Normally, I'd just toss this on my Tumblr blog as a quick quote, but since I've been using this space to promote the Chicago Media Future Conference, I thought it best to note this passage from a NY Times story last week:
"'New media' doesn’t mean transplanting old media to a new medium; it requires a new vocabulary, a new relationship with the audience — a massive social network that now talks back — and, sometimes, a new set of expectations about objectivity and timeliness."
If there's a better outline of what we ought to be talking about at the CMFC, I haven't read it yet.
Thanks to the Trib's Rob Elder for the tip.
The Lackner Andrews blog also had some thoughts on our project:
Understanding how media habits are changing - and how news operations can adapt - should be a top priority for all media managers. Before you can talk about how to make money, you have to know how people are consuming your product.
[Snip]
Google isn’t killing journalism, but Google has changed the way people find, consume, and share the news - and do so in ways that circumvent the old revenue models.
[Snip]
Professional journalism is still wanted and needed - but we have to start saying out loud that news organizations are not providing their work in ways that meet the needs and habits of their audience. And by not adapting to this reality, the news industry is losing credibility, relevance, and revenue. News orgs need to figure out the nature of their product and its value to the consumer before setting their sites on making money. Business models are not solutions for what ails journalism right now.
I'm not sure I agree that "business models aren't solutions for what ails journalism." They're not the ONLY solution, but I think they're part of it. Then again, I could be wrong. It's a point for debate, and that's why we're doing this.
More on The Chicago Media Future Conference.
Note: The Chicago Media Future Conference website launches May 1.
The Chicago Media Future Conference's rallying cry?
Selling out revisited...again
I'll be honest: I didn't read Miles Raymer's follow-up in the Chicago Reader to his previous column on selling out. I thought his original piece fell apart once you looked at the evidence (and I said so here). Plus, on this issue, I think he's being contrarian just to get a good column out of it (not that there's anything wrong with that), so I didn't bother with it.
On the other hand, Anne Elizabeth Moore did read it and had some interesting things to say about it in a letter to the editor.
Read more of my own navel-gazing musings on the concept of selling out here.
Don't let Zell fool you: The Trib isn't opposed to giving it away for free
Sam Zell's recent interview with Bloomberg News is getting a lot of attention because he's calling his purchase of TribCo "a mistake." But it was this quote that stuck with me:
“I think we’re looking at every option at the Tribune Co.,” he said. “It’s very obvious that the newspaper model in its current form is not working. And the sooner we all acknowledge that the better. Whether it be home delivery, whether it be giving away content for free, I mean these are critical issues.”
This isn't the first time Zell has complained about "giving away content for free." In 2007, he said:
"If all the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content for nothing, what would Google do? We have a situation today where effectively the content is being paid for by the newspapers and stolen by Google...That can last for a short time, but it can't last forever."
The Beachwood Reporter columnist Sam Singer takes Zell to task from a legal perspective over the folly of trying to fight Google on this and says:
"Their best bet, I believe, is to embrace aggregation, to invest in optimization strategies that will ensure their content a more prominent place among the search results."
The thing is, the Trib is already doing this. In fact, it did this on Bloomberg's Zell story, effectively taking advantage of the strategy just as its Chairman and CEO railed against it.
Right now, the Trib article is the first result in Google News if you search for "Sam Zell.":
(Click to embiggen)
This isn't an accident. It's because the Trib has a well-executed SEO strategy (just ask this guy, he'll tell you), and it uses services like Google News (the kinds of services Zell is referring to when he talks about giving away content for free) to build revenue. More traffic to the Trib makes its website more attractive to advertisers. And speaking of ads:
(Click to embiggen)
That's the Trib article in question; I've sloppily highlighted a few areas on the page. Those are ads the Trib is selling against content that's comprised mainly of an interview by another news organization. And they did this - hang on, this is shocking - to make money. Against content that's "given away for free."
In a previous column on Beachwood Reporter, Steve Rhodes had this to say:
As I've written before, newspapers sell ads against content created by others all the time, be it Oprah, the Cubs or American Idol. Not only is it mutually beneficial, but it's the responsibility of a news organization insofar as cultural criticism - including that of the media - is warranted.
He's right, of course. Newspapers have been making money this way since they began, and now many of them have figured out how to do it online. None of this is sneaky or underhanded. It's industry standard at this point. And it's how media companies monetize their content. The Zell story is one of many on the Trib site alone (every time you read the headlines on their movie reviews, you see their keyword strategy at work to hilarious effect), not to mention many many other sites.
So when Sam Zell says "giving content away for free" isn't working, he only means they're not making enough money on it yet. Not that they're not making any.
The Chicago Media Future Conference: Now is the time for solutions
It's probably a little pompous to call something "The Chicago Media Future Conference." After all, who really can say for certain what the future holds for local print and online news publications? And yet, that's the name its organizers have chosen. Spoiler alert: One of those organizers is yours truly.
February’s Chicago Journalism Town Hall brought tremendous energy, intellectual curiosity and talent together in one room. The discussion sparked many conversations and ideas, online and offline, about a range of topics. Having been in on many of these discussions, we knew the desire for another event was palpable. So my friend Mike Fourcher (a friend and former colleague from my Chicagoist days) and I along with Barbara Iverson (a Columbia College professor and editor of CurrentBuzz.com and ChicagoTalks.org) decided to hold our own event focused on one of those discussion topics: How news coverage can successfully migrate to profitable on-line distribution. (See the bottom of this post for complete bios of all three organizers.)
The Chicago Media Future Conference will be held Saturday, June 13 at Columbia College's Film Row Cinema (1104 S. Wabash) from 1:30pm to 4:45pm. It will consist of two 90-minute, moderated, five-person panels, with a 15 minute break in between. Each panel's topic will be introduced by a 10-minute “scene-setting” informational presentation.
We planned The Chicago Media Future Conference with a few stipulations in mind:
* The conference would be about the future of news. We broadly define news using the intentionally broad dictionary definition, "1: a report of recent events 2: previously unknown information."
* The innovative future of news will take place online, while print, television, and radio will remain necessary and vital mediums for analysis and reporting.
* People are already paying for news online, in direct and indirect ways. These solutions need to be acknowledged and discussed in detail.
* Most people are interested in retaining the commonly-understood ethical standards for news delivery currently followed by offline media. Many standards and best practices already exist for online news delivery, though some sites don't always follow them. Some ethical standards have yet to be established, as technology often outpaces "the rules."
* Our panels should look forward, not backward. The time has passed for lamenting what used to be. We're not interested in talking about problems unless we're also discussing solutions.
The working title for the first panel is "How do people consume news and what do they do with it?" The second is "How do you make money selling the news and who is willing to pay for it?"
Right now, we have not confirmed any panelists though we've got a short list worked up of editors, business managers, digital strategists, bloggers, tech developers, ad sales managers, news publishers and SEO strategists. But we also want to hear from you - the people who have an interest in this sort of thing - about whom we should invite. One complaint I've had about past conferences like this is that they inevitably end up having the same panelists over and over or the organizers end up asking only those they know to participate. We wanted to avoid that, as much as possible. Truth be told, the reason why some people end up over and over on panels like this is because they're the smartest minds on the subject. Having said that, if you've got an idea about a panelist who fits one of the descriptions above, send an e-mail to info (@) chicagomediafuture.org.
We've also launched a website, ChicagoMediaFuture.org, though there's nothing there but a splash page right now. Eventually, ChicagoMediaFuture.org will be an information resource, built around a WordPress template, with online registration, panelist bios, and context for both the Chicago and national media landscapes. We also hope it will be a vibrant means of continuing the discussion after the event. We're planning to launch the site in full on May 1.
By the way, if you ever have website design needs, allow me to recommend Stephen Schmidt, who is the brains and brawn behind ChicagoMediaFuture.org. Seriously, look at that graphic. How cool-looking is that? Hire this man.
In the coming weeks, we hope to have more announcements about panelists, and the content of The Chicago Media Future Conference. Until then, we could use some help with the following:
Input
What do you think about all this? Does it sound interesting? Do you foresee some problems? What topics do you think we should be discussing on these panels? Do you want to recommend someone as a panelist? Let us know at info (@) chicagomediafuture.org.
People
This is a pretty big undertaking. There's a lot to do, and we're hoping to get some smart, talented folks to help us. Here are the tasks we need help with:
* Day-of assistance with check-in, answering attendee questions, herding people around, etc.
* Audio and video recording of the event (and possibly to edit said footage)
* Photographing the event
Just a note, everyone involved in this project is volunteering their time and talent (though it's possible we might buy you a beer at some point) for this non-profit venture. But we will go out of our way to credit you for your work and throw a little business your way, if we can (just look at the nice things I said about Stephen up there).
Speaking of money, we're also looking for...
Sponsorship
There are some incidental costs associated with an event like this (renting the space, buying refreshments, hiring a tech person to run sound, etc.) so we're hoping some local businesses out there will be interested in throwing a tiny bit of cash our way in exchange for the honor and prestige of being named a sponsor of the first Chicago Media Future Conference. Think of it: You will be able say you were at the forefront of the revolution of Chicago news! How often does an opportunity like that come along? Once in a lifetime!
Ahem.
Lastly, we need lots of help with...
Promotion/Word of mouth
We want your help in telling people about The Chicago Media Future Conference. Write about it, blog it, Twitter it, text it, Digg! it, post it on your Facebook page, and tell your smart friends about it.
We want this conference to be a room full of people working together on the future of Chicago news who then go out into the world and turn words into action. I hope you'll join us on June 13th and online at ChicagoMediaFuture.org.
The Chicago Media Future Conference organizers are:
Mike Fourcher
Mike Fourcher is founder of Purely Political Consulting, with dozens of state and local candidates across Illinois. He has built a dozen political websites, served as staff to California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez on Capitol Hill and served in the in Clinton Administration on the personal staff of then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. More recently Mike wrote for Chicagoist, founded Cloutwiki.org and RudyGiulianiMarriedHisCousin.com. After obtaining an MBA from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2003, Mike consulted for daily newspapers and lead an investor group to purchase alternative newspapers around the country.
Barbara Iverson
At Columbia College, Barbara teaches, talks and blogs about blogging, citizen journalism and digital technology. She blogs at Currentbuzz.org and is also co-editor and publisher of ChicagoTalks.org. She has a Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from the University of Illinois at Chicago and is a specialist in web publishing, interactive multimedia, integrating technology into arts and media courses, and training teachers to use technology in the classroom.
Scott Smith
Scott Smith is now a Senior Editor at Playboy.com, having recently spent two-plus years at Time Out Chicago as Web Editor. He previously worked as co-editor at local news and culture blog Chicagoist, where he wrote about music and movies, and has spent time in radio promotions, teaching, tech support and social work. He has also freelanced for Metromix and Centerstage Chicago, and has been a commentator on Chicago Tonight, WGN Radio 720, and Filmspotting, a film review podcast.
Crain's columnist Greg Hinz to play Freddy Krueger?
Oops, sorry, no. I'm mistaken. It's Jackie Earle Haley who will play the finger-bladed killer in a Nightmare on Elm Street remake. But c'mon: You can understand my confusion.
Here's a picture of Jackie Earle Haley:
And here's a picture of Crain's Chicago Business columnist Greg Hinz:
One, two...Greggy's coming for you...
Speaking of Hinz, he's running down the possible candidates for Mike Quigley's Cook County Board seat should/when the current County Commissioner win the 5th district special election today.
Quick hits
Broadcasting and Cable says that there are no more star anchors. They're being replaced by reporters who are "using all available resources to gather news." At the Chicago Journalism Town Hall a couple months ago, Carol Marin noted a similar trend at newspapers, where people who'd been good writers were being shunted aside in favor of those who were multi-talented producer/editor types. This is one of those times when professionals should recognize the industry change, and adapt, not try to fight against it. Mock the intern with the Twitter account at your peril.
Also, I was surprised that Michael Kinsley would say the "death of newspapers" might not be all that bad.
Lastly, I started a Tumblr blog a while back, dropped it, then picked it back up again. It's mainly filled with short, longer-than-Twitter comments on news stories, amusing pictures, and cool videos. As the title implies, it's effluvia.
I'm also posting links to all the Our Man In Chicago posts there as well, so if you only want to go to the trouble of following one blog, that'd be it.
