Entries tagged with “content” from Tools of Change for Publishing
Photos from New York Times R&D Lab
Andrew Savikas
February 12, 2009
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen 
Nick Bilton was a hit yesterday at the TOC Conference, and during his keynote he talked about what they're working on with content at the NYT R&D Lab. Nick was kind enough to give a few of us a private tour earlier this week, and here's some photos from the trip:
A Correction!
Laura Dawson
November 26, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Frank Grazioli, of Wiley, writes in to correct my last post about taxonomies:
Wiley has been exploring taxonomies for its travel content business; the cooking/psych/accounting spaces might be our next logical opportunities because the disciplines are well developed, specific, etc., that content is authored or edited in fairly controlled templates that map to our own XML content models and our belief in content models and XML has evolved that "lighter" and "more agile" are better than taggy and dense. As you so aptly point to the contextuality and "rigor" of taxonomies, these tools would allow our XML to "slip on the right jacket" for the occasion. I apologize if we led you to believe that we already have firm taxonomies in place for the three areas you specify--I wouldn't want readers/event guests to get that impression anyway.
Redefining Professional Content and Accepting Digital's Limitations
Mac Slocum
November 18, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
Scott Karp expands on claims that Hulu is nipping at YouTube's heels with 10 pointed observations about the future of media. Karp's full list is recommended reading, but the following points inspired a few thoughts of my own:
1 . Professional content still has A LOT more value than "user-generated content."
This bodes well for publishers, studios and other companies that have attained professional status, but there's another aspect that deserves mention: The concept of professional in the digital realm is transforming from exclusive to inclusive.
Under traditional models with limited channels, a professional was someone who achieved a certain title through luck, talent and output; the content produced by these people was deemed professional by default. But digital platforms allow consumers to choose material on their own terms, and with that comes a shift of the professional label from job association to consumer impression. If consumers deem a piece of "user-generated" content to be professional, then it is (to those particular consumers). And if enough consumers assign the same value to the same content, advertisers will eventually get on board. We're in the very early stages of this professional transition (and the ensuing debate), but I'm excited to see how a reimiagining that includes both traditional companies and upstart professionals plays out.
8. Most analogue media businesses, when fully transitioned to the web, will likely bear little resemblance to the original businesses.
Karp summarizes something that's been gnawing at me for months: the old models just don't hold up in the digital world. Distribution went from narrow and expensive to wide and cheap; audiences once limited to specific channels have dispersed across a broad landscape; Web advertising revenue will not replace traditional ad revenue; and, after 10-plus years of Web use, consumers now expect basic digital content to be free. Fighting against these changes delays the inevitable, but acceptance opens up enormous opportunity to build leaner businesses that use content, community and the Web's efficiences to sell scarce products (i.e. targeted research, consulting, education, events, experiences, and access).
Slides from "What Publishers Need to Know about Digitization" Webcast
Liza Daly
November 13, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
TOC will be posting a complete recording of the presentation, but in the meantime I've posted the slides from yesterday's webcast, "What publishers need to know about digitization" on Slideshare.
Thanks to everyone who attended and especially to those who asked so many excellent questions.
The Confusion Between Content and Containers
Mac Slocum
October 6, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
The digital realm allows content and containers to exist separately, but their old bond is still tough to break. An article in yesterday's New York Times education section illustrates this point:
Spurred by arguments that video games also may teach a kind of digital literacy that is becoming as important as proficiency in print, libraries are hosting gaming tournaments, while schools are exploring how to incorporate video games in the classroom...
... But doubtful teachers and literacy experts question how effective it is to use an overwhelmingly visual medium to connect youngsters to the written word. They suggest that while a handful of players might be motivated to pick up a book, many more will skip the text and go straight to the game. Others suggest that video games detract from the experience of being wholly immersed in a book.
The problem with this thinking is that it only assigns "literacy" value to books. Certainly, books are an essential learning tool and students should be exposed to them early and often, but if the goal is to improve literacy -- i.e. "being able to read and write" -- then the argument against games falls apart. A game-based project that boosts reading and writing skills in even a small percentage of children is still worthwhile, especially if it's one initiative amidst a broader literacy effort.
The anti-game contingent noted in the Times piece is falling into a familiar trap: assigning value to a container instead of content. The container trap was innocuous in years past because the audience (consumers, students, etc.) was limited to passive acceptance of a few choices. Now that digital delivery empowers audiences to naturally gravitate toward material they deem worthwhile, shoehorning people into a particular form diverges from bigger goals. If you want to accomplish something -- be it literacy improvement or creation of sustainable revenue streams -- you need to go with the audience grain, not against it.
A Plea for Passion in Museums
Peter Brantley
September 30, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
This is a great post about passion for when we talk about our profession, about what we are all trying to do, whether we are librarians, technologists, publishers, or work in museums. It speaks to why libraries and museums often feel "dead." From Museum 2.0:
Museums shy away from presenting passionate views. It's ironic that we expect visitors to fall in love with our artifacts and exhibitions without ever presenting Bela-like models for that kind of passion. I think there are many visitors who wander into museums the same way they'd wander into a foreign sporting event -- they don't know what's going on, why people care, and most importantly, why they should care. At a sporting event, there are little Belas everywhere yelling at refs and hooting with glee. By following the cheering, newcomers can start to understand what parts of the game are most valued, and get a window into the deep love some fans show for the sport.
Museums don't have a cheering section. As visitors walk through galleries, it's easy to wonder: where does this stuff come from? Why is it here? Who cares? Museums do a decent job addressing the first two questions, but we rarely tackle the third. The use of an "objective" authoritative voice makes it hard for visitors to assign value or significance to items with which they don't already have a connection.
Target, Serve and Adapt: A Simple Model for Audience Development
Mac Slocum
September 29, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Audience fragmentation is an oft-cited source of mainstream media's ills, but two dissimilar publishers show that valuable attention can still be acquired.
Politico, an on-the-rise political publisher, is expanding while everyone else is contracting. In a recent interview with mediabistro's FishbowlNY, Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei said there's opportunity in niche content models:
I don't think our model can be easily replicated, at least on the print side (unless the federal government moves to another city). John [Harris, co-founder] and I do think there is a very robust future for niche sites online. The new media formula is pretty simple: If you can build a desirable audience that a class of advertisers wants to reach, you have a darn good chance at success. Advertisers want efficient ways of reaching their target audience, and niche sites offer it (if you can build a big enough audience). We have some thoughts on variations of Politico that might work elsewhere -- and we might have more on that next year.
A separate story about a successful hyperlocal initiative from Lost Remote's Cory Bergman reinforces VandeHei's optimism:
... My Ballard has exploded in popularity beyond our wildest expectations, surpassing the weekly neighborhood newspaper in monthly reach (unique users compared to the paper's physical subscription base.) We've even launched similar blogs in surrounding neighborhoods with the help of friends and friends of friends, forming a news blog network covering the core of Seattle's fastest-growing communities.
Politico is geared toward affluent decision makers and information-hungry political junkies while My Ballard is serving up local news to an engaged urban community, but both sites are employing the same simple model: target a promising market, serve it with compelling content, then adapt to the needs of the audience.
Old-guard companies who still believe audiences can be cornered are bound to fail because the exponential increase in distribution channels empowers audiences to form and shift on their own terms. Audience freedom has pushed the publishing industry into perpetual beta, and content firms that acknowledge this -- and work with it -- are best positioned to succeed. That's why there's so much value in the trails being blazed by Politico, My Ballard and other publishers -- including smart "old" companies. These publishers recognize that an ongoing cycle of "target-serve-adapt" is the best way to attract attention from on-the-move groups.
Publishing Lessons from Web 2.0 Expo
Liza Daly
September 26, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Last week I was in New York for the city's first Web 2.0 Expo. I was a member of the program committee and one of our goals was to make it a uniquely New York event. This meant a real focus on measurable outcomes and integrating Web 2.0 principles into established business, in contrast with the more startup-friendly atmosphere of the San Francisco event. The fact that the conference ran during the week of the Wall Street meltdown only reinforced the need for pragmatism in tough economic times.
Naturally I was interested in applying what I learned to the publishing world. If you couldn't make it to the event, here were my big take-aways:
Web 2.0 is social software
Consultant Dion Hinchcliffe's tutorial on the Web 2.0 landscape summed it up best: Web 2.0 means software that gets better the more people use it. This is radically different from traditional software development, which gets better only when programmers add new features. (In the case of Microsoft Word, it generally gets worse.)
The best example in the publishing space is LibraryThing, which has a more accurate book catalog than Amazon.com, but also content found nowhere else. My favorites are the Legacy Libraries, which collect works associated with famous dead people. The Legacy Library project illustrates a related principle of Web 2.0: encourage unintended uses. LibraryThing was designed for individuals to catalog and rate their own books, but this user-driven initiative has added tremendous unexpected value.
Thinking outside the box
That is, outside of a single computer (geeks like to call them "boxes"). More Web applications are either being built on top of other services, or make use of so-called cloud computing. Amazon, Google and other providers now offer a wealth of ready-made software and infinite computing power to allow companies to leapfrog over problems of cost and scaling.
Only a few years ago when I was approached by a publisher to start a project, we would begin at the beginning: purchasing a computer, selecting a service provider, writing some HTML, crunching some data. With services like Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud, there's no longer any need to buy hardware: instantly an application can be deployed on one computer, or a thousand, at very low cost. This makes experimentation much more feasible: if no users come to a new product, no expensive hardware investment has been wasted. If it's successful, a few keystrokes can add 10X the computing power.
Cloud computing has also created tremendous benefit for offline processing tasks, as shown by The New York Times when converting their digitized archive for use on the Web.
It's not just about people, it's about data
Finally, Toby Segaran's talk on "The Ecosystem of Corporate and Social Data" reminded me how much value publishers have. Toby explored clever ways of finding usually-expensive data for free (for example, rather than paying for Yellow Page listings of restaurants, he scraped the New York City health department Web site, which includes ratings of every food-service facility).
Diving deeper, he emphasized how much value can be added to digital services if they are already full of content. Wikipedia came preloaded with a public domain encyclopedia, as it's much easier to correct or update old content than to enter it wholesale. The more of your content that users can find and interact with (for example, by providing an extensive full-content backlist), the more engaged they'll be.
Speaker presentations for the conference are available here: Web 2.0 NYC presentations.
"Lost" Builds Community through Book Club and Web Games
Mac Slocum
July 14, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Producers of ABC's "Lost" often sneak books into the fabric of episodes so die-hard fans can hunt for clues (or red herrings) in external literary sources. Seeing an opportunity, ABC is launching the official "Lost Book Club" through ABC.com and iTunes. From UPI:
Also available on ABC.com will be a message board to discuss the titles, a synopsis of each book, along with when and how it was referenced in the show, and an introduction by co-creator/executive producer Damon Lindelof and executive producer Carlton Cuse, ABC said.
Two years ago, Hyperion published Bad Twin, a book "written" by one of the passengers on "Lost's" ill-fated flight Oceanic 815 (if you're a fan of the show, you'll recognize the author as the guy who got sucked into the engine moments after 815 crashed).
Response to Bad Twin was tepid, but the universe beyond "Lost" episodes has been successfully mined through a number intricate alternate reality games that reveal clues about the show's secondary mysteries. Speaking as a full-fledged "Lost" junkie myself, I know of a number of folks who spent dozens of hours playing these games.
Book publishers with mythology-laden source material may want to take a note from "Lost," "Harry Potter," "Star Wars" and other series. These franchises create organic affinity communities that thrive on interactivity and story expansion, and they can be fostered through forums, social networks, and real-world meetups at related events. Outside observers and casual viewers may not understand the impulse to dress like Boba Fett or write "Lost" fan fiction, but the ardent enthusiasm of a dedicated community presents opportunities that should not be tossed off.
Using the Psychology of Free
Mac Slocum
June 25, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
A recent piece in the New York Times notes that Google and Yahoo have mined the combined power of "free" and "good enough" to challenge high-priced financial information services from Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg:
Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg face common enemies in sites like Yahoo Finance and Google Finance, which offer a much lower level of sophistication and depth but are improving and are, after all, free. [Emphasis added.]
This passage touches on the psychology of free, which is one of the most interesting but under-examined aspects of the free meme. Getting something for nothing activates a human response that's different from a normal business transaction -- it just feels better. Perhaps it's the novelty of acquiring without a concession (financial or otherwise), or maybe we're just hardwired to love free stuff.
Understanding this psychology even in a basic way (which is all I claim to know) gives free models more lift. In simple terms: A free product comes with low expectations ("hey, it's free!") and neutral perceptions ("what's the worst that can happen?"). If that product proves useful, expectations are exceeded and perception elevates from neutral to positive ("it's free and it's cool/useful/interesting, etc.").
On the development side, a free product doesn't need to be deep, robust or even fully formed. For example: A high-priced pay-to-access version of Google Docs would have invited negative comparisons to established word processing programs, but free access allowed Google Docs to be accepted as a useful Web tool with a surprising number of features, particularly for a free application.
If you extend free psychology into the publishing realm ... a publisher can use free, no-frills content to build buzz around a particular author, title or topic. This could take the form of HTML-based books hosted on a publisher's site, or basic ebooks with minimal production. And if this free material offers readers even a modicum of enjoyment, neutrality turns to positivity and the overall impression of that author, title or topic grows stronger.
These rudimentary musings on free psychology might seem obvious, but the equation of free + good enough = improved chance of success is often obscured by concerns over reliable revenue streams and clear business models (which is understandable since both are in short supply in the free universe). But this equation -- and the opportunities that come with it -- is built on the deeper psychological aspects at play in free models, and it's these aspects that need to be examined before any free-related decisions are made. A project's real upside may lie in its ability to create emotional responses, and a free mechanism could be the catalyst for those reactions.
Downward Slide Continues for Newspaper Revenue
Peter Brantley
June 24, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
The news, for newspapers, is monotonically downwards. From the New York Times:
On top of long-term changes in the industry, the weak economy is also hurting ad sales, especially in Florida and California, where the severe contraction of the housing markets has cut deeply into real estate ads. Executives at the Hearst Corporation say that one of their biggest papers, The San Francisco Chronicle, is losing $1 million a week.
Over all, ad revenue fell almost 8 percent last year. This year, it is running about 12 percent below that dismal performance, and company reports issued last week suggested a 14 percent to 15 percent decline in May.
The Inertia of Digital Turf Wars
Mac Slocum
April 24, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Two recent news stories touch upon a core question in the conflict between established businesses and digital creators: what's the point of a turf war when the turf keeps shifting?
First up is a New York Times story that examines the murky relationship between professional sports teams, bloggers and multimedia coverage:
Mike Fannin, the president of the Associated Press Sports Editors and the managing editor for sports and features at the Kansas City Star, said the dispute was the result of traditional news organizations redefining themselves in a changing technological environment.
"Ten years ago newspapers weren't in the world of video and audio," he said. "We were in the world of print. The leagues don’t have a print product. Their view of this is that we entered their world."
That is one point both sides agree on. "I'm all for selling newspapers and magazines," said Bob DuPuy, the president of M.L.B. "What I'm not for is them branching off in to other enterprises."
The second story comes from the publishing world. Author JK Rowling and Warner Bros. sued to block publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon, a book derived from Steven Van Ark's Harry Potter fan site. From the Associated Press:
The author and her lawyers said they were stirred to action by the proposal to move the Potter lexicon from the anything-goes Web, where it was available for free, into book form, where it would compete directly with a Potter encyclopedia that Rowling plans to write herself.
In short, by deciding to sell his material, Vander Ark was stepping across a line. He was no longer just an enthusiastic fan, but a professional and potential competitor -- fair game for the lawyers.
The conflict between digital envelope pushers and traditional businesses will take years to subside (or move on to a new skirmish on a new platform). But isn't there a better way? Rather than throwing huge resources at lawsuits and posturing, especially when you're confronting a gray area, why not allocate some of that time, energy and money toward trial runs and acquisitions? Digital initiatives don't require abandonment of established business models, and the knowledge gleaned from experimentation -- knowledge that could lead to new revenue -- is far more useful than a turf war.
- Stay Connected
-
TOC RSS Feeds
News Posts
Commentary Posts
Combined Feed
New to RSS?
Subscribe to the TOC newsletter. 
Follow TOC on Twitter. 
Join the TOC Facebook group. 
Join the TOC LinkedIn group. 
Get the TOC Headline Widget.
- Search
-
