketing, a newspaper doesn't make a profit, it supports a nonprofit. In content marketing, a newsletter isn't a way to monetize readers, it's a way to communicate with customers.
And in B2B, the sector is growing more important. Earlier this week, Junta42 and BtoB magazine released a report showing that B2B marketers are spending nearly one-third of their total budgets on content marketing.
Take a look at the report here. Make note that the most popular products in the space are Web and electronic. But note too that marketers are producing print newsletters, magazines and other traditional products.
If I were a print-based, B2B journalist, I'd be watching that sector for opportunities.

(Disclosure: I offer content marketing services through my business. And although I work on print products, I specialize in Web and other electronic products. I'm not hiring print staffers at this time.)

For more on the world of content marketing, check out this article in Folio.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, content marketing

College Tour, Part 4: Show them the money

I recently had the opportunity to visit a number of universities and to attend two conventions for college journalists. This is the conclusion of a four-part series on my experiences. You can see part one here. You can read part two here. Check out part three here.

After a month of visiting with college students and teachers, I've reached two conclusions.
First, many journalism programs are doing a tremendous disservice to their students. Too many teachers are stuck firmly in the past. And they seem determined to drag their students back in time to an era they understood. For every gifted educator like Ralph Braseth at Ole Miss, Jacquie Lamer at Northwest Missouri State and Chris Carroll at Vanderbilt, there are at least two dinosaurs filling students' heads with nonsense.
Second, many journalism students are woefully unprepared to enter our business. Too many of them are preparing for careers that just won't exist in the near future. These students are naive. They seem to have little interest in studying the industry they are about to enter. They don't read the trade press. They don't follow the debates about the future of journalism. They seem unaware of the tremendous difficulties faced by most traditional publishers. Because they don't follow developments in the business, they have no idea of what the business wants from them.

Interestingly, the solution to both problems is the same.
It's time for journalism programs to start talking about, and teaching about, money.

Cut our losses
For a long time I was hopeful that journalism teachers would learn to embrace the future. I had this idea that the ability of the Web to reach people around the globe would enchant teachers. I believed that interactivity, feedback functions, user-generated content and all the other forms of conversational and democratic storytelling would appeal to people who dedicated their lives to telling stories and spreading information.
But I was wrong.
New media has brought out the worst in many teachers -- turning them defensive, bitter, cowardly and curmudgeonly. The rise of new media, in other words, has had the same effect on many teachers that it has had on many legacy editors.
But there is a difference between editors and teachers. And it's silly for us not to acknowledge it:
We can fire editors.

Many journalism programs are burdened with teachers who are poorly suited to teach a subject that changes as rapidly as does the media world.
But we're stuck with them. The rules of tenure and the traditions of academia mean that these folks ain't going anywhere.
So it's time for a "work around."

The Benjamins
One of the arguments I hear over and over again from legacy editors and dinosaur teachers goes something like this: "Newspapers/my company/publishers make plenty of money already. The profit margins are huge. There's no real problem. The owners/investors/suits just need to be less greedy and spend some of that money on training/preserving the publication/hiring reporters to cover Congress and buying me a cellphone/video camera/Internet connection for my house."
But that's the sort of argument that can only be made by someone who doesn't have a clue about business finance.
Profit margins aren't a forward-looking measurement. They are a backward-looking measurement. More important -- far, far, far more important -- is that profit margins in the publishing industry are often dictated by the banks and other institutions that lend money to publishing companies. Debt covenants set minimum performance levels on a wide variety of metrics -- particularly on net income, EBITDA and similar measurements of "profit." In fact, there's an argument to be made that publishers are being forced to cut expenses (lay off workers) in order to make the numbers required by the covenants. In other words, those high profit margins are the problem, not the solution. And they cannot be cut. Throw in the pressures of competing for capital in a world dominated by hedge funds and private equity, and it's easy for a publisher to fall into a death spiral.
(For a clearer discussion of this, check out this piece by Alan Mutter.)

Don't teach what you don't know
Almost every journalist and journalism teacher at one time or another has made a joke about his inability to do math. The math- and numbers-phobic journalist is a stereotype. But like all stereotypes, there is some truth to it.
So it's simply too much to ask that journalism teachers master the world of accounting and debt finance. There's probably no way to force them to learn. And as we've seen with new media, if you can't force teachers to learn something, then many of them won't learn.
Students, however, are a different matter.
We can force students to learn. Heck, that's what college is all about!

So here's my modest proposal.
If you're a teacher or college administrator who "gets it," who understands the pressures upon the publishing world, sees the opportunities in digital media, and accepts that your students will work in a converged, new media world, this is what you should do:
1. Give up on trying to convert your peers.
2. Instead, push to give your students the tools that will allow them to see the world and the publishing industry clearly.
3. Fight to have a business finance and/or accounting course as a requirement for graduation.
4. Force every journalism student in your school to cover business. Invite business journalists to guest lecture on subjects like "reading an income statement" and "understanding SEC filings." Don't let anyone graduate who hasn't produced at least five multimedia pieces that focus on the world of business, investments and/or personal finance.
5. Distribute salary surveys whenever you can. Make sure your students know that new media pays more than old media.

(Sometimes the stars align. Today is one of those days. I wouldn't want to end my series on the College Tour without pointing readers toward Innovation in College Media, which is perhaps the best source of information for those looking to improve journalism education. Nor would I want to end this series without mentioning Angryjournalist, the site where thousands of our peers are whining, moaning and acting like spoiled children while hiding behind anonymous posts. College kids are reading that site. And it's teaching the wrong lessons. But as luck would have it, the founder of that site has written a guest post for Innovation in College Media. And it's a truly wonderful piece. I ask you to read it. And if you're a teacher, I beg you to share it with your students.)

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education

College Tour, Part 3: The war within

I recently had the opportunity to visit a number of universities and to attend two conventions for college journalists. This is the third in a four-part series on my experiences. You can see part one here. You can read part two here.

One of the best things about my annual college tour is that I get to be a little bit of a celebrity. Folks who know me well know that my ego is enormous. And I greatly enjoy doing things that feed my sense of grandiosity. So I like visiting campuses where students line up to meet me. I like standing on a stage and knowing that people are listening. I like to be an expert, an honored guest, a keynote speaker. And I really, really like applause.
At the same time, when I'm speaking about things that are important to me, I don't mind being controversial. I like to be direct and a little harsh. In other words, I'm a New Yorker. And I accept that one side effect of being a wee bit off-putting is that some people are put off.
That's fine. I'm OK with that.
I'm not bothered on a personal level when I learn that some journalism teachers just don't like me.
But I wonder if the way they display their dislike of what I have to say is symptomatic of what's wrong with journalism education.

First, let me give three examples of what I'm talking about:

• After my keynote speech at the Southeast Journalism Conference, several students complained to me that they had difficulty following my remarks because teachers at their table grumbled and complained throughout my presentation.
• Twice during my college tour I received embarrassed apologies from students who were upset that their teachers had declined opportunities to attend social functions with me, because, as one student said, "they hate people like you."
• I met at least a dozen journalism teachers or advisers who said something like "I wish my dean/president/adviser/department head/peers had come to hear you. But they weren't interested."

The lines are drawn
Journalism education has divided into two factions. There are those who see digital media and convergence as positive. And there are those who see recent developments in the press as a catastrophe. The first group wants to use the universities to spread the new forms of storytelling. The second group believes universities are the place to draw the line against change.
The gap between the two is broad and deep. Most upsetting, disagreements between the two sides are uncivil. And since most journalism programs have members of both camps on the faculty, the atmosphere in many schools is toxic.
This isn't a reasoned disagreement among people who like and respect each other. (Certainly the students I met don't think so. The students use terms like "nasty," "ridiculous," "stupid" and "embarrassing' when describing the debates on their campuses.) This isn't an academic debate. Rather, this is a fight between people who have genuine animosity for the opposition.

Certainly I understand where such strong feelings originate. I, too, am passionate about journalism. And I tend to be dismissive of journalism educators I believe are either unwilling or unable to prepare their students for today's media. I suppose if I had been in a university these past few years I'd have grown positively vicious about any peer who failed to adapt.
I suppose too there are teachers who resist the changes in media because they believe these changes are detrimental to the profession. And it's to be expected that these last few years have left such teachers bitter and vicious too. I may believe they are wrong. Hell, I know they're wrong. But I understand how they can "hate" someone like me and refuse to attend a dinner in my honor.
I just wish it wasn't like this.
Because I'm convinced that amid the defensiveness, bitterness and contempt, educators are failing to teach students the single most important lesson that a journalist can learn -- keep an open mind.

If you'd like to get a sense of what it is I tell journalism students, you should read how journalism students react to me. Take a look at students' blog posts here and here.
If you'd like to see some of the more interesting work being done by journalism students, check out the converged model of Connect Mason (created by Whitney Rhodes, a student who was frustrated by the silos at her school) and all the winners of the first online journalism contest of the Center for Innovation in College Media.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education

Fighting Hole Tactics: Part Two -- Finding Allies

(Editor's note: This is the third in a series on building a "B2B fighting hole." I'm expecting difficult financial times in trade journalism in 2008. In this series I offer some suggestions on building a defensive position where editors and publishers can ride out the coming onslaught. You can read the post that started the series here. You can read Tactic One here.)

In the history of warfare, there are two groups that have fallen from favor: mercenaries and privateers. But if, as I believe, B2B journalism is about to begin a tough financial period, I think we need our own versions of both.
In simplest terms, a mercenary fights for a paycheck and a privateer fights for a share of booty. But both share some significant traits. First, they fight by choice. It's even possible to argue that they like to fight. There's no need to worry about morale or motivation. Second, they are best used as a supplement to an existing fighting force. No one wants to be entirely dependent on for-hire fighters. But many nations have found advantage in employing them to take on some military tasks.

Magazine Mercenaries and Publishing Privateers
When revenue declines, publishers have few ways to keep their products afloat (and their staff employed.) The first choice is nearly always to freeze hiring. But not only does that tend to stretch the existing staff too thin, it also always makes it nearly impossible to launch new products that can generate revenue.
When the hiring freeze fails to help, many publishers turn to layoffs. But layoffs have the exact same negative results: the staff burns out and product development comes to a halt.
I suggest that the way for publishers to escape this downward spiral is by giving up some control and having mercenaries and privateers launch new products.
In particular, I think it's time for B2B companies to do two things:
1. hire offshore companies to do print layout and design work -- especially for new products and custom publications.
2. let freelancers and outside contractors run online products for a cut of the revenue -- particularly Web-only products and newsletters.

In the first scenario (call it the mercenary method), publishers can launch new print products at lower costs. And at least one department -- design -- doesn't have to take on additional duties. It is, of course, also possible to offshore other parts of the magazine process. Heck, at least in theory, even reporting and copy editing can be done by outside contractors in Asia. But I suspect that most B2B editors, publishers and executives aren't comfortable with that idea...at least to start. And I can't imagine a time when I'd ever feel comfortable offshoring reporting functions.
So I think it's a wiser move to begin by offshoring layout and design for new products and custom pubs. If things work out well, layout and design of other print products can also be offshored.

In the second scenario (call it the privateer play), publishers can launch new online products at no cost. By offering a revenue split to outside contractors, publishers can create limitless numbers of small, hyper-niche products. This is the business model of New York Times Digital's About.com (Disclosure: About is a client of mine.) About's network of sites are run by independent contractors who work for a share of revenue (with a base payment as a site ramps up.) The privateer play is also similar to the system used by Associated Content and some of the blogging networks.
I suspect that many editors are already working with freelancers who would consider such a deal. The key, of course, is to sell the privateer on the upside potential -- the more you work, the more inventory we have to sell, and the more both of us make.

(Disclosure: I feel so strongly that there are opportunities for both mercenaries and privateers in B2B that I've taken steps to position myself appropriately.
One of my newest clients is Mindworks Global Media, the India-based outsourcing company run by Tony Joseph, the former editor of India's largest business magazine. Tony's company does work for publishers around the world and recently won a contract with McClatchy's Miami Herald newspaper.
Furthermore, Paul Conley Consulting is now available to run editorial for Web sites, online newsletters and other electronic products on a contract or revenue-share basis. I'll be announcing some new deals here soon.
If you'd like to talk about how your company can benefit from mercenaries and privateers, drop me an email at inquire (at) paulconley (dot) com)

(Addendum: 1/15/08. Editor and Publisher is reporting that the Miami Herald has backed out of part of its deal with Mindworks. The Herald will continue to outsource "the production of some advertising sections and monitoring of website comments," according to E&P. )

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media

Reading for a long weekend

I, like a good portion of the country, am trying to finish off a few projects today so I can begin the long holiday weekend.
I won't be posting to this blog until sometime next week, unless something truly remarkable happens in the world of B2B.
But if you're the type who will spend this weekend reading on the computer rather than reading by the beach, allow me to share some of the blogs that I've recently added to my newsreader.

Longtime readers of this blog know I'm still in mourning over the closure of CMO Magazine. If you shared my love of that publication, you may want to follow the work of Rob O'Regan, founding Editor in Chief of CMO. Check out his blog, called Magnosticism.

I spent a good portion of this summer waging a battle against the use of annoying and unethical ads in the world of B2B publishing. Now Ryan Block, editor in chief of Engadget, one of my favorite online-only publications, has taken up the fight. You can read his open letter to the industry here, and check out the rest of his blog here.

Just last week I wrote at length about the rise of content marketing. And I get the feeling I'll be writing more about this subject soon. There are opportunities here for B2B. But there are challenges too. If you want to follow this trend, check out the Junta42 Blog.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, content marketing

CMP goes Web first; closes three magazines

There's some tough news today in the world of B2B journalism. CMP is restructuring and laying off some 200 people. The move is predictable, and even wise. But it's still sad to think that so many of our comrades are out of work.

The move is prompted by CMP's realization that last year its non-print revenue surpassed its print revenue for the first time, Chief Executive Officer Steve Weitzner told Folio. And according to Weitzner, "that trend is continuing and the gap is actually growing. We want to realign internal resources around these growth areas and look at opportunities in the marketplace and really go after them."
Or, in other words, CMP is putting its online business at the fore.
According to BtoB Magazine, CMP is closing three print magazines and reducing the frequency of two others.

CMP's restructuring comes less than three months after IDG's InfoWorld announced that it was going Web-only. I said then that "no matter how we look at the changes in media, it's clear that part of what is happening must be described as loss ... but something is gained, too ... a trail to follow, and vindication for the trailblazers."

I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy. So today, despite the losses at CMP, I also feel better about our industry as a whole.
Bit by bit, day by day, we are getting to where we need to be.

For more info, check out min's blog.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media

InfoWorld blazes a print-free path

PaidContent is reporting that weekly magazine InfoWorld is about to shutter its print edition.
I haven't seen a confirmation yet from parent company IDG. But I have no reason to doubt the news. What started as a report in Sam Whitmore's newsletter (sorry, the story is available only to subscribers), then spread across the blogosphere, now appears to be true.
And I for one am thrilled.

I don't mean to belittle the pain that some on the InfoWorld staff will feel. It's likely that a small number of folks will be laid off. (Rafat at PaidContent says his source reports that "there won’t be too many layoffs as most of the team had been working on multiplatform already: print, online and events.")
But even one layoff is painful. Heck, I lost a gig last week after stepping into the middle of a nasty bit of office politics. And I had given up two other paying gigs to take on that assignment. So believe me when I say to anyone who is about to lose a job at InfoWorld: "I feel your pain."
Heck, even those who keep their jobs at InfoWorld will feel some pain. No matter how we look at the changes in media, it's clear that part of what is happening must be described as "loss." InfoWorld, the magazine, existed. Soon it will not. So something is lost.

But something is gained, too.
And it's more than the business opportunities offered to a magazine brand that transitions to the new era of connection, conversation and containerless content.
What is gained is a trail to follow, and vindication for the trailblazers.

Allow me to explain.
IDG is a client. And in the past few years I've had numerous opportunities to speak with the journalists and publishers of that company. Some of those conversations have been one-to-one. But most have been speaking gigs. I'd stand at the front of a room. They would sit. And we'd talk about the future.
And at IDG -- as is true of every single place I've spoken in the past five years -- most of the audience could be divided into two groups. One group consisted of those who were excited about the future. The second group consisted of those who saw the future solely as a possible threat to their present.
At IDG, the first group was larger than it was at some other companies. But even at IDG, a company that many folks would describe as visionary, there were always a few folks in the second group.
The Group Two folks always sat together (they always knew their compatriots, even those from other magazines). And they spent an enormous amount of energy rolling their eyes whenever anyone appeared excited about what the Web meant for journalism.
The Group One folks were most noticeable for how they reacted after I finished my speech. They had tons of questions. And many of those questions involved the people in Group Two. "How do we get them excited?" "How can we help them learn multimedia skills?" "How can we make them less afraid?"
And therein is the key -- while the folks in Group Two were interested only in protecting what they had; the folks in Group One were interested in helping Group Two to adapt.

The advice I gave to the kindly folks in Group One was to ignore the laggards and slow wits of Group Two. (Although on bad days I've advocated murder.) I told the people in Group One to move ahead on their own. Clear a path. Create a trail of your own. And in the end, when you have reached a clearing and the road behind you is free of obstructions, you'll find the folks in Group Two will follow -- still complaining, but at least moving forward.

In the past few days I've watched a handful of cowboy movies. That's not a typical activity of mine. And I'm not sure what it's about, but it's probably related to the recent anniversary of my father's death. He loved the cowboy movies.
And if you watch enough cowboy movies, you start to picture the world as a cowboy movie.
So today I see the staff at InfoWorld as scouts on horseback. They have moved further than many would have dreamed possible. They have reached a clearing. The clearing is not their final destination. But it's a place quite different from where they started.
And they have sent word back to the rest of settlers. And now everyone, even the folks riding mules and donkeys, are on the road.

Matt McAlister is an InfoWorld alumni. He says that somebody at IDG "had to step forward, and InfoWorld is as well positioned to make that transition as anybody."
Scott Karp also sees InfoWorld as leading the way for the rest of the publishing industry, but that "of course, there’s a big gap between a B2B magazine making the transition and a local newspaper making it across the chasm. But we’ve got to start somewhere."

Thanks to Rex for tipping me to the InfoWorld news first. Rex tracks the industry so I don't have to.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media

End game for newspaper industry newsletter

As I spoke with journalism students last week, trying to convince them that there was no longer any such thing as a career in print alone, I wish I had known this:
The Morton-Groves Newspaper Newsletter, a B2B publication that covers the newspaper industry, issued a dire warning March 15 saying that time may have run out for publications that haven't adapted to new media. "For those who have not made the transition [by now], technology and market factors may be too strong to enable success," the newsletter said.
And then the newsletter said good-bye ... forever.

After 30 years of covering the newspaper business, Morton-Groves has published its final edition.
You can read the whole thing on this .pdf file, but suffice it to say that Morton-Groves doesn't see much light at the end of the tunnel. (You can also read more about the history of the newsletter on the "Reflections of a Newsosaur" blog, where I first learned that Morton-Groves was no more.)

At the College Media Advisers convention last week, I told students and teachers that it was clear to me that we were seeing the burst of a "content bubble." In an era when everyone can be a publisher, lots of people have become publishers. We're awash in content. Few of us -- even armed with RSS, widgets and content-aggregation services -- can keep up with what's out there.
For many publishers, it's become impossible to survive in a world with so many competitors.

And now, as the bubble bursts, things are getting tougher. The monetary value of content is falling. Companies that are tied to expensive production methods (paper, delivery trucks, outdated CMS systems, large staffs, etc.) are being squeezed into oblivion.
But this is the bubble that may never stop bursting.
The low cost of entry has kept the competitors coming.
And in a global economy, much of the U.S. publishing industry will offshore work in order to keep costs low.
And that is a very, very difficult environment for an entry-level journalist.

Back when I started out in this industry, the value proposition that landed me my first job was simple: volume. For the price of a mid-career journalist, a publisher could hire me and another kid straight out of school. We wouldn't produce work that was on par with that of the established professional, but we would produce more of it.
A student today faces a bleaker equation.
Why would a publisher hire an entry-level reporter at a price that could get him three writers and a designer in Asia? Why would a publisher hire a college kid when there are experts and professionals who will blog for free? Why would anyone pay money for more words in a world where there's already a surplus of words?

But as anyone who reads this blog knows, I see endless opportunities for ambitious journalists in this new environment.
Later this week I'll share my thoughts on what young journalists need to do to thrive in the content bubble.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, journalism education