famebook™

To Journalists - You may have more power than you think! - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

Video from: Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?" via SVW

Response:-

I've watched the VIDEO ABOVE and with the advantage of humility and objectivity, I think the overall solution/ likely outcome of all this is clear and I can't believe it wasn't immediately obvious to the panel:

Firstly, being a strong advocate that all great success comes from people not corporations, then surely it is logical to look at all journalists as individual monetizable channels. This model then defines the structure, reward and audience loyalty for the traditional newspaper brands as agents and caretakers of those revenue sources. (An Iraq based journalist would then be a channel within their 'sponsor/ host/ agent's branded environment, receiving a retainer or advance against royalties! Rather like a Record Company!)

Secondly this then creates the platform for a 'positive' upward trend where the various institutions WSJ, NYT etc. will proactively compete to attract the most popular writers in their genre. Extended of course, those journalists also become the audience's natural filters for Twitter et al realtime info.

Finally, and I've regularly been on record about this in the past, this creates a compelling and monetizable format for creating a 'club' type atmosphere where instead of a pay for content focus, audiences pay for membership to access that content and the channels. This membership provides for access, kindle et al downloads, some hard copy 'The Week' style summaries and maybe further added benefit too. In terms of branded entertainment and sponsorship of particular channels, I would then exclude all Google adsense and sell branded sponsorship packages for each journalists' channel. Top journalists will also get higher commissions/ royalties but the pool can also be afforded on a much wider basis to bloggers etc. Business journalists and channels would attract high end biz advertisers, entertainment channels would attract relevant brands etc. The niche value of the WSJ and NYT then becomes a consumer statement. (I am a proud MEMBER of the WSJ etc...)

I know this may describe in some sense what is happening naturally on some sites, but instead of everyone moving towards aggregation, perhaps there is more money and security in locking down some of those those brands and promoting the individual journos based on their experience etc. Imagine all the long standing Newspapers locking down their IPR and by implication making a clear statement that any content aggregated via Google or anyone else is inferior and unsubstantiated. It would force Google to re-negotiate its inclusion and access to any respected content!

If these guys don't do something like this, then eventually all these journalists will simply move over to Demand Media or similar and create their own channels, and Demand will eventually become uniquely able to own the whole thing! Conversly of course, Richard Rosenblatt could potentially partner with all the main global Newspapers and offer a platform for that model and totally usurp Google altogether!

Wouldn't that be big news?

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times!"

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times". Peter Kafka - All Things D

My response:

Peter,

Nice article. I understand Bruce’s response above, but imho it’s reactionary and though in the moment may have merit, it is based on too narrow a vision.

The latter ‘vision’ being the operative word…Richard has seen that traditional media isn’t necessarily broken, it is just going through a Star Trek style transporter and is still all in pieces mid journey. His model is based on the notion that all the pieces will still come back together on content and we are gradually seeing the evidence of that materialise.

DM have placed themselves at the forefront of that whilst all eyes are still on pure user-generated models and cheap self-serve advertising. DM are the biggest single contributor of content to You Tube for example.

If FB holds a valuation of 6.5bn which has evidently decreased from more than twice than that, then in a recession, my bets are on a more modest but tangible valuation slowly going upwards. DM’s assets may be of varying IP value, but they are genuinely all owned and paid for. The big social networks, only ‘own’ the inconvenience of their users migrating away, not the content itself.

I hope Richard hold’s on to his baby for a few years so his vision is truly born out. Personally I’d invest in whatever he does now or next!

Jan

More information about Demand Media at Demand Media Website

"My Quest For A Personal Dashboard" - Brad Feld - my response...

My Quest For A Personal Dashboard - Brad Feld - my response... (Original Article Here!)

Brad, this is the digital nirvana question, but I would suggest that what you think you want, isn't actually going to be what you want...at least not yet. (Certainly in terms of investment areas!)

I have exactly the same dilemmas, and suspect we could both use existing tools to facilitate most of the above. There is one key issue, though highlighted of late, which is 'trust'. I only have the privacy of one business (about to launch a highly disruptive model and with some key players) to worry about, but you have many. Are you really confident in a future where all your dialogue, social interaction, facts and figures are cloud hosted by one provider? I'm certainly not. It is that reason I stick with Exchange not Gmail and store my financials et al locally.

I think the next big business model is for the provision of a tangibly private hosted solution, perhaps with a new universal encryption model which convinces me as a consumer that all my data can only be accessed by myself or those I choose. Only then might I be tempted to lock my life into one dashboard. Maybe Dell et al, could have a new lease of life, providing personal servers, which operate in a cloud environment, protected by firewalls and multiple encrypted offsite back ups. In other words, the box becomes your personal privacy wall.

The other big thing is filtering, which again I think needs to come first. Tons of news and entertainment sources will inevitably die and then a handful of feeds will provide personally filtered versions of what matters to us. We are working on that at Famebook, where apart from our 'famous people & famous brands' tag, we are also focused on subjective and not objective content, which we believe is the next huge shift in media.

Hope that makes sense...

To Traditional Publishers - Create tribes, amalgamate or die...

Previously, a few scoops, exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate print brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)

Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging for content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Facebook for using my content to sell ads around...kinda pointless!

Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines” - How stupid is that!

Response to nice Mashable article by Barb Dybwad - Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines”

I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance, but what traditional publishers seem to be conveniently overlooking is that there has been a metaphorical earthquake at the foundations of their whole business model and this has nothing to do with Craig's List or Google poaching their classified advertisers either.

Previously, a few exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

A Hulu for Magazines is as ridiculous as Murdoch charging for news content and is in my opinion tantamount to an online graveyard for a heap of publishing brands who, with some lateral thinking, (shown by UK Telegraph, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, WSJ) could actually re-align themselves and thrive. In reality, they'll find that each of them only has about 10% of their normal print content with any sustainable audience appeal and the ad value will be dumbed down and therefore diluted/ shared to boot. If this is their chosen path, why not call it what it is; which is an amalgamation of lots of brands under one roof and into one online magazine brand..... which I suppose may get bought cheap by Google or Microsoft one day anyway... and if they're really lucky, seemingly like so many these days, it will be at a greatly over-inflated price.