I'm back from a road trip and trying to catch up on all the stuff in my RSS feeds. But after glancing at the depressing headlines from Folio magazine in the past few days, I wish I hadn't bothered.
First, there's been another series of layoffs at United Business Media's TechInsights unit. Close observers of the B2B world will note that these layoffs come nearly a year to the day after the company announced it would lay off 200 people and and just four months after the company announced a major restructuring.
Second, Reed Business Information has laid off 41 of its staffers. RBI said more layoffs were possible. That news comes several weeks after RBI's parent company said it planned to sell off the entire B2B unit. (In a related note, RBI's parent, Reed Elsevier, is said to be making plans to arrange a $1.5 billion loan for anyone who would buy the B2B giant, publisher of Variety, Professional Builder, Broadcasting & Cable and dozens of other magazines and Web sites.)
But if you really want to read a depressing story, check out Folio's coverage of the death of VON magazine. It's a tale of disappearing executives, a write off of more than $10 million in debt, and a secretive move to seize assets by the folks who months before had invested $11 million in the operation.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Buy Dr. Paul's Magic Elixr! Solve Your B2B Woes
The latest numbers from the Business Information Network show that things ain't looking good for print publications in B2B. Ad revenue and ad pages are down. And no doubt there's not a soul anywhere in the industry who is surprised by this latest bit of bad news.
As I said a little more than a month ago, much of the B2B publishing world, weighed down by heavy debt loads and soaring print costs, "has sunk into a death spiral." Heck, things are getting so bad on the print side that I'm even nervous about publishers that don't have debt. Certainly I'm not the only person to be worried. Two of my new favorite sites -- Business Media Blog and
Private Frazer's Doomed Magazines -- are dedicated primarily to documenting the troubles in our industry (both sites, however, focus on U.K.-based publishing.)
I love this industry, and I hate to see it suffer. So I do what I can to make things better.
But lately I've begun to worry that I haven't done enough.
No Sale
A man should know his weaknesses. I certainly know mine -- and over the years my business has been hurt by one weaknesses in particular: I'm not much of a salesman.
I've been lucky that this hasn't kept me from working for myself. Every single client that Paul Conley Consulting has ever had has come to me through referrals, personal relationships or this blog. I haven't had to make cold calls, etc.
But I've decided to change that. I've decided to learn to sell. Because a man should try to conquer his weaknesses. And because I want do more to help this industry and because I'm just arrogant enough to believe that I can solve much of what ails us if I can get people to buy into my ideas.
So I've begun trying to pick up some sales skills. I've been chatting with buddies who make their living in sales. I've been reading books and checking out blogs that focus on making sales to businesses.
No Problem
In order to sell something to a business, you have to be solving a problem.
In one fashion or another, that seems to be what all the experts suggest about selling to a business. Understand a business' problems, and then sell your product or service as a solution. In the world of business sales, it would seem that if you don't offer solutions, you won't make the sale. (That, I suppose, is why so many salespeople have the annoying habit of calling whatever they sell a "solution." Hence a person who sells software to trucking companies isn't a software salesman, he's a logistics software solutions provider.)
So as I first read all this sales material, I was encouraged. It seemed that I was in the perfect position to "sell" my consulting services.
It seemed clear to me that nearly everyone in B2B publishing had some combination of the same three problems. And I offered services -- either directly or through other clients -- that could help solve any of them.
So I wrote out some notes for sales calls and listed the problems and solutions.
1. Poor editorial: Publishers are expecting more and better work online from their editorial teams. But in B2B, much of our online content is still awful. It's produced by people who don't understand Web journalism and resist change. Solution: In-house training and/or outsourcing some products.
2. Soaring costs: At the rate that costs are rising, print publishing may soon be limited to the higher ends of the B2C market. But even if things never get quite that bad, there's no doubt that publishers are choking on the costs of print. Solution: Move to Web-first publishing and prepare to go Web-only and/or outsource print-only jobs in design and layout.
3. Demands for revenue growth: Online revenue has soared in recent years. But publishers continue to struggle to find online revenue sources that are robust enough to replace declining print revenue. Complicating matters is that much of our existing online revenue will certainly disappear as our customers grow more sophisticated. We've been selling a lot of crap in B2B for a long time -- filling our coffers with money from ineffective buttons, widely ignored banners, opt-out newsletters and page view numbers that aren't filtered for 'bots. Solution: In-house training of ad sales staff and/or move to a lead-generation model.
No Thank You
So last week I tried to use my new understanding of how to make sales. I started talking to people about the problems I see in B2B publishing. I wasn't actually making sales calls. Rather I was practicing my pitch with people in the industry.
What I found -- much to my surprise -- is that a lot of people in B2B don't believe in the problems. Rather, they seem to think that things are going badly for them solely because of factors that are out of their control.
I've spoken to editors of sites that are simply awful by any measure. But those people think their content is just nifty, and that the sales team just sucks.
I've spoken to print-centric sales folks who are now selling for the Web, but don't understand the difference between opt-out and opt-in. These folks think what they are selling is valuable, and that the editorial team just sucks.
I've spoken to folks who are being crushed by print costs -- pouring the vast majority of their budgets into a product that is produced only once a month. But those people think that print (and print-only workers) must be saved, and that the Web/the boss/this point in history just sucks.
Every once in awhile I spoke with someone who agreed that there was actually a problem in his/her own department. But those people inevitably portrayed those problems as inevitable -- there weren't enough resources, there wasn't enough time and it wasn't worth asking the boss for help.
The Next Step
If there are any expert salespeople reading this post, then they aren't surprised by what I found. Such experts would note that I've been testing my sales approach on people who aren't "decision makers." Rather I've been talking to the people I usually talk to -- the reporters, editors, sales staffers, designers and the rest of the people who do the work of B2B.
As I said a little more than a month ago, much of the B2B publishing world, weighed down by heavy debt loads and soaring print costs, "has sunk into a death spiral." Heck, things are getting so bad on the print side that I'm even nervous about publishers that don't have debt. Certainly I'm not the only person to be worried. Two of my new favorite sites -- Business Media Blog and
Private Frazer's Doomed Magazines -- are dedicated primarily to documenting the troubles in our industry (both sites, however, focus on U.K.-based publishing.)
I love this industry, and I hate to see it suffer. So I do what I can to make things better.
But lately I've begun to worry that I haven't done enough.
No Sale
A man should know his weaknesses. I certainly know mine -- and over the years my business has been hurt by one weaknesses in particular: I'm not much of a salesman.
I've been lucky that this hasn't kept me from working for myself. Every single client that Paul Conley Consulting has ever had has come to me through referrals, personal relationships or this blog. I haven't had to make cold calls, etc.
But I've decided to change that. I've decided to learn to sell. Because a man should try to conquer his weaknesses. And because I want do more to help this industry and because I'm just arrogant enough to believe that I can solve much of what ails us if I can get people to buy into my ideas.
So I've begun trying to pick up some sales skills. I've been chatting with buddies who make their living in sales. I've been reading books and checking out blogs that focus on making sales to businesses.
No Problem
In order to sell something to a business, you have to be solving a problem.
In one fashion or another, that seems to be what all the experts suggest about selling to a business. Understand a business' problems, and then sell your product or service as a solution. In the world of business sales, it would seem that if you don't offer solutions, you won't make the sale. (That, I suppose, is why so many salespeople have the annoying habit of calling whatever they sell a "solution." Hence a person who sells software to trucking companies isn't a software salesman, he's a logistics software solutions provider.)
So as I first read all this sales material, I was encouraged. It seemed that I was in the perfect position to "sell" my consulting services.
It seemed clear to me that nearly everyone in B2B publishing had some combination of the same three problems. And I offered services -- either directly or through other clients -- that could help solve any of them.
So I wrote out some notes for sales calls and listed the problems and solutions.
1. Poor editorial: Publishers are expecting more and better work online from their editorial teams. But in B2B, much of our online content is still awful. It's produced by people who don't understand Web journalism and resist change. Solution: In-house training and/or outsourcing some products.
2. Soaring costs: At the rate that costs are rising, print publishing may soon be limited to the higher ends of the B2C market. But even if things never get quite that bad, there's no doubt that publishers are choking on the costs of print. Solution: Move to Web-first publishing and prepare to go Web-only and/or outsource print-only jobs in design and layout.
3. Demands for revenue growth: Online revenue has soared in recent years. But publishers continue to struggle to find online revenue sources that are robust enough to replace declining print revenue. Complicating matters is that much of our existing online revenue will certainly disappear as our customers grow more sophisticated. We've been selling a lot of crap in B2B for a long time -- filling our coffers with money from ineffective buttons, widely ignored banners, opt-out newsletters and page view numbers that aren't filtered for 'bots. Solution: In-house training of ad sales staff and/or move to a lead-generation model.
No Thank You
So last week I tried to use my new understanding of how to make sales. I started talking to people about the problems I see in B2B publishing. I wasn't actually making sales calls. Rather I was practicing my pitch with people in the industry.
What I found -- much to my surprise -- is that a lot of people in B2B don't believe in the problems. Rather, they seem to think that things are going badly for them solely because of factors that are out of their control.
I've spoken to editors of sites that are simply awful by any measure. But those people think their content is just nifty, and that the sales team just sucks.
I've spoken to print-centric sales folks who are now selling for the Web, but don't understand the difference between opt-out and opt-in. These folks think what they are selling is valuable, and that the editorial team just sucks.
I've spoken to folks who are being crushed by print costs -- pouring the vast majority of their budgets into a product that is produced only once a month. But those people think that print (and print-only workers) must be saved, and that the Web/the boss/this point in history just sucks.
Every once in awhile I spoke with someone who agreed that there was actually a problem in his/her own department. But those people inevitably portrayed those problems as inevitable -- there weren't enough resources, there wasn't enough time and it wasn't worth asking the boss for help.
The Next Step
If there are any expert salespeople reading this post, then they aren't surprised by what I found. Such experts would note that I've been testing my sales approach on people who aren't "decision makers." Rather I've been talking to the people I usually talk to -- the reporters, editors, sales staffers, designers and the rest of the people who do the work of B2B.
And any sales expert would say that I'm going to have to move up the food chain if I'm going to find people who can both see the problems and buy the solutions.
So in about two weeks or so, after I return from a business trip, I'm going to start calling some of the CEOs in B2B publishing and make some sales.
It's my hope that even if the powers-that-be in B2B disagree with me about how to solve our problems, they will at least be able to see our problems.
Otherwise, we're all doomed.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing, advertisingTuesday, May 20, 2008
Early adopters and late arrivals
I like to think of myself as an early adopter of technology. I was a cell phone junkie when mobile phones were still considered a novelty if not a public nuisance. I lived in the online world back before there was a Web. I was running my own little news site on the Internet before CNN went online. I blog. I tweet. I left Second Life before it got really popular.
But in reality, I tend to lag the true early adopters.
My first cell phone fit in my pocket. I didn't have one of those crazy briefcase models. My first forays into online communities were on Compuserve and AOL, not in The Well. And although the inspiration for my first news product was the San Jose Mercury News' Mercury Center on AOL, which debuted in May of 1993, I didn't actually distribute anything until two years later when AOL offered Internet mail for the first time.
All of which is to say that it shouldn't surprise anyone that I only got around to using Basecamp last week.
Basecamp, for those adopters even later than I, is the Web-based, project management system beloved by thousands. It is, to oversimplify, a way to create and organize to-do lists.
But Basecamp and its sister products are also a way to organize editorial workflows.
And it was the quest for a better way to assign and track stories in a Web-first publishing model that finally convinced me to try Basecamp.
In the past few months I've run into a half-dozen newsrooms that are using workflow-tracking software that is based on Lotus Notes. And it's been driving me crazy. More importantly, this old-fashioned method of organizing work is driving the workers crazy. It seems that every time I ask editors to explain where they see barriers to moving to a Web-first model, they begin to complain about the systems they use to track stories.
Now don't get me wrong. Lotus Notes was a pretty remarkable development some 20 years ago. And there are new versions that offer a slew of new and remarkable features. But the stuff I'm seeing in newsrooms is pretty much the same stuff that first appeared years and years ago. It's been altered and rebranded and turned into something that "only works here." But the functionality is the same as what you could get back when I was first playing with AOL.
It seemed to me that in 2008 there must be something better.
So I tried Basecamp.
I'm not alone.
There's anecdotal evidence that publishers are abandoning their existing story-management tools and turning to Basecamp.
Basecamp's site has this testimonial from a Web publisher as well as this one from an executive at the Baltimore Sun who uses the system to track design projects. College publishers such as this one use it too. This article on the Poynter Institute's site talks about a citizen-journalism site that uses HighRise, a similar product from the makers of Basecamp.
But what I haven't seen are any major publishers using Basecamp to manage story flow.
Which leads me to wonder...am I missing something, or am I more of an early adopter than I give myself credit for?
For more on Basecamp, check out this article by Rex Hammock, the king of the magazine industry's early adopters.
Or click here for a description of the world of collaborative software.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
But in reality, I tend to lag the true early adopters.
My first cell phone fit in my pocket. I didn't have one of those crazy briefcase models. My first forays into online communities were on Compuserve and AOL, not in The Well. And although the inspiration for my first news product was the San Jose Mercury News' Mercury Center on AOL, which debuted in May of 1993, I didn't actually distribute anything until two years later when AOL offered Internet mail for the first time.
All of which is to say that it shouldn't surprise anyone that I only got around to using Basecamp last week.
Basecamp, for those adopters even later than I, is the Web-based, project management system beloved by thousands. It is, to oversimplify, a way to create and organize to-do lists.
But Basecamp and its sister products are also a way to organize editorial workflows.
And it was the quest for a better way to assign and track stories in a Web-first publishing model that finally convinced me to try Basecamp.
In the past few months I've run into a half-dozen newsrooms that are using workflow-tracking software that is based on Lotus Notes. And it's been driving me crazy. More importantly, this old-fashioned method of organizing work is driving the workers crazy. It seems that every time I ask editors to explain where they see barriers to moving to a Web-first model, they begin to complain about the systems they use to track stories.
Now don't get me wrong. Lotus Notes was a pretty remarkable development some 20 years ago. And there are new versions that offer a slew of new and remarkable features. But the stuff I'm seeing in newsrooms is pretty much the same stuff that first appeared years and years ago. It's been altered and rebranded and turned into something that "only works here." But the functionality is the same as what you could get back when I was first playing with AOL.
It seemed to me that in 2008 there must be something better.
So I tried Basecamp.
I'm not alone.
There's anecdotal evidence that publishers are abandoning their existing story-management tools and turning to Basecamp.
Basecamp's site has this testimonial from a Web publisher as well as this one from an executive at the Baltimore Sun who uses the system to track design projects. College publishers such as this one use it too. This article on the Poynter Institute's site talks about a citizen-journalism site that uses HighRise, a similar product from the makers of Basecamp.
But what I haven't seen are any major publishers using Basecamp to manage story flow.
Which leads me to wonder...am I missing something, or am I more of an early adopter than I give myself credit for?
For more on Basecamp, check out this article by Rex Hammock, the king of the magazine industry's early adopters.
Or click here for a description of the world of collaborative software.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
More layoffs in B2B: Edgell makes job cuts
According to a comment tonight to an earlier post of mine about job cuts in B2B publishing, Edgell Communications, the Jersey-based publisher of magazines such as RIS News and Hospitality Technology, has begun laying off staffers.
I don't have many details, other than that six people have been handed their walking papers.
They have my sympathy. As the commenter, who goes by the name "lac" said: "It just really is such a horrible feeling."
It's about 10 p.m. as I write this post. And I'll be on the road for the next few days. So I won't be doing any reporting on the cuts. If anyone has details on which positions have been eliminated, please post a comment. In the meantime, I'll be looking for coverage in Folio.
Click here to read an earlier post of mine about the financial crisis in B2B publishing.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
I don't have many details, other than that six people have been handed their walking papers.
They have my sympathy. As the commenter, who goes by the name "lac" said: "It just really is such a horrible feeling."
It's about 10 p.m. as I write this post. And I'll be on the road for the next few days. So I won't be doing any reporting on the cuts. If anyone has details on which positions have been eliminated, please post a comment. In the meantime, I'll be looking for coverage in Folio.
Click here to read an earlier post of mine about the financial crisis in B2B publishing.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The growing ranks of entrepreneurial journalists
Harry McCracken is leaving PC World to start his own technology Web site.
That's big news for the world of B2B journalism for several reasons.
Harry may be the biggest name in B2B editorial circles. Anyone who follows this industry will remember Harry's clash with management last year. Harry's ethical stance in that dispute won him the most important award in B2B publishing -- American Business Media's Timothy White Award for editorial integrity.
And certainly Harry's departure is a tremendous blow to PC World and parent company IDG.
But what I find most interesting about this development is that Harry is now the best-known business-media journalist to enter the world of entrepreneurial journalism.
More than three years ago I first began predicting a rise in the number of established B2B journalists who would abandon traditional publishing companies and strike out on their own. And history has shown me right time and time again.
But in the past few weeks this trend seems to be accelerating.
First, there was the news that the majority of the staff of Cygnus' Aircraft Maintenance Technology magazine had resigned en masse ... reportedly to start a competing product.
They join another group of Cygnus employees who quit a few months ago and launched RV Industry News, a competitor to Cygnus' RV Trade Digest.
And in the past few weeks I've begun consulting with and/or offering advice and support to four different B2B editors who are building new products as they make plans to quit their day jobs before the end of the year.
But most interesting to me is that I'm in talks now with an entity that is interested in offering tools, a platform, ad-sales services and a revenue share to B2B editors who opt to take the standalone route (when and if I reach a deal with that group, I'll publish the details here.)
In the meantime, congratulations to Harry and everyone else who has taken the plunge.
(To see what Harry says about his departure, check out his blog at PC World.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, entrepreneurial journalism, standalone journalism
That's big news for the world of B2B journalism for several reasons.
Harry may be the biggest name in B2B editorial circles. Anyone who follows this industry will remember Harry's clash with management last year. Harry's ethical stance in that dispute won him the most important award in B2B publishing -- American Business Media's Timothy White Award for editorial integrity.
And certainly Harry's departure is a tremendous blow to PC World and parent company IDG.
But what I find most interesting about this development is that Harry is now the best-known business-media journalist to enter the world of entrepreneurial journalism.
More than three years ago I first began predicting a rise in the number of established B2B journalists who would abandon traditional publishing companies and strike out on their own. And history has shown me right time and time again.
But in the past few weeks this trend seems to be accelerating.
First, there was the news that the majority of the staff of Cygnus' Aircraft Maintenance Technology magazine had resigned en masse ... reportedly to start a competing product.
They join another group of Cygnus employees who quit a few months ago and launched RV Industry News, a competitor to Cygnus' RV Trade Digest.
And in the past few weeks I've begun consulting with and/or offering advice and support to four different B2B editors who are building new products as they make plans to quit their day jobs before the end of the year.
But most interesting to me is that I'm in talks now with an entity that is interested in offering tools, a platform, ad-sales services and a revenue share to B2B editors who opt to take the standalone route (when and if I reach a deal with that group, I'll publish the details here.)
In the meantime, congratulations to Harry and everyone else who has taken the plunge.
(To see what Harry says about his departure, check out his blog at PC World.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, entrepreneurial journalism, standalone journalism
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
More on Web-first, and Web-only publishing
Yesterday I posted my thoughts about the New York Times article on IDG's move to web-first publishing.
And as I look through my RSS reader today, I see that a number of other folks have voiced their opinions as well.
Perhaps the most interesting comments come from my friend and IDG executive Colin Crawford, who used the article to start a conversation about what's going to be IDG's next focus: mobile.
Others weighing in on the Times article include Jeff Jarvis, David Churbuck and Mathew Ingram.
For a slightly different take, check out Rex's thoughts on whether or not "print is a burden." (He says it's not.) And read what Prescott Shibles says about the move of some Penton properties to Web-only.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
And as I look through my RSS reader today, I see that a number of other folks have voiced their opinions as well.
Perhaps the most interesting comments come from my friend and IDG executive Colin Crawford, who used the article to start a conversation about what's going to be IDG's next focus: mobile.
Others weighing in on the Times article include Jeff Jarvis, David Churbuck and Mathew Ingram.
For a slightly different take, check out Rex's thoughts on whether or not "print is a burden." (He says it's not.) And read what Prescott Shibles says about the move of some Penton properties to Web-only.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
Monday, May 05, 2008
Follow the Leader: Looking at IDG's move to Web-first
Longtime readers of this blog, as well as the folks who have seen one of my speaking engagements, know that I often point to B2B publisher IDG as a guide to the future. No publisher I know has done a better job of understanding the Web and making the transition away from print.
I've had a pretty good view of the struggles the company has faced as it moved to a Web-first model. And just like everywhere else in journalism, most of those struggles involved stubborn and close-minded people.
Truth be told, IDG has fewer stubborn and close-minded people than any publisher I know. That has given the company a tremendous advantage. But as in most publishing companies, the slow-witted characters tend to be more vocal than the smart people.
I still remember -- vividly -- appearing before a group of reporters and editors at IDG several years ago, shortly after I launched my consulting business. My goal in that appearance was to talk about some of the things that excited me in the world that we would later call Web 2.0. My hope was that some of the editors would share my excitement.
I was able to reach some of those folks. Heck, many of them were already excited about the same things that interested me. All things considered, I think things went pretty well. IDG invited me back several times in the next few years. But what I'll remember most about that first appearance was the number of times a very small part of the audience cursed at me, rolled their eyes, interrupted, whined, insulted, complained and generally behaved like children.
As time has passed, much has changed.
I very, very seldom run into the level of hostility that first greeted me when I began writing this blog and consulting about online publishing.
Almost everyone in B2B publishing today "gets it" to one degree or another.
And no place has changed as quickly or as successfully as IDG.
And, much to my delight, nearly everyone in publishing now understands that IDG is blazing the trail that the rest of the industry will follow.
Today's New York Times has a lengthy feature piece on IDG's transition to Web-first publishing. Anyone who works in journalism should take a look. Pay particular attention to the words of Patrick J. McGovern, the founder and chairman of IDG, who says "The excellent thing, and good news, for publishers is that there is life after print — in fact, a better life after print."
For an earlier post of mine about my early experiences at IDG, take a look at my reaction to the end of InfoWorld's print publication.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
I've had a pretty good view of the struggles the company has faced as it moved to a Web-first model. And just like everywhere else in journalism, most of those struggles involved stubborn and close-minded people.
Truth be told, IDG has fewer stubborn and close-minded people than any publisher I know. That has given the company a tremendous advantage. But as in most publishing companies, the slow-witted characters tend to be more vocal than the smart people.
I still remember -- vividly -- appearing before a group of reporters and editors at IDG several years ago, shortly after I launched my consulting business. My goal in that appearance was to talk about some of the things that excited me in the world that we would later call Web 2.0. My hope was that some of the editors would share my excitement.
I was able to reach some of those folks. Heck, many of them were already excited about the same things that interested me. All things considered, I think things went pretty well. IDG invited me back several times in the next few years. But what I'll remember most about that first appearance was the number of times a very small part of the audience cursed at me, rolled their eyes, interrupted, whined, insulted, complained and generally behaved like children.
As time has passed, much has changed.
I very, very seldom run into the level of hostility that first greeted me when I began writing this blog and consulting about online publishing.
Almost everyone in B2B publishing today "gets it" to one degree or another.
And no place has changed as quickly or as successfully as IDG.
And, much to my delight, nearly everyone in publishing now understands that IDG is blazing the trail that the rest of the industry will follow.
Today's New York Times has a lengthy feature piece on IDG's transition to Web-first publishing. Anyone who works in journalism should take a look. Pay particular attention to the words of Patrick J. McGovern, the founder and chairman of IDG, who says "The excellent thing, and good news, for publishers is that there is life after print — in fact, a better life after print."
For an earlier post of mine about my early experiences at IDG, take a look at my reaction to the end of InfoWorld's print publication.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I don't want people like that teaching my kids
Last week I wrote a post about where "print" journalists could, and could not, find new work.
Today I want to talk about where I'm hoping print journalists don't find work -- academia.
According to an article in Editor & Publisher, the B2B publication for the newspaper business, a growing number of print journalists, upset by the changes in the industry, are looking for the exits. That's no surprise. But what's disturbing to me is that many of these print journalists are apparently looking for jobs as journalism teachers.
I can't imagine a worse development for journalism.
First, it would be inappropriate for me not to disclose my bias here. I'd love to teach journalism. And perhaps, someday, I will. And it's certainly not in my interest for thousands of laid-off print folks to be competing with me for teaching gigs.
But more importantly, it's not in the interest of journalism students for schools to hire people who either can't or won't adjust to the changes in media. Heck, journalism schools are already filled with people who don't understand modern journalism. And there's little doubt that those teachers have been producing graduates who are ill-prepared for the workforce.
There's little to nothing I can do about this.
I'm fairly well connected to a number of journalism schools, as longtime readers of this blog know. But those schools are the ones that "get it." I'm not afraid that they will hire print dinosaurs. They won't. They know better. But I am worried sick that the schools that don't understand how much journalism has changed in recent years will hire people who have spent the past few years resisting change.
For my recent four-part series on college journalism, start here and follow the links.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education
Today I want to talk about where I'm hoping print journalists don't find work -- academia.
According to an article in Editor & Publisher, the B2B publication for the newspaper business, a growing number of print journalists, upset by the changes in the industry, are looking for the exits. That's no surprise. But what's disturbing to me is that many of these print journalists are apparently looking for jobs as journalism teachers.
I can't imagine a worse development for journalism.
First, it would be inappropriate for me not to disclose my bias here. I'd love to teach journalism. And perhaps, someday, I will. And it's certainly not in my interest for thousands of laid-off print folks to be competing with me for teaching gigs.
But more importantly, it's not in the interest of journalism students for schools to hire people who either can't or won't adjust to the changes in media. Heck, journalism schools are already filled with people who don't understand modern journalism. And there's little doubt that those teachers have been producing graduates who are ill-prepared for the workforce.
There's little to nothing I can do about this.
I'm fairly well connected to a number of journalism schools, as longtime readers of this blog know. But those schools are the ones that "get it." I'm not afraid that they will hire print dinosaurs. They won't. They know better. But I am worried sick that the schools that don't understand how much journalism has changed in recent years will hire people who have spent the past few years resisting change.
For my recent four-part series on college journalism, start here and follow the links.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education
Friday, April 18, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
More on CIO and the LinkedIn links
ASBPE has not yet issued an official ruling on the controversy that began two days ago when I wrote about my concerns over CIO magazine's use of in-text links. That's understandable. Unlike the ad-in-links controversy that I've written about repeatedly, the CIO issue is more complex.
If you're not familiar with the issue, please take a look at the earlier post (and make sure you read the comments, which contain a number of interesting insights.)
But ASBPE has done the next best thing.
Steve Roll, president of the organization, has written a thoughtful piece in which he sums up the problem for journalism ethicists quite nicely, saying that "publishing on Internet--with all of its emerging functionalities--is likely to keep providing us with a steady supply of ethical conundrums. Failing to condemn unethical practices would destroy our profession. Being too quick to condemn new practices would likely have a chilling effect on innovation."
Meanwhile, Martha Spizziri, vice president of ASBPE, has weighed in as well.
Stuff to think about
While ASBPE crafts its official response, I'd urge everyone in B2B journalism to think long and hard about the issues raised by the CIO links.
To aid in that process, here's what I see as the two crucial questions, based on my understanding of ASBPE's ethics guidelines, my conversations with CIO staffers, the comments posted to this blog, and the emails I've received.
1. What constitutes editorial approval?
I first heard about the CIO links when I was contacted by CIO editors who were upset that they had not been consulted. They didn't approve of the links. They didn't insert them. And they didn't know they would be there. What the editors told me was that the links simply appeared in their stories.
ASBPE's guidelines say that ""Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors." To me, the use of the plural is crucial. It seems to me that links -- whether they are an ad or something else -- should only be inserted by the individuals responsible for each story. In other words, each editor at a publication must decide when, and when not, to add a link.
However, there is another school of thought. Abbie Lundberg, who runs the editorial department at CIO, posted a comment to my earlier post saying "As Editor in Chief at CIO, I approve the use of these links. " Abbie also notes that another senior staffer who has since left the company also approved of the links.
In other words, Abbie is saying that because the senior editorial staff approved the deal to place the links on the site, then discretion has been exercised and the links have received the "approval of editors."
Certainly many people would agree with Abbie on this. The senior editorial staff is ultimately responsible for editorial decisions.
I, however, disagree.
I think the ASBPE guidelines do and should require that individual editors be able to exercise choice in inserting a link into a story. If an editor thinks the link has value, the link goes in. If he doesn't think so, the link stays out.
Or, to put the question another way -- would ASBPE say that the ads-in-text used by Vibrant Media don't violate the ethics guidelines as long as the senior editorial staffer signs off on the deal? Of course not.
2. Must a link have a commercial/advertising component for it to violate ethics guidelines?
This is perhaps the most complex part of the equation.
In a comment to my earlier post, Rex Hammock notes that "nearly every financial news site on the web has such automatic links to information about publicly traded companies. Those are in-line links that an editor does not explicitly approve every instance of their inclusion -- they are baked into the CMS."
To see an example of what Rex is talking about, take a look at this story on the CNNMoney site and scroll down to the third paragraph. What you'll find is that inserted after the word "IBM" are links to IBM's stock price (and other material) and a Fortune magazine profile of the company.
It's unlikely that anyone would argue that these links do not have value to the reader. It's equally unlikely that anyone would argue that the links are any more or less commercial than anything else on the CNNMoney site.
In other words, such links are, by any reasonable measure, editorial links and not advertising links. And Rex is saying, correctly, that such links are widely accepted among professional journalists.
Furthermore, as a general rule in 2008, such links are "baked into" the content-management systems of many of the financial-news giants. The journalists who produce stories at most of those sites don't insert the links. The links simply appear.
However, back when I worked at CNNfn, the predecessor of CNNMoney, editors did have to "explicitly approve every instance" of such links. If I remember correctly, all that was required was that you highlight the company name and click a button in the CMS. But if we didn't do that, the links didn't appear.
Now in truth, that requirement for approval was a function of the CMS. None of us thought to insert editorial choice into the process. It just sort of happened that way.
I have no idea if such "approval" is still part of the CMS at CNN. But I believe that it should be part of the process for B2B publishers.
Because, as the ASBPE guidelines say, "Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors."
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps I'm being too rigid.
But I believe with all my heart that B2B journalism functions best when it allows individual editors to determine what does and does not go into a story.
I hope that ASBPE agrees with me.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising
If you're not familiar with the issue, please take a look at the earlier post (and make sure you read the comments, which contain a number of interesting insights.)
But ASBPE has done the next best thing.
Steve Roll, president of the organization, has written a thoughtful piece in which he sums up the problem for journalism ethicists quite nicely, saying that "publishing on Internet--with all of its emerging functionalities--is likely to keep providing us with a steady supply of ethical conundrums. Failing to condemn unethical practices would destroy our profession. Being too quick to condemn new practices would likely have a chilling effect on innovation."
Meanwhile, Martha Spizziri, vice president of ASBPE, has weighed in as well.
Stuff to think about
While ASBPE crafts its official response, I'd urge everyone in B2B journalism to think long and hard about the issues raised by the CIO links.
To aid in that process, here's what I see as the two crucial questions, based on my understanding of ASBPE's ethics guidelines, my conversations with CIO staffers, the comments posted to this blog, and the emails I've received.
1. What constitutes editorial approval?
I first heard about the CIO links when I was contacted by CIO editors who were upset that they had not been consulted. They didn't approve of the links. They didn't insert them. And they didn't know they would be there. What the editors told me was that the links simply appeared in their stories.
ASBPE's guidelines say that ""Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors." To me, the use of the plural is crucial. It seems to me that links -- whether they are an ad or something else -- should only be inserted by the individuals responsible for each story. In other words, each editor at a publication must decide when, and when not, to add a link.
However, there is another school of thought. Abbie Lundberg, who runs the editorial department at CIO, posted a comment to my earlier post saying "As Editor in Chief at CIO, I approve the use of these links. " Abbie also notes that another senior staffer who has since left the company also approved of the links.
In other words, Abbie is saying that because the senior editorial staff approved the deal to place the links on the site, then discretion has been exercised and the links have received the "approval of editors."
Certainly many people would agree with Abbie on this. The senior editorial staff is ultimately responsible for editorial decisions.
I, however, disagree.
I think the ASBPE guidelines do and should require that individual editors be able to exercise choice in inserting a link into a story. If an editor thinks the link has value, the link goes in. If he doesn't think so, the link stays out.
Or, to put the question another way -- would ASBPE say that the ads-in-text used by Vibrant Media don't violate the ethics guidelines as long as the senior editorial staffer signs off on the deal? Of course not.
2. Must a link have a commercial/advertising component for it to violate ethics guidelines?
This is perhaps the most complex part of the equation.
In a comment to my earlier post, Rex Hammock notes that "nearly every financial news site on the web has such automatic links to information about publicly traded companies. Those are in-line links that an editor does not explicitly approve every instance of their inclusion -- they are baked into the CMS."
To see an example of what Rex is talking about, take a look at this story on the CNNMoney site and scroll down to the third paragraph. What you'll find is that inserted after the word "IBM" are links to IBM's stock price (and other material) and a Fortune magazine profile of the company.
It's unlikely that anyone would argue that these links do not have value to the reader. It's equally unlikely that anyone would argue that the links are any more or less commercial than anything else on the CNNMoney site.
In other words, such links are, by any reasonable measure, editorial links and not advertising links. And Rex is saying, correctly, that such links are widely accepted among professional journalists.
Furthermore, as a general rule in 2008, such links are "baked into" the content-management systems of many of the financial-news giants. The journalists who produce stories at most of those sites don't insert the links. The links simply appear.
However, back when I worked at CNNfn, the predecessor of CNNMoney, editors did have to "explicitly approve every instance" of such links. If I remember correctly, all that was required was that you highlight the company name and click a button in the CMS. But if we didn't do that, the links didn't appear.
Now in truth, that requirement for approval was a function of the CMS. None of us thought to insert editorial choice into the process. It just sort of happened that way.
I have no idea if such "approval" is still part of the CMS at CNN. But I believe that it should be part of the process for B2B publishers.
Because, as the ASBPE guidelines say, "Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors."
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps I'm being too rigid.
But I believe with all my heart that B2B journalism functions best when it allows individual editors to determine what does and does not go into a story.
I hope that ASBPE agrees with me.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising
Monday, April 14, 2008
Breaking my heart: more unethical links in edit
The B2B publisher that has perhaps the best reputation in the industry for ethical behavior is behaving unethically.
And I'm sick about it.
CIO magazine, which is owned by CXO Media, a unit of IDG, is adding links to editorial copy without the approval of editors.
Longtime readers of this blog will understand why that has broken my heart. But if you're new to my work, allow me to explain.
I've been fighting against in-text ads such as those sold by Vibrant Media for a very long time now. And the reason I do so is because such links are -- clearly -- a violation of the ethical guidelines of B2B journalism. (If there was ever any doubt that such links were unethical, such doubt was removed when ASBPE updated its ethics policy nearly a year ago." ABM has also made its position clear on the issue.)
The reason such links are unethical should be obvious to anyone who works in this industry. These links violate the basic premise of professional journalism -- news is kept as separate from commercial interests as is possible. If someone other than editors controls any part of editorial, then all of editorial is tainted.
Let me say that again:
If someone other than editors controls any part of editorial, then all of editorial is tainted.
To make matters worse, these new links are from a site I love (LinkedIn), are based on a concept I love (opening an API to developers) and appear on a magazine site I love (CIO) that is owned by a company where editors have won the Timothy White Award for editorial integrity for two years in a row!
And to add insult to injury -- IDG is a client of mine. Hell, just a few months ago I spoke at an all-day conference of CIO/CXO editors and warned them, as I warn all B2B editors, to fight against the unethical use of links in copy.
But to tell you the truth, I never thought that particular group of editors would have to fight this fight. I just never expected this behavior from IDG.
No need for this
The links are appearing in stories across the CIO site. Take a look here. What you'll find is that throughout the story company names have been turned into links with a little symbol next to them. Click on those and you'll get a pop-up that tells you how you're connected to people at the company.
Now in truth, that's a pretty fun piece of functionality. And in truth, such links may be of value to readers.
But by automating the links rather than giving control to editors, CIO has violated industry ethics.
And what is most annoying about that is that there's a far more appropriate way to do this.
For example, take a look at this article in Businessweek about Starbucks.
In the center column you'll see a series of "Story Tools," including one that says linkedin connections. And if you're a LinkedIn member, you'll find that when you click on that tool you'll get a pop-up that tells you how you're connected to people at Starbucks.
That's the exact same functionality as what's used at CIO. But the folks at Businessweek recognized that those links should not be appearing inside the news story. (Note: It appears that Businessweek may have once considered a plan to place the links inside stories.)
Disrespecting your peers
According to what I hear from IDG staffers, the links made their appearance on the CIO site in exactly the same way such things have happened elsewhere.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, they were there.
Rank-and-file editors and reporters hadn't been consulted. And questions about the links were deflected with meaningless corporate-speak like "it's an experiment."
And, as has happened elsewhere, the people responsible for the links were confused and surprised by the editors' reaction.
But that is absurd.
Imagine the reverse situation. Imagine that some senior editors decided to change the ads on a site. Imagine that they altered the html so that readers who clicked on an ad didn't visit the advertiser's site, but went instead to someplace that editors thought they should go -- perhaps to a competitor's site.
Would anyone be surprised that the advertising staff was upset?
And if a salesperson ran into the newsroom screaming in protest, would anyone think it was an appropriate response to say "it's just an experiment."
Read 'em and weep
You can see more of these new, offensive links here.
Take a look. Then read the following excerpt from ASBPE's ethics guidelines (I've added bold text for emphasis):
"Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors. Also, advertising and sponsored links should be clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such, as should clickthrough pages, which may also contain the publication’s editorial content, with appropriate disclosures provided. Such disclosure may include a “use with permission” statement or similar language. Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold. If an editor allows a link, it generally should not link to a vendor’s Web site, unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader. [Paragraph D. revised, May 7, 2007, by vote of the Ethics Committee.]
As always, I welcome readers input. What do you think of these links?
Also, do you agree with me that CIO can remedy this situation by moving the links outside the story in the same way Businessweek has done?
For a Reuters story on LinkedIn, its API and a deal with Businessweek magazine, click here.
(Editor's note: CIO sent me a press release about the deal with LinkedIn earlier today. That release was also sent to a number of media outlets. The release was embargoed until later this week. But earlier this afternoon, Media Business magazine published a brief story on the deal. CIO also published an letter to its readers today announcing the deal. I consider the embargo broken.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising
And I'm sick about it.
CIO magazine, which is owned by CXO Media, a unit of IDG, is adding links to editorial copy without the approval of editors.
Longtime readers of this blog will understand why that has broken my heart. But if you're new to my work, allow me to explain.
I've been fighting against in-text ads such as those sold by Vibrant Media for a very long time now. And the reason I do so is because such links are -- clearly -- a violation of the ethical guidelines of B2B journalism. (If there was ever any doubt that such links were unethical, such doubt was removed when ASBPE updated its ethics policy nearly a year ago." ABM has also made its position clear on the issue.)
The reason such links are unethical should be obvious to anyone who works in this industry. These links violate the basic premise of professional journalism -- news is kept as separate from commercial interests as is possible. If someone other than editors controls any part of editorial, then all of editorial is tainted.
Let me say that again:
If someone other than editors controls any part of editorial, then all of editorial is tainted.
To make matters worse, these new links are from a site I love (LinkedIn), are based on a concept I love (opening an API to developers) and appear on a magazine site I love (CIO) that is owned by a company where editors have won the Timothy White Award for editorial integrity for two years in a row!
And to add insult to injury -- IDG is a client of mine. Hell, just a few months ago I spoke at an all-day conference of CIO/CXO editors and warned them, as I warn all B2B editors, to fight against the unethical use of links in copy.
But to tell you the truth, I never thought that particular group of editors would have to fight this fight. I just never expected this behavior from IDG.
No need for this
The links are appearing in stories across the CIO site. Take a look here. What you'll find is that throughout the story company names have been turned into links with a little symbol next to them. Click on those and you'll get a pop-up that tells you how you're connected to people at the company.
Now in truth, that's a pretty fun piece of functionality. And in truth, such links may be of value to readers.
But by automating the links rather than giving control to editors, CIO has violated industry ethics.
And what is most annoying about that is that there's a far more appropriate way to do this.
For example, take a look at this article in Businessweek about Starbucks.
In the center column you'll see a series of "Story Tools," including one that says linkedin connections. And if you're a LinkedIn member, you'll find that when you click on that tool you'll get a pop-up that tells you how you're connected to people at Starbucks.
That's the exact same functionality as what's used at CIO. But the folks at Businessweek recognized that those links should not be appearing inside the news story. (Note: It appears that Businessweek may have once considered a plan to place the links inside stories.)
Disrespecting your peers
According to what I hear from IDG staffers, the links made their appearance on the CIO site in exactly the same way such things have happened elsewhere.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, they were there.
Rank-and-file editors and reporters hadn't been consulted. And questions about the links were deflected with meaningless corporate-speak like "it's an experiment."
And, as has happened elsewhere, the people responsible for the links were confused and surprised by the editors' reaction.
But that is absurd.
Imagine the reverse situation. Imagine that some senior editors decided to change the ads on a site. Imagine that they altered the html so that readers who clicked on an ad didn't visit the advertiser's site, but went instead to someplace that editors thought they should go -- perhaps to a competitor's site.
Would anyone be surprised that the advertising staff was upset?
And if a salesperson ran into the newsroom screaming in protest, would anyone think it was an appropriate response to say "it's just an experiment."
Read 'em and weep
You can see more of these new, offensive links here.
Take a look. Then read the following excerpt from ASBPE's ethics guidelines (I've added bold text for emphasis):
"Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors. Also, advertising and sponsored links should be clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such, as should clickthrough pages, which may also contain the publication’s editorial content, with appropriate disclosures provided. Such disclosure may include a “use with permission” statement or similar language. Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold. If an editor allows a link, it generally should not link to a vendor’s Web site, unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader. [Paragraph D. revised, May 7, 2007, by vote of the Ethics Committee.]
As always, I welcome readers input. What do you think of these links?
Also, do you agree with me that CIO can remedy this situation by moving the links outside the story in the same way Businessweek has done?
For a Reuters story on LinkedIn, its API and a deal with Businessweek magazine, click here.
(Editor's note: CIO sent me a press release about the deal with LinkedIn earlier today. That release was also sent to a number of media outlets. The release was embargoed until later this week. But earlier this afternoon, Media Business magazine published a brief story on the deal. CIO also published an letter to its readers today announcing the deal. I consider the embargo broken.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Financial crisis in B2B publishing
Things are awful and getting worse.
That's my conclusion about B2B publishing as yet another company takes drastic measures after finding it can't carry an absurd debt load in a recessionary economy.
Yesterday, in an email to employees, Penton CEO John French announced a companywide salary and hiring freeze. He also requested ideas on cutting costs. John also "asked for a complete reforecast from all of our product managers, including a restated revenue forecast and a projected expense forecast for the remainder of 2008." That process should be completed by the end of the month, at which time John promised to report back to the staff "on our findings."
Penton's announcement comes in the wake of a slew of bad news in our industry. And when I add up these events, I see catastrophe.
I don't want to sound too dramatic, but I've gone from being worried to being worried sick. Much of B2B publishing -- weighed down by the twin albatrosses of junk bonds and rising print costs -- has sunk into a death spiral.
Consider the news of the past few days:
Over at Penton, there are some exceptions to the hiring freeze.
Penton's New Media Group will be spared, because, as John noted, "these activities are critical to our revenue growth plans for both the near and long-term future." (Disclosure: I've consulted on several projects for the group.)
That shouldn't surprise anyone.
The giant publishers -- and many of the smaller ones too -- are in the exact same position. Their revenue is falling while their print expenses are rising. Choking on debt, all they can do is exit the game entirely or cut expenses and double their bets on new media.
There's simply no other way out.
But there is another way out for the editors, salespeople and designers of B2B.
You can walk away from print.
And it's way, way, way past the time you did so.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
That's my conclusion about B2B publishing as yet another company takes drastic measures after finding it can't carry an absurd debt load in a recessionary economy.
Yesterday, in an email to employees, Penton CEO John French announced a companywide salary and hiring freeze. He also requested ideas on cutting costs. John also "asked for a complete reforecast from all of our product managers, including a restated revenue forecast and a projected expense forecast for the remainder of 2008." That process should be completed by the end of the month, at which time John promised to report back to the staff "on our findings."
Penton's announcement comes in the wake of a slew of bad news in our industry. And when I add up these events, I see catastrophe.
I don't want to sound too dramatic, but I've gone from being worried to being worried sick. Much of B2B publishing -- weighed down by the twin albatrosses of junk bonds and rising print costs -- has sunk into a death spiral.
Consider the news of the past few days:
- Northstar Travel Media announced yesterday that it's for sale. Boston Ventures, the private equity company that bought Northstar from Reed Elsevier in 2001, has apparently had enough. The Northstar sale will take place in a particularly tough environment. There's already a ton of B2B properties on the market -- including Reed Business Information, the U.S. B2B unit of Reed Elsevier.
- Among the B2B companies languishing on the shelf is Ziff Davis Media. Late last year, Ziff managed to sell its most valuable properties. This week the new owner of those properties, Ziff Davis Enterprises, announced companywide layoffs. It's also worth noting that both Ziff Davis Media and ZDE have recently gone back on the promise to cease the unethical use of in-edit advertising -- a sure sign of desperation and idiocy.
- Earlier this week Nielsen Business Media announced another series of layoffs. It's still unclear just how many jobs were cut in this round. But news reports put the total loss of jobs at the former VNU at around 4,000 in the past year.
Over at Penton, there are some exceptions to the hiring freeze.
Penton's New Media Group will be spared, because, as John noted, "these activities are critical to our revenue growth plans for both the near and long-term future." (Disclosure: I've consulted on several projects for the group.)
That shouldn't surprise anyone.
The giant publishers -- and many of the smaller ones too -- are in the exact same position. Their revenue is falling while their print expenses are rising. Choking on debt, all they can do is exit the game entirely or cut expenses and double their bets on new media.
There's simply no other way out.
But there is another way out for the editors, salespeople and designers of B2B.
You can walk away from print.
And it's way, way, way past the time you did so.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Another B2B publisher announces layoffs
Less than 24 hours ago I wrote a post about layoffs at Nielsen Business Media and said "I don't think today's layoffs will be the last we'll see in 2008."
Well as much as it pains me to say so -- I was right.
This afternoon Ziff Davis Enterprises announced it is is restructuring and laying off an undisclosed number of workers. The restructuring isn't a surprise. ZDE announced in January that it would restructure. But until today it was unclear if there would be layoffs.
ZDE, which publishes Baseline, CIO Insight and eWeek, is the former B2B unit of Ziff Davis Media. Private equity firm Insight Venture Partners bought the properties for around $160 million earlier this year.
It's worth noting that layoffs aren't the only thing that Nielsen and ZDE have in common. Both companies suffered through an embarrassing ethics scandal last year. (You can read about Nielsen's problems here (the company was called VNU then) and read about Ziff's problems here.)
News of the layoffs comes just days after Insight Venture Partners announced that ZDE had "received funding" of $20 million from venture capital firm Bessemer Venture Partners. The size of Bessemer's stake in ZDE has not been disclosed.
(Addendum: Nielsen says that yesterday's cuts are part of a restructuring that had been scheduled to end in December of last year. A total of 4,000 jobs were slated for removal in that process. Folio magazine reports today that as many as 200 people may have lost their jobs yesterday.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
Well as much as it pains me to say so -- I was right.
This afternoon Ziff Davis Enterprises announced it is is restructuring and laying off an undisclosed number of workers. The restructuring isn't a surprise. ZDE announced in January that it would restructure. But until today it was unclear if there would be layoffs.
ZDE, which publishes Baseline, CIO Insight and eWeek, is the former B2B unit of Ziff Davis Media. Private equity firm Insight Venture Partners bought the properties for around $160 million earlier this year.
It's worth noting that layoffs aren't the only thing that Nielsen and ZDE have in common. Both companies suffered through an embarrassing ethics scandal last year. (You can read about Nielsen's problems here (the company was called VNU then) and read about Ziff's problems here.)
News of the layoffs comes just days after Insight Venture Partners announced that ZDE had "received funding" of $20 million from venture capital firm Bessemer Venture Partners. The size of Bessemer's stake in ZDE has not been disclosed.
(Addendum: Nielsen says that yesterday's cuts are part of a restructuring that had been scheduled to end in December of last year. A total of 4,000 jobs were slated for removal in that process. Folio magazine reports today that as many as 200 people may have lost their jobs yesterday.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Layoffs and leverage
Bad news today in the world of B2B journalism. Nielsen Business Media, formerly known as VNU, has laid off a number of editorial staffers. Folio magazine says it's "not immediately clear how many employees have been let go." While the FishbowlNY blog at Mediabistro says between 40 and 50 jobs have been eliminated and cites an anonymous tipster who claims "most cuts (are) coming from the company's digital and conference arms."
It's been a tough year and a half at Nielsen. In that time the company has gone through a reorganization and name change, an ethics scandal and an earlier round of layoffs.
And my heart goes out to the folks who lost their jobs today. I know what that's like. I've been laid off in the past. It's a truly awful feeling.
But the truth is that all of us in B2B are vulnerable now. And all of us need to be prepared for the possibility of job loss.
Several months I wrote on this blog that I was worried that 2008 would prove to be an awful year for our industry. And every week seems to bring news that indicates I'm right to be nervous.
Many of the major players in B2B publishing are leveraged to the hilt. And they seem to have bet the house on being able to find extraordinary amounts of new revenue in the online world. But since so many B2B editors still don't get Web journalism, many B2B Web sites remain laughably bad. And as the economy slows down, I just can't imagine that people will line up to spend money on crappy Web sites.
Even the very best Web sites in B2B are in trouble this year. Over and over again I hear from people who are struggling with demands from senior management for levels of growth that simply cannot happen. The ugly truth is that when the economy slows, you can't expect an every-growing number of people to to line up to spend an ever-increasing amount of money on any Web site -- no matter how gorgeous, well-written, and filled with multimedia it may be.
I hope I turn out to be wrong about this. But I don't think today's layoffs will be the last we'll see in 2008. I'm worried that things are bad. I'm worried that they're getting worse. And as I said just last week, because so many B2B publishers are "privately held, we just don't know how ugly the balance sheets may be."
(Note: Although Nielsen Co., the parent of Nielsen Business Media, is privately held, much of its finances are reported publicly. And things ain't pretty at Nielsen. Several days ago the company announced it would buy IAG Research for $225 million. To finance that purchase, Nielsen said it would sell $220 million in bonds. Or, in layman's terms, the company will borrow $220 million. But that new debt comes on top of some $8.47 billion in existing debt -- and that has the credit agencies shaking their heads.
Even prior to word that Nielsen would return to the bond market to borrow again, Moody's had rated Nielsen's last round of debt Caa1 -- some seven levels below investment grade!! That's about as junk-like as a junk bond can be.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
It's been a tough year and a half at Nielsen. In that time the company has gone through a reorganization and name change, an ethics scandal and an earlier round of layoffs.
And my heart goes out to the folks who lost their jobs today. I know what that's like. I've been laid off in the past. It's a truly awful feeling.
But the truth is that all of us in B2B are vulnerable now. And all of us need to be prepared for the possibility of job loss.
Several months I wrote on this blog that I was worried that 2008 would prove to be an awful year for our industry. And every week seems to bring news that indicates I'm right to be nervous.
Many of the major players in B2B publishing are leveraged to the hilt. And they seem to have bet the house on being able to find extraordinary amounts of new revenue in the online world. But since so many B2B editors still don't get Web journalism, many B2B Web sites remain laughably bad. And as the economy slows down, I just can't imagine that people will line up to spend money on crappy Web sites.
Even the very best Web sites in B2B are in trouble this year. Over and over again I hear from people who are struggling with demands from senior management for levels of growth that simply cannot happen. The ugly truth is that when the economy slows, you can't expect an every-growing number of people to to line up to spend an ever-increasing amount of money on any Web site -- no matter how gorgeous, well-written, and filled with multimedia it may be.
I hope I turn out to be wrong about this. But I don't think today's layoffs will be the last we'll see in 2008. I'm worried that things are bad. I'm worried that they're getting worse. And as I said just last week, because so many B2B publishers are "privately held, we just don't know how ugly the balance sheets may be."
(Note: Although Nielsen Co., the parent of Nielsen Business Media, is privately held, much of its finances are reported publicly. And things ain't pretty at Nielsen. Several days ago the company announced it would buy IAG Research for $225 million. To finance that purchase, Nielsen said it would sell $220 million in bonds. Or, in layman's terms, the company will borrow $220 million. But that new debt comes on top of some $8.47 billion in existing debt -- and that has the credit agencies shaking their heads.
Even prior to word that Nielsen would return to the bond market to borrow again, Moody's had rated Nielsen's last round of debt Caa1 -- some seven levels below investment grade!! That's about as junk-like as a junk bond can be.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Going with the (copy) flow
Every investment banker and media investor I've ever met reads PaidContent. But very few of the B2B reporters I talk to are familiar with the site.
That perplexes me.
First, PaidContent covers our industry. And I think that folks in B2B should be reading it for the same reason I think they should be reading Folio magazine -- it pays to know what's going on.
But perhaps more importantly, PaidContent is the best of the Web-centric news operations in the media space. And watching how Rafat Ali and his team structure their operation can be instructive for anyone looking to move to a Web-first model.
PaidContent is a blog. It's also a full-service news operation with a few offices, some talented reporters, global reach and a number of related sites on such subjects as mobile content. But it is, at its core, a blog.
Each story has a comment function and a slew of social bookmarking and other Web 2.0 features. The entire site is published with the ExpressionEngine content-management system. Each story is brief -- more of a blog post than a traditional article.
But the most blog-like feature of PaidContent is that it's published in reverse-chronological order -- the newest stuff is at the top of the page.
Last month, Scott Karp at Publishing2.0 wrote an interesting piece on the differences between how traditional and Web-centric publishers present news on their home pages. Traditional publishers such as the New York Times, Scott said, arrange the news "by what is most important." Whereas Web-centric publishers arrange news by what is most recent or, in the case of sites such as Digg, by providing an option to read by timestamp or reader ranking.
Scott notes, correctly, that the traditional method of "organizing news by importance as the default makes sense when you’re only delivering the news once a day (and the “default” is all you get). But when news publishing is continuous, it’s not the best way to serve frequent news consumers."
Publishing a home page in the traditional fashion, in other words, creates a situation where it appears to frequent visitors that nothing has changed. And in a world full of 24/7 news providers, Web-only publishers and industry bloggers, that's not a good idea.
Twice in recent weeks I've had conversations with B2B editors who were upset because they thought their Web sites updated too frequently. They were angry that new content pushed their old content out of the top spot on the home page. They preferred a system where their stories sat in the lead position for days on end.
But that is madness.
Although it's perfectly appropriate to give some special treatment to some special stories, a Web site should serve users, not writers. In particular, a home page should serve those readers who turn to it most often -- the frequent visitors.
Or, to put it another way, a home page should more closely reflect the most efficient of the online distribution systems: an RSS feed.
So what does it look like when a traditional, print-based publisher adopts a Web-centric approach to the home page? Take a look at ReadyMade. Or, even better, check out the beta of the new Popular Science home page. That site has a top slot for a story that editors choose, but it also gives users the option to choose a home page of most recent, most viewed, most popular or most commented on stories.
Take a look at those sites, and then ask yourself six questions:
1. Just how many times a day (or week) do I think a reader will come to my site and hit the refresh button before he gives up?
2. How much time do I think a reader will spend drilling around my site looking for something, anything, new?
3. What message do I send to a print subscriber who comes to my home page and finds the exact same stories that he just read in print?
4. Is the industry I cover so unchanging and uninteresting that the most important story I can tell my readers on Wednesday is the same one I told them on Monday?
5. What would my home page look like if readers, instead of editors, had their way?
6. Since my home page isn't how readers find my content, why am I worried about my home page?
(Note: PaidContent's Rafat Ali recently posted a video of a speech he gave to a group of journalism and business students. It's an instructive look at how a young, Web-centric journalist was able to see past tradition and find a new way of publishing. It runs for about an hour. But it's worth your time.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
That perplexes me.
First, PaidContent covers our industry. And I think that folks in B2B should be reading it for the same reason I think they should be reading Folio magazine -- it pays to know what's going on.
But perhaps more importantly, PaidContent is the best of the Web-centric news operations in the media space. And watching how Rafat Ali and his team structure their operation can be instructive for anyone looking to move to a Web-first model.
PaidContent is a blog. It's also a full-service news operation with a few offices, some talented reporters, global reach and a number of related sites on such subjects as mobile content. But it is, at its core, a blog.
Each story has a comment function and a slew of social bookmarking and other Web 2.0 features. The entire site is published with the ExpressionEngine content-management system. Each story is brief -- more of a blog post than a traditional article.
But the most blog-like feature of PaidContent is that it's published in reverse-chronological order -- the newest stuff is at the top of the page.
Last month, Scott Karp at Publishing2.0 wrote an interesting piece on the differences between how traditional and Web-centric publishers present news on their home pages. Traditional publishers such as the New York Times, Scott said, arrange the news "by what is most important." Whereas Web-centric publishers arrange news by what is most recent or, in the case of sites such as Digg, by providing an option to read by timestamp or reader ranking.
Scott notes, correctly, that the traditional method of "organizing news by importance as the default makes sense when you’re only delivering the news once a day (and the “default” is all you get). But when news publishing is continuous, it’s not the best way to serve frequent news consumers."
Publishing a home page in the traditional fashion, in other words, creates a situation where it appears to frequent visitors that nothing has changed. And in a world full of 24/7 news providers, Web-only publishers and industry bloggers, that's not a good idea.
Twice in recent weeks I've had conversations with B2B editors who were upset because they thought their Web sites updated too frequently. They were angry that new content pushed their old content out of the top spot on the home page. They preferred a system where their stories sat in the lead position for days on end.
But that is madness.
Although it's perfectly appropriate to give some special treatment to some special stories, a Web site should serve users, not writers. In particular, a home page should serve those readers who turn to it most often -- the frequent visitors.
Or, to put it another way, a home page should more closely reflect the most efficient of the online distribution systems: an RSS feed.
So what does it look like when a traditional, print-based publisher adopts a Web-centric approach to the home page? Take a look at ReadyMade. Or, even better, check out the beta of the new Popular Science home page. That site has a top slot for a story that editors choose, but it also gives users the option to choose a home page of most recent, most viewed, most popular or most commented on stories.
Take a look at those sites, and then ask yourself six questions:
1. Just how many times a day (or week) do I think a reader will come to my site and hit the refresh button before he gives up?
2. How much time do I think a reader will spend drilling around my site looking for something, anything, new?
3. What message do I send to a print subscriber who comes to my home page and finds the exact same stories that he just read in print?
4. Is the industry I cover so unchanging and uninteresting that the most important story I can tell my readers on Wednesday is the same one I told them on Monday?
5. What would my home page look like if readers, instead of editors, had their way?
6. Since my home page isn't how readers find my content, why am I worried about my home page?
(Note: PaidContent's Rafat Ali recently posted a video of a speech he gave to a group of journalism and business students. It's an instructive look at how a young, Web-centric journalist was able to see past tradition and find a new way of publishing. It runs for about an hour. But it's worth your time.)
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
Monday, April 07, 2008
Mysteries of the (inverted) pyramid
Before there was a Web, there was a news company that mastered the art of writing for a screen rather than a printed page.
Customers of Bloomberg News consume stories on a Bloomberg terminal, a sort of souped-up, proprietary, multi-screen PC. Those customers pay an extraordinary amount of money for the terminals. And Bloomberg is able to justify the cost by providing extremely valuable information in a format that users can consume quickly.
Nearly every Bloomberg story adheres to a template in the first four paragraphs. The so-called four-graf lede -- theme (a what/why opening paragraph), authority (a quote to back up the lede), details (facts and data that support the lede) and what's at stake (the Bloomberg version of the nut graph, which emphasizes the importance of a story using numbers and money) -- is instantly recognizable to close readers of business news.
Sometimes the order of the paragraphs changes. But seldom does a story drift far from the template.
You can read a little about the system here. Or you can take a look at a four-graf lede here.
Sometimes, when I teach a workshop on writing for the Web, I make a point of having folks learn the four-graf lede. I did that just last month at the College Media Advisers convention. (You can read a little about that workshop here -- and check out a photo of me acting like an obnoxious editor as I read over the shoulder of a reporter.)
But the truth is that as much as I like the Bloomberg style, it's not exactly perfect for the Web. The Bloomberg four-graph lede is linear and bland. It fails to take advantage of the nonlinear, personal style of the Web. More importantly, the four-graph lede is aimed, at least in part, at winning the approval of newspaper editors. So it adheres to the conventions of print writing.
A few days ago DigiDave wrote a post on his blog about "Re-thinking the Inverted Pyramid and Other Artifacts of Newsroom Culture." That's a valid exercise. And one that I find myself doing quite a bit of late. As I spend more and more time helping clients change their workflow to a Web-first model, I find myself returning again and again to the core assumptions about what a news story looks like.
And when I question those assumptions, and look for a better, Web-first structure for news, I find myself returning again and again to the concept, if not the execution, of the Bloomberg four-graph lede.
So here are my suggestions for how a Web-first publisher should structure stories:
1. Create a template for your publication and stick to it.
The Bloomberg four-graph lede works well on several levels. First, it's fast (by removing the need to think about story structure, it's possible to spend more time on reporting than on writing.) Second, it's recognizable as part of the Bloomberg brand.
Smart editors and publishers should create a story structure for their publications that won't commoditize news but will allow reporters to churn out copy at wire-service speed. These templates, unlike the inverted pyramid, will vary from publisher to publisher.
2. Resist the urge to tell readers everything.
Much of what needs to be told in a story can be told through links. Cut back on background grafs. When there's something to say that's already been said, link to it. Don't rewrite it.
3. Consider the likelihood that the story will be read on a cell phone or PDA. Format accordingly. And for god's sake, keep it short -- 800 words max.
There is, of course, more to Web-first publishing than writing (or photos, video, sound, etc.) In the next few days I'll publish my thoughts on copy flow, story management and the role of editing.
For an earlier post about the Bloomberg terminal, click here.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
Customers of Bloomberg News consume stories on a Bloomberg terminal, a sort of souped-up, proprietary, multi-screen PC. Those customers pay an extraordinary amount of money for the terminals. And Bloomberg is able to justify the cost by providing extremely valuable information in a format that users can consume quickly.
Nearly every Bloomberg story adheres to a template in the first four paragraphs. The so-called four-graf lede -- theme (a what/why opening paragraph), authority (a quote to back up the lede), details (facts and data that support the lede) and what's at stake (the Bloomberg version of the nut graph, which emphasizes the importance of a story using numbers and money) -- is instantly recognizable to close readers of business news.
Sometimes the order of the paragraphs changes. But seldom does a story drift far from the template.
You can read a little about the system here. Or you can take a look at a four-graf lede here.
Sometimes, when I teach a workshop on writing for the Web, I make a point of having folks learn the four-graf lede. I did that just last month at the College Media Advisers convention. (You can read a little about that workshop here -- and check out a photo of me acting like an obnoxious editor as I read over the shoulder of a reporter.)
But the truth is that as much as I like the Bloomberg style, it's not exactly perfect for the Web. The Bloomberg four-graph lede is linear and bland. It fails to take advantage of the nonlinear, personal style of the Web. More importantly, the four-graph lede is aimed, at least in part, at winning the approval of newspaper editors. So it adheres to the conventions of print writing.
A few days ago DigiDave wrote a post on his blog about "Re-thinking the Inverted Pyramid and Other Artifacts of Newsroom Culture." That's a valid exercise. And one that I find myself doing quite a bit of late. As I spend more and more time helping clients change their workflow to a Web-first model, I find myself returning again and again to the core assumptions about what a news story looks like.
And when I question those assumptions, and look for a better, Web-first structure for news, I find myself returning again and again to the concept, if not the execution, of the Bloomberg four-graph lede.
So here are my suggestions for how a Web-first publisher should structure stories:
1. Create a template for your publication and stick to it.
The Bloomberg four-graph lede works well on several levels. First, it's fast (by removing the need to think about story structure, it's possible to spend more time on reporting than on writing.) Second, it's recognizable as part of the Bloomberg brand.
Smart editors and publishers should create a story structure for their publications that won't commoditize news but will allow reporters to churn out copy at wire-service speed. These templates, unlike the inverted pyramid, will vary from publisher to publisher.
2. Resist the urge to tell readers everything.
Much of what needs to be told in a story can be told through links. Cut back on background grafs. When there's something to say that's already been said, link to it. Don't rewrite it.
3. Consider the likelihood that the story will be read on a cell phone or PDA. Format accordingly. And for god's sake, keep it short -- 800 words max.
There is, of course, more to Web-first publishing than writing (or photos, video, sound, etc.) In the next few days I'll publish my thoughts on copy flow, story management and the role of editing.
For an earlier post about the Bloomberg terminal, click here.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, web-first publishing
Friday, April 04, 2008
Some holes can not be climbed out of
Just days ago I urged journalism teachers to force students to learn about business and finance. In particular, I want students to understand debt financing, which has put a stranglehold on many publications.
My hope is that by understanding the murderously difficult environment in which many publishers operate, students will made better decisions about their career path.
To that end, I offer a reading assignment.
Reuters has published a lengthy and well-reasoned article showing that it will be damn near impossible for Sam Zell to avoid a default at the Tribune Co., which is groaning beneath $4 billion of debt and some tough-to-meet debt covenants. You can check out the article here. Students who take the CliffNotes approach to study can get everything they need from PaidContent's take.
Those of us in B2B should avoid the urge to feel smug about the nightmare that is newspaper finance. In our end of the industry, things are likely just as bad. But since so many of our major players are privately held, we just don't know how ugly the balance sheets may be.
And as I've said before, I'm worried.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education
My hope is that by understanding the murderously difficult environment in which many publishers operate, students will made better decisions about their career path.
To that end, I offer a reading assignment.
Reuters has published a lengthy and well-reasoned article showing that it will be damn near impossible for Sam Zell to avoid a default at the Tribune Co., which is groaning beneath $4 billion of debt and some tough-to-meet debt covenants. You can check out the article here. Students who take the CliffNotes approach to study can get everything they need from PaidContent's take.
Those of us in B2B should avoid the urge to feel smug about the nightmare that is newspaper finance. In our end of the industry, things are likely just as bad. But since so many of our major players are privately held, we just don't know how ugly the balance sheets may be.
And as I've said before, I'm worried.
tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism education
Friday, March 28, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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:
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
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."
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)