mydigimedia by Amy L. Webb

I spent much of the day at NPR in Washington yesterday, and I was disappointed - but not surprised - to learn that Maria Thomas, formerly the SVP of Digital Media, made the decision to leave. She is the second high-profile loss for NPR in a month. Former CEO Ken Stern was ousted from his position. Both were committed to growing a digital presence for NPR and to taking advantage of new distribution platforms.

These staff changes have a lot to do with NPR's long-term vision.

I listen to NPR every single day. We have our Baltimore affiliate on in the morning as we get ready for work. If I'm driving, I tend to listen to WHYY or WAMU in the car. And occasionally I'll listen to Chicago or West Coast affiliates while I'm at my office.

And guess what? None of my NPR experience involves a traditional radio. At home, we listen on our computers. When I'm away, I'm listening to podcasts of previous shows and highlights. We have satellite radios in our cars - and the only reason we can even tune in is because the radio we have still has an analog feature.

Why no radio? For one thing, I don't like static. For another, I don't necessarily want to listen to, say, Morning Edition at 7am. As much as I enjoy This American Life, it's not on during a time that's convenient for me. In our household, we time shift everything possible. We would be lost without Netflix, our iPods and our dearly beloved TiVo.

A traditional radio just doesn't fit in to our lifestyles - just like the Model T probably doesn't fit into yours.

NPR is known for is a strong tradition of excellent audio reporting. It dumbfounds me that local affiliates would see that tradition threatened because alternative platforms have become available. One complaint is that with all these podcasts and Internet broadcasts, stations won't be able to monetize content. Membership will fall off. "Underwriting" dollars (can we just call it "advertising," please, since that's what it is?) will somehow fade away.

But it just doesn't make sense to me. Not when I hear ads woven in at the beginning and end of podcasts, or when I hear the same underwriting announcements via my computer as I do on the actual radio airwaves. NPR affiliates should be rejoicing! No longer must they rely only on a physical radio set anymore. They can easily grow their audiences by distributing high-quality content and harnessing all of the various platforms - that even includes mobile phones! NPR can now reach audiences far and wide - and the possibilities for monetization, via multiple channel distribution, have increased tenfold!

So...what's the deal?

At a conference last year, I spent some time talking to Maria about how her team was moving NPR forward, so that the journalism could continue and keep up with our changing media landscape. She had wonderful ideas for training, for continuous news, for new systems of workflow and for how to create a converged newsroom. During that conversation, and during times that I heard Maria speak, I found her inspiring. I enthusiastically watched as she started to extend NPR's global digital reach.

It's a damn shame to now watch all that progress stop, and to know that it may potentially reverse. Why fear the future? Can't you see the countless possibilities for reaching current - and legions of future - listeners?

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At a summit in Washington D.C. for part of the day to talk about the future of journalism, globalism, technology and how all those things collide. Trying to wrap our heads around ways that media can change the world and make it better. It's a small gathering at the Ronald Regan building - less than 200 people. We're talking now about the changes in "citizen journalism" and about our current system of publishing. Listening now to Jan Schaffer, Solana Larsen (Global Voices), Tom Rosensteil (Project for Excellence in Journalism), Michael Tippet (NowPublic), Alan Webber (Fast Company) and more...

Says Webber: Media really can't change the world because you must challenge the status quo. To do that is to risk your financial well-being. There's a problm of finance. To change the system, you can't be in the system... The media is a newsgathering organization - Fast Company was in part "edu-tainment." The media isn't going to be in a place to change the world. Report on news, yes, but not raise questions that will significantly change the status quo.

Says Mike Hughes (Creative Director, Martin Agency): Citizens must change behavior. (We're talking now about Al Gore and climate change and the media response to him/ it.) The responsibility of the journalist is to tell the truth regardless... More environmental reporting, more honest climate reporting. We're facing a partisan lockdown. The backlash against Gore is unwarranted. Journalists should listen to the science and try to weed through the politics. Sometimes, in pursuit of balance, journalists are working against the spirit of telling the news and affecting change.

Says Schaffer: There are very different definitions as news. We don't see news as conflict, we' don't see scorecard journalism. In citizen journalism, we don't see these definitions in that space. Cit-jurnos challenge journalists to do their jobs better.

Says me: We should be differeniating advocacy journalism from American-style reporting and storytelling. There are many folks from international publications here - I'm wondering why, if we're going to have a discussion about the purpose of journalism, we're not discussing the historic purpose of reporting in America. I think journalists should engage the public in having discussions about current events and world conflicts...and I believe very strongly that technology enables this conversation to happen. It's not about creating a culture of anyman reporters or creating superfluous information - no, it's about communication on a grand, global scale. Hell, at least people are interested in news, no? I remember growing up and listening to my parents bemoan the lack of awareness people my age had in the state of the world.

Posted by AmyWebb at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Listen to or download the session. Audio is now uploaded.

Posted by AmyWebb at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A report this morning from Nielsen//NetRatings shows that 15.4 million unique visitors came to TV station sites hosted by Internet Broadcasting last month, setting a new record for the company. This is a 12% increase from January, which held the previous high.

Internet Broadcasting is the largest publisher of local news for broadcast affiliates and serves such sites as NBC10.com in Philadelphia, NBC4.com in D.C. and Telemundo47.com in New York. This company provides both a content management system and content to populate local TV web sites. I know that in many cases, sites are populated by an IB employee and not a journalist hired by the local affiliate.

What's behind the spike? IB says the weather. Users are visiting these TV sites for meterologist blogs, where they can get immediate, interactive information from their local weatherpeople and comment directly back to them. As part of the weather blog microsites, many of IB's stations also solicit and publish user-generated photos and videos during storms.

This absolutely dumbfounds me. I lived in Philadelphia for three years and was always surprised at the amount of local air time devoted to storm coverage. I'm from Chicago. We're no strangers to snow storms, tornados and record heat -- sometimes all in the same week. And yet in Philly, I remember watching a nightly newscast devoted almost entierly to Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz's announcement of the impending weather apocalypse.

On the NBC10.com site, the weather plays a very prominent role: forecase, news, media, features, blogs, and plenty of user generated content.

Now here's the kicker. I think that a lot of publishers and editors think they know what users want: lengthy, heady stories about political corruption, videos of community events. More white space. Less clutter.

The top-ranked websites in terms of traffic continue to be search engines/ aggregators and social networking sites. Of the top 25, only four differ: Microsoft (#15), CNN.com (#16), Mapquest (#24) and...wait for it...Weather.com (#23).

Maybe all we really want is a good search platform and the ability to know what it's like outside while we sit in our windowless offices.

More on this issue:
WeatherBug from Steve Rubel's Micro Persuasion
Weather-o-Rama from the American Press Institute

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Knight Citizen News Network launched yesterday. The project is a free web portal to help cit-journalists and professionals create and populate local news sites.

From the press release:

KCNN.org was created to help citizens use digital media in ways that enrich community, enhance public discourse and enliven democracy, said Jan Schaffer, director of J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism, which manages development of the site. It also seeks to open doors for traditional news organizations seeking to embrace user-generated content.

"Above all, the site seeks to impart an understanding of the qualities that make for responsible and credible community news and information," said Schaffer.

KCNN.org so far offers:

• a database of U.S. citizen media sites, searchable by keyword, town or state and displayed on a Google map.
• a "Things We Like" feature, starting with more than 20 cool ideas from sites around the country.
• an interactive overview of the "Principles of Citizen Journalism," with more than 40 audio and video interviews and scores of resources.
• the latest citizen media research.
• mini case studies on how to train citizen journalists and resources to start reporting.

The project was developed by Amy Gahran and Adam Glenn of I, Reporter and by Dan Gillmore from the Center for Citizen Media and was funded by the Knight Foundation.

There are still some components coming -- the site isn't quite finished yet. But I encourage you to have a look through what's there. KCNN isn't just meant for stay-at-home bloggers. The way in which we gather and disseminate information has changed because our expectations for content delivery are being shaped by YouTube and digg. I think that every reporter in the U.S. should visit this site regularly.

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Project for Excellence in Journalism released its fourth annual report on the state of the news media on Monday. This is a lengthy, detailed analysis of how our media is evolving - and more importantly, how people are reading/ viewing/ listening/ browsing/ sharing/ collaborating with us in journalism.

From the Digital Journalism chapter:

What are those news sites like that are original on the Internet — sites that were not added on to some legacy TV network or newspaper? Do they have a personality profile? Do they have different emphases and strengths from those connected to another media? Or are they varied among themselves, an emerging platform with no fixed traits yet?

To try to help users sort through all that is available, the Project conduct a close study of 38 different news sites, those from different media sectors, and those that are Web only, including some with a distinct citizen-media-based flavor.

Researchers looked at six criteria, including customization options, multimedia, branding, depth of info, interactivity and business model success.

I'd be interested to learn more about how the 38 sites were selected, since at least two were aggregators rather than providers offering original content.

You can view the report at stateofthemedia.org. Also see:

Digital Journalism: A Topography of News Websites
Newspapers
Online
About the study...

More about the Project for Excellence in Journalism

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm writing this from the window seat of a plane, en route to Chicago. While I was standing on line back at the terminal, a man who looked enough like Christopher Noth to make me stare uncontrollably, boarded the flight. And as luck would have it, I wound up sitting right next to him. (Seriously, he's reading a copy of USA Today right now - I'm watching him!) This is a situation, a Mr. Big Moment!

It's now been an hour, and the flight attendand came by to ask what we'd like to drink. His order, for a decaf coffee with a little water added and also milk which she should add because we've hit a skosh of turbulence and he has a very important meeting, led me to determine three things. First, and perhaps most importantly, this guy ain't Chris Noth. Secondly, a pair of Coach sunglasses and shiny leather bag do not a savvy businessman make.

The third thing I realized is this: the Internet is the great equalizer. That because of this medium, my children may never have their own Mr. Big Moment. Let me explain how I arrived at this point...and I promise, what I'm arguing will also impact journalism.

I'm fascinated with Chris Noth, partially because I'm attracted to him, partially because I associate him with the role he played on Sex in the City. And so I'll often sit through TV shows or movies featuring him but that aren't particularly good. Same goes for Clive Owen (my crush happened in "Closer"), the guy starring in "300" (because he reminds me of Clive Owen) and Rufus Sewell, a tremendous U.K.-based actor who America has yet to really discover.

I've seen these men with and without their clothes, in cineplexes and in my home theater. They're special because I've seen them on a big screen, and only a fraction of people ever appear in larger than life like that. My friends and family recognize these men, their images, their names...Chirs, Clive and Rufus...so they're Big in real life.

And yet I mistook the guy next to me for one of them.

Before the Internet, they only way to cultivate that kind of celebrity - because there were only a few, unattainable venues like theaters and televisions - was to appear in a movie. And now we have inexpensive video cameras and digital recording devices. We can upload video without really having any programming skills. We can spread that video virally without spending a penny, and ensure that millions of people around the world will see us.

I wrote yesterday about Paltalk, and I just can't stop thinking about the myriad ways in which we collect and perceive information is about to dramatically change.

There's nothing preventing the guy next to me from crafting a sitcom-style program and launching it on YouTube except, perhaps, for his whiny voice and drink ordering fetish. (On the other hand, Meg Ryan made a mint...) Hell, enough people appear to be watching network shows, 90% of which I think we'll all agree are terrible. So why not him?

And so let's say that he does launch a show, something akin to Lonelygirl15's YouTube adventures except with a more straightforward plot. And let's say that the show is uploaded to YouTube and that he also keeps a blog, a sort of personal diary, about the show. The blog and show are tagged and spread around the web using Slide, Stumble Upon, bebo.

Now, this average guy is suddenly a celebrity, recognized for real in the airport. And maybe people start mistaking Chris Noth for him.

Unlike filmmaking, which costs a lot of money and requires deals and relationships to get a movie produced, distributed and ultimately seen by people, there are no barriers to entry in the digital world, save for a few hundred bucks to buy equipment and the ability to think creatively. And so now there are movie star doppelgangers running all over cyberspace.

But when something unattainable and special becomes ubiquitous, it becomes ordinary. With all this access to both produce and receive media, won't the playing field eventually equal out? Sure, fantastically talented or attractive people will always command more widespread attention than others, but the field itself will be larger than ever before, with limitless players and possibilities.

Barriers are falling down everywhere. Some companies, such as Anheuser-Busch, are already taking advantage of this. I'm referencing bud.tv, which so far has been a commercial success. You already know my feelings about Paltalk.

Now consider the career trajectories of the men behind PerezHilton and Daily Kos. Neither Entertainment Weekly nor People magazine was banging down Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr.'s door asking him to report for them. Markos Moulitsas was a consultant, not a Woodward or even a Bernstein for the Washington Post.

We're still in the early stages of this media transition, but I'm starting to believe that as services and access become more widespread - and it may take a generation or so - more people than probably should will become content providers.

That brings me to journalism. There are more publications right now than any point of our global history, if you include blogs and websites. Enough people understand the basic way you craft a story: call a source up, ask him a few questions, call another source up, ask a few questions, repeat. Check notes, write story, repeat. Check facts. Publish.

Journalism's silver screen is gone, and gone forever. Yes, most people look to recognizable brands such as the New York Times and Washington Post for news. But more people, especially millennials, are open to PerezHilton and Daily Kos and the thousands of other topic-specific blogs out there. Citizen journalists have access to people, companies, government sources, etc. to do their reporting.

Will the old cache journalism once held evaporate? Working for Newsweek, I'd make a call for an interview and was never, ever told no, because, well, it was Newsweek. I can't say that 10 years ago I had the same success writing for Japan, Inc. Magazine.

My perception, even as a journalist, has changed. If the New York Times called me up wanting an interview on digital media, I'd be pretty stoked. But if I got an email from Michael Arrington or someone from Boing Boing...that would knock my socks off.

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Everyone remember when chat rooms first became available? You could sign up and sign on to have inane 10-word conversations with strangers from around the world. I certainly joined in the fray...and quickly learned that when people are offered a no-holds-barred anonymous system of speech, they use the privilege to talk about, what else?, sex.

Enter Paltalk, a Manhattan-based video chat service founded in 1998 that streams live multi-person chats. There are more than four million active members using the online service, and Paltalk World's list of media and advertising partners would make most Web 2.0 companies drool. Using your webcam, you can join in ongoing chats, set up your own private room and even purchase upgrades to ensure a smoother video feed.

If you're a journalist but not covering tech, you may not have heard of Paltalk. The general audience skews young, at least from what I've seen. While businesses and others may be using the service, they're likely doing it privately.

In the past, Paltalk has hosted celebrity sessions featuring folks like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and New York Times best selling author Douglas Preston.

And the latest celeb to join is CNN Radio Bureau Chief Gary Baumgarten, who's left CNN to become Paltalk's Director of News and Programming. The announcement was made this morning.

Wait, you say. I didn't get that. A chat service provider -- not a broadcast news station -- nicked a Peabody Award-winning journalist with 38 years of experience in the field away from CNN?

Yes. And yes.

Baumgarten is going to head the development of original programming on Paltalk and will host News Talk Online, which is a daily interactive program allowing guests and the audience to interact wit heach other. Guests include, and I'm not making this up, Dave Koz, Arianna Huffington, and Kenny Kramer. (Sadly, I can't seem to be able to play archived shows.)

I just don't know what to do with this information. How does someone in media, who's worked within a very confined context and whose industry has always followed a certain paradigm, begin to understand the changes that are afoot?

I teach a class at Temple University about how to report and gather information using Web 2.0 tools. But the curriculum at that school, as it is at all journalism schools around the country, is really based on the idea that trained reporters will go to work for a newspaper, magazine or broadcast station. S/he may work for the online division, but practicing journalism means doing it at one of these places.

Clearly if Baumgarten succeeds in developing news programming and talk show-style interactive shows at Paltalk...and why wouldn't he?...this would represent a true paradigm shift and a cause to rethink our multimedia strategies as journalists. This isn't just some newspaper throwing video up on the web. It's interactive, live news talk allowing guests and users to see and hear each other as well as to use and share websites and other electronic information as part of that show's content. It's a new editorial product, delivered electronically.

Yahoo! has a very active, productive team of journalists. Seven years ago, Yahoo! was simply a search engine that listed categories like News and Culture to help you "surf the Internet." Paltalk is poised to be a serious news content provider. And there are others.

Anyone else feel goosebumps?

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to Warren Buffett, the halcyon days of high profit newspapering is over.

Buffett's group, Berkshire Hathaway, owns the Buffalo News. And in a letter to shareholders last Thursday, Buffett raised some interesting points about the future profitability of news.

What Buffett has to say will undoubtedly be painful to hear: "Simply put, if cable and satellite broadcasting, as well as the internet, had come along first, newspapers as we know them probably would never have existed...We are likely therefore to see non-economic individual buyers of newspapers emerge, just as we have seen such buyers acquire major sports franchises. Aspiring press lords should be careful, however: There’s no rule that says a newspaper’s revenues can’t fall below its expenses and that losses can’t mushroom."

I say painful because this comes from a man that many look to as a weath-building oracle, and a lot of times folks don't heed warnings until Buffett announces an edict.

Painful? Yes. But I won't say original. Buffett isn't announcing anything I'd call new. In fact, we've been discussing these issues within our industry for years. I do think he makes a compelling case for newspapers moving, potentially, to hyper-local models. As much as I want to know what's happening back where I lived in Japan, I'm not turning to the Baltimore Sun, my local newspaper, for that information. I'll look at the wires or at the Times or even CNN.

Perhaps the newspaper model for the future involves micro newsrooms and hyper-local online communities. If print is still absolutely necessary, rather than one big newspaper, how about micro-sized local editions akin to the Metro?

Buffett is right in saying that sports desks will always drive circulation and online traffic. But I think that news...explained as it affects me, an individual with very specific interests...could easily be monetized.

The challenge, of course, is to change the way we think about the American newsroom.

An excerpt Buffett's most recent letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, dated Feb. 28, 2007 (see pages 10 and 11):

...When an industry’s underlying economics are crumbling, talented management may slow the rate of decline. Eventually, though, eroding fundamentals will overwhelm managerial brilliance. (As a wise friend told me long ago, “If you want to get a reputation as a good businessman, be sure to get into a good business.”) And fundamentals are definitely eroding in the newspaper industry, a trend that has caused the profits of our Buffalo News to decline. The skid will almost certainly continue.

When Charlie and I were young, the newspaper business was as easy a way to make huge returns as existed in America. As one not-too-bright publisher famously said, “I owe my fortune to two great American institutions: monopoly and nepotism.” No paper in a one-paper city, however bad the product or however inept the management, could avoid gushing profits.

The industry’s staggering returns could be simply explained. For most of the 20th Century, newspapers were the primary source of information for the American public. Whether the subject was sports, finance, or politics, newspapers reigned supreme. Just as important, their ads were the easiest way to find job opportunities or to learn the price of groceries at your town’s supermarkets.

The great majority of families therefore felt the need for a paper every day, but understandably most didn’t wish to pay for two. Advertisers preferred the paper with the most circulation, and readers tended to want the paper with the most ads and news pages. This circularity led to a law of the newspaper jungle: Survival of the Fattest.

Thus, when two or more papers existed in a major city (which was almost universally the case a century ago), the one that pulled ahead usually emerged as the stand-alone winner. After competition disappeared, the paper’s pricing power in both advertising and circulation was unleashed. Typically, rates for both advertisers and readers would be raised annually – and the profits rolled in. For owners this was economic heaven. (Interestingly, though papers regularly – and often in a disapproving way – reported on the profitability of, say, the auto or steel industries, they never enlightened readers about their own Midas-like situation. Hmmm . . .)

As long ago as my 1991 letter to shareholders, I nonetheless asserted that this insulated world was changing, writing that “the media businesses . . . will prove considerably less marvelous than I, the industry, or lenders thought would be the case only a few years ago.” Some publishers took umbrage at both this remark and other warnings from me that followed. Newspaper properties, moreover, continued to sell as if they were indestructible slot machines. In fact, many intelligent newspaper executives who regularly chronicled and analyzed important worldwide events were either blind or indifferent to what was going on under their noses.

Now, however, almost all newspaper owners realize that they are constantly losing ground in the battle for eyeballs. Simply put, if cable and satellite broadcasting, as well as the internet, had come along first, newspapers as we know them probably would never have existed.

In Berkshire’s world, Stan Lipsey does a terrific job running the Buffalo News, and I am enormously proud of its editor, Margaret Sullivan. The News’ penetration of its market is the highest among that of this country’s large newspapers. We also do better financially than most metropolitan newspapers, even though Buffalo’s population and business trends are not good. Nevertheless, this operation faces unrelenting pressures that will cause profit margins to slide.

True, we have the leading online news operation in Buffalo, and it will continue to attract more viewers and ads. However, the economic potential of a newspaper internet site – given the many alternative sources of information and entertainment that are free and only a click away – is at best a small fraction of that existing in the past for a print newspaper facing no competition.

For a local resident, ownership of a city’s paper, like ownership of a sports team, still produces instant prominence. With it typically comes power and influence. These are ruboffs that appeal to many people with money. Beyond that, civic-minded, wealthy individuals may feel that local ownership will serve their community well. That’s why Peter Kiewit bought the Omaha paper more than 40 years ago.

We are likely therefore to see non-economic individual buyers of newspapers emerge, just as we have seen such buyers acquire major sports franchises. Aspiring press lords should be careful, however: There’s no rule that says a newspaper’s revenues can’t fall below its expenses and that losses can’t mushroom. Fixed costs are high in the newspaper business, and that’s bad news when unit volume heads south. As the importance of newspapers diminishes, moreover, the “psychic” value of possessing one will wane, whereas owning a sports franchise will likely retain its cachet.

Unless we face an irreversible cash drain, we will stick with the News, just as we’ve said that we would. (Read economic principle 11, on page 76.) Charlie and I love newspapers – we each read five a day – and believe that a free and energetic press is a key ingredient for maintaining a great democracy. We hope that some combination of print and online will ward off economic doomsday for newspapers, and we will work hard in Buffalo to develop a sustainable business model. I think we will be successful. But the days of lush profits from our newspaper are over.

References:
Read the 1991 Letter to Shareholders.
Wikipedia on Berkshire Hathaway

(Thanks to Andy Cassel for sending me the letter.)

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just found the htmlPlayground, a still-in-beta XHTML and CSS reference site. You can click on any tag and it will display what that tag does, what the surrounding code should look like and how you can use that tool on your own website. So far, it's genius - and I think a fantastic tool for journalists working on the web side of their newsrooms who might get stuck once in a while and don't have a code monkey to call for help.

And here's another application: It seems to me that this model, a true interactive dictionary, might be used for certain kinds of reported stories. I could see something like this accompanying a health story, a football story, a local politics story...video could be thrown in, too.

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 08:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've recently been playing mashup with Google Maps, and I still believe very strongly that journalists can use them more effectively as both a reporting tool and as a richly graphic way to display information on newspaper/ magazine websites.

Here are a few ideas after my morning brainstorming session:

Map + Schedule = graphic interface showing travel dates
Applications: sports schedules, personal schedules, political campaigns

Map + Travel information = interactive travel guide
Applications: see NYTimes Travel

Map + Health Desk = maps showing demographic and health information
Applications: obesity charts, spread of disease/ epidemic, hyper-local flu information

Map + Real Estate listings = property value/ taxation survey
Applications: local income:housing cost disparities, neighborhood tax:services disparities

Map + Nightlife Events = ad-driven listings database
Application = monetized nightlife calendar (bonus! add RSS feeds by event category)

For more inspiration, have a look at the unofficial Google Maps Mania site. API detail on how it's done at ProgrammableWeb.com. Craigslist + Google housing price map.

Please note: I'm not commenting here on the integrity of reporting on any of these sites - I just want to show you what's possible.

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new service launched today that allows bloggers to monetize content easily. But it has broader uses too: businesses can serve ads directly to their consumers in a process that completely sidesteps classifieds, print or digital.

Meet TextMarks, an exceptionally clever app, so smart that newspapers ought to take notice immediately and begin emulating some of its features.

Publishers select a keyword, such as BALTPOL (Baltimore Politics). Then an auto response would be entered: Mayor Sheila Dixon announces she won't run for office in September. Subscribers to that keyword receive an instant SMS to their mobile phones. Users can also text the keyword to 41411 at any time for an update. (And I'm sure you're noticing that 41411 looks very similar to 46645, which prompts Google to return an answer via SMS to directory searches, sports scores, etc.)

Using TextMarks, bloggers can update their sites via text message and they can broadcast information to subscribers.

And, of course, you can monetize your blog using TextMark's SMS alerts. You set a price point at either $4.99 or $9.99 per month, customize the graphics all you want, and offer text updates to your blog's readers.

Now TextMarks is taking a significant portion of the proceeds, but it also takes away the need for a secure shopping cart system. TextMarks deals directly with the wireless carriers, so bloggers never have to worry about billing.

This model, at least in some form, should (and can!) be applied to newspaper and magazine websites asap.

To wit: I'm not a die-hard football fanatic, but I was at my sister's most recent opera recital last month and missing both of the playoff games. I sat in the audience with my Blackberry on silent texting Google every couple of minutes to get game updates. Then I switched over to ESPN.com mobile. Both were free (and I have an unlimited data plan, so usage was free too). But you know what? I just might have paid $1.99 for a one-night subscription to get the scores. Hell, the sale of commercial ringtones topped $2.5 billion in 2004. Billion! You don't think folks might pony up a buck or two for up to date information?

At last year's Online News Association conference, I sat in on a panel of industry big wigs talking about the challenges and pitfalls to harnessing wap for use with newspaper/ media promotion. The Bakersfield Californian was, an entire year ago, starting to use SMS for stories and also for advertising.

Why aren't more newspaper websites taking advantage of SMS - TextMarks should convince publishers that they need to look beyond videos and podcasts already.

Posted by AmyWebb at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been experimenting with SeeqPod, a unique search engine. I'm not exactly sure how the thing is powered or how it works. Also not sure who's running the show or where its funding comes from.

I can tell you this, however. You can use one of SeeqPod's features to search for music in a really cool user interface. Search for songs online, add them to a playlist, save it, email it to friends and even add your own songs. It'll also suggest related videos, ringtones and other music. It's an iTunes/ Pandora/ 80s mix tape mashup. You can't download anything (at least not easily), and SeeqPod offers a lengthy copyright notice on the music search site.

But I also found something else on SeeqPod: SeeqPod Finance, which allows you to search the NYSE and NASDAQ by product rather than by company for related information. This is a very cool application of search technology. I typed in BlackBerry (you should too!) and got Research In Motion's ticker, financials and all of the companies that have a relationship somehow with BlackBerry. Also tried searches for iPod and MacBook Pro, and both worked. I looked up Olympus Digital Voice Recorder WS-320M and Canary Wireless Sniffer but that search didn't work. SeeqPod Finance is still in beta, but once the bugs are fixed, I think this could be a tremendous asset to journalists.

Posted by AmyWebb at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just found this list of the first 100 domains registered. Have a gander. What do you see missing?

See the complete list here...

Posted by AmyWebb at 02:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting concept: Live radio-style talkshows produced entirely by regular folks and offered as free Podcasts (sortof) online.

BlogTalkRadio launched recently, and the service enables users to record a live show - even allows listeners to call in - with minimal knowledge of audio recording.

From the site's FAQ:

What is BlogTalkRadio?
BlogTalkRadio is a platform that extends the blog, allowing any individual to host a live blogshow online. Our service is free to all users, whether you host a blogshow or listen in. Plus hosts earn half of all revenue generated by their blogshow and Host Channel page.

Where do I get my call in phone number?
As a host, we will provide you with your own dedicated phone number. We will also assign a separate phone number for your callers, which will appear on your host channel page. We provide these numbers free of charge. When you are ready to host your blogshow, you simply call in, dial your host pin (which is automatically generated when you sign up) and begin talking...

So I've spent the past few weeks listening to a handful of recent shows. One problem stands out immediately: Hosts can't edit anything, since shows are recorded live and then archived for everyone to hear. And editing, as we all know, can be a beautiful thing. I heard everything from mucked-up intro music to a host complaining that they couldn't get their computer to work properly.

I've mostly heard bloggers and professional marketers hosting shows on behalf of their products or organizations so far. But some well-knowns have been showing up - Sen. John Kerry was featured yesterday and earlier Congressmen Duncan Hunter (Republican presidential candidate from California) appeared live. And I'm not sure where the ad revenue is coming in - I keep waiting to hear ad placement during the blogcast, but haven't so far. I'm also not seeing any banners on the site.

The concept is certainly interesting. Technology has made it easy enough for anybody to host and promote a call-in talkshow and distribute it to an infinitely large audience. Programs featuring news a la the Daily Show are popping up all over YouTube - and if you ask me, I seem to get more context and content out of a short segment online than I do watching my local broadcast affiliate.

It's not just that more people have computers and know how to use them. We need to keep in mind that innovative companies are capitalizing on our hunger for reaching out to others. Fifty years ago, only a few had access and the means to produce a newspaper, magazine, television or radio broadcast. And without that medium, there wasn't getting any news.

Today, we're not wholly depended on the old news distribution model. Makes sense for the big, traditional media companies to start beta testing completely new ideas right now, doesn't it?

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm listening to WHYY right now from my office in Baltimore. I'm listening the the Philadelphia NPR affiliate because the digital stream at WYPR isn't working for a change.

And here's what has my feathers ruffled. I just got yelled at by Ed Cunningham, who, like a frustrated parent, is punishing me today because WHYY didn't meet its fundraising target. You see, WHYY began its quarterly pledgeathon and has, every single morning since last week, made me miss the halcyon days of Jerry Lewis and the MDA.

Cunningham said that because we didn't give WHYY enough money, they've done exactly what we asked them not to do. They've extended the pledge drive through today...and possibly tomorrow, if we don't get our acts together.

I've been banished to the unquiet corner. I've been bad.

Parents, forget Supernanny. Listen to these two discipline their audience.

Click here to get the mp3 - the file may take a second or two to load. Or watch below (this is a Quicktime file).

Posted by AmyWebb at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting bit of nostalgia: MasterMOZ.com just launched a directory (Dmoz-style) allowing users to list their own sites. It's being billed as a "social search engine," but so far I don't see how it harnesses social media sites to enable better searching.

To be honest, if folks are listing their own sites with hand-crafted tags, it seems like it'll eventually be harder to find what you might be looking for. We all know that users will tag their websites with the most popular keywords rather than the most relevant ones.

Still, I have to wonder why anyone would willingly use a directory. There's just too much content, and I don't have that kind of patience...

Seed Newsvine

Posted by AmyWebb at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is why the current ballyhoo about media reform doesn't concern me all that much. While traditional journalists and indy media activists are consumed with Clear Channel buying up radio signals or News Corp snagging Newsday or Tribune Company breaking up into little pieces, the smart folks at Yahoo are doing the kind of innovative journalism that's online users have come to expect. Click on the picture below to see how the info graphic works...but you gotta read what's below it first.

Newspaper editors, now hear this! By all means, have the stuffy academic discussion about media consolidation and ownership. But you'd best look over your shoulder to Google and Yahoo, who are in the process of forming partnerships with the companies your reporters are covering for your business and tech sections. You may not understand the significance of Yahoo Pipes or even how the damn thing works. You may not have a clue about how Google uses Ajax to enable users to stick with its suggested sites. That's okay, as long as you know that big things are happening at digital media companies...the kinds of things that might make our current media reform discussion irrelevant in the next few years.

Do me... hell, do yourselves a favor, and type in "Google buys," just like that, into Google. See the company names Applied Semantics, Keyhole, PageRank, dMarc Broadcasting, Measure Map, JotSpot and so many others?

Believe me, YouTube ain't the biggest news story here.

You're about to miss the last train from Clarksville, newspaper editors and publishers. But don't say you never saw it coming.

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by AmyWebb at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In June, I embarked upon a Great Experiment: I went on a strict digital diet, spending 30 days without any form of traditional media. I wanted to know which was more important _ the medium (television, newspaper, magazine, radio) or the information itself. I kept a daily journal of my successes, irritations and failures. The story ran in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, April 20th.

The Rules:

• No reading magazines, newspapers, etc.
• No listening to the radio or watching television. Listening to a broadcast online is OK, as is downloading previously aired television shows.
• No looking at newspaper stands or boxes.
• Also, no looking at flyers or copies of print stories.
• No books, unless they can be read or listened to online.

My story is featred in this Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer. Below, I've listed some of the tools that I used, websites that I visited and a handful of pictures... NOTE: Please read my disclaimer about my use of Apple products.

The Equipment:

• Fifteen-inch PowerBook G4 (Mac).
• G5 with 20-inch cinema display (Mac).
• BlackBerry 7105t.
• iPod Photo (30 gigabytes of memory).
• Canary Wi-Fi Digital Hotspotter (to find open wireless networks).
• DSL connection at home.
• T-1 connection at the office.

I read most of my news using an RSS aggregator called Bloglines. It delivers headlines and summaries throughout the day from the 27 feeds I subscribe to. I'm also able to access all of my feeds on my BlackBerry, which means that I'm able to stay on top of the news 24 hours a day... or as long as my batteries are powered. Here's what my "digital newspaper" looks like:

Even before the experiment, I typically work on multiple projects at once so I toggle between Bloglines, various websites and Word documents I'm using for work:

Because I was relying primarily on digital sources for information, I was always on the watch for useful sites. Here are some that I continue to use today...

Web 2.0 Search Engines:

Search blogs: http://www.blogdigger.com
Search for specific feeds: http://www.feedster.com
Crawl through discussion forums for information without actually visiting each one: http://www.omgili.com
Search Google and Yahoo at the same time: http://www.gahooyoogle.com

Fantastic News Sites:

BBC
washingtonpost.com

How I Watched TV...

First, a word of caution: There are laws against distributing copyrighted material. I'm not advocating that you start burning copies of your favorite television shows to share them with all of your friends on the Internet.

That said, there are plenty of ways to download or stream broadcast content -- some legal, some questionable.

Legal TV: I downloaded copies of The Office from the iTunes store.

Questionable TV: YouTube is an easy site to search for video files. Sites offering downloadable torrents are also good resources for video files. I've used BitTorrent as my client.

A note to Mac users: I would suggest downloading a copy of VLC, a cross-platform media player that will allow you to view files intended for PC-only applications.

 

 

 

Posted by AmyWebb at 09:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)