content-management
Web analytics: newspaper savior?
Sep 7th
The Times explains:
Editors at The Journal, like those at other large newspapers, follow the Web traffic metrics closely. The paper’s top editors begin their morning news meetings with a rundown of data points, including the most popular search terms on WSJ.com, which articles are generating the most traffic and what posts are generating buzz on Twitter.
It’s a common sense approach, but as we’ve seen in the newspaper industry over the past decade, common sense isn’t always so common.
Obviously, analytics alone won’t save newspapers fighting for dear life, or some semblance of life as they know it. In many cases, newspapers are struggling because their cost structures are incompatible with reality. In other words, their business models are broken.
But web analytics can be a valuable tool as newspapers look to compete in the 21st century. After all, most struggling newspapers won’t be able to build a better business model until they look more closely at their product. What’s working? What isn’t? What do people want? What don’t they want? What patterns can be discerned from comparing popular articles and not-so-popular articles?
In many cases, analytics can answer some of these questions. And analytics can serve as the basis for a business driven more by objective data than subjective editorial whims.
Of course, some purists will argue that analytics-driven decision making will unduly influence editorial. If editors are looking for ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’, for instance, will they compromise their standards, ignoring stories that need to be told in favor of developing stories that consumers would rather read? These concerns are valid, but perhaps overblown. As The Times notes, “Rather than corrupt news judgment by causing editors to pander to the most base reader interests, the availability of this technology so far seems to be leading to more surgical decisions about how to cover a topic so it becomes more appealing to an online audience.“
In other words, analytics data is helping editors determine how, where and for how long content should be displayed. The Times cites Raju Narisetti of the Washington Post, who explained how The Post uses analytics data to determine the best way to cover a particular story. “Can we do podcasts? Can we do a photo gallery? Can we do any kind of user-generated content?” he asked rhetorically.
If we accept that newspapers can use analytics to their benefit without letting it corrupt the most sacred of editorial decisions, I would ask a question: why can’t newspapers use multivariate testing in the same fashion? Why not, for instance, test two different versions of the same story, or present the same story using several different content approaches? Certainly this would pose some challenges, and risks, but I’d venture a guess that newspapers would also learn some very valuable lessons just as important as those they’ll learn by making use of web analytics.
Is ‘mafia sourcing’ really a bad thing?
Sep 3rd
Mark Suster, an entrepreneur-turned-venture capitalist, the other day shared how a friend let him in on this not-so-little secret:
On Digg it really matters who submits your story. There is a small group of people that all work collectively to promote stories. We all know each other by online handles. We are all linked in IM (instant messenger). When we want a story promoted we ping each other and all of the power users will promote the story. When it starts breaking then the power of the crowds takes over. If you want a story to break on Digg just let me know. I’ll help promote it.
Suster also learned that this isn’t always a not-for-profit activity either. “I learned that some of these people I knew are paid to help promote stories,” he wrote. “They have consultancies that guarantee you traffic and get paid to operate in
these mafia rings.” Suster calls this ‘mafia sourcing‘, and for many who learn of it, it becomes a scourge that needs to be addressed. Hence support for the changes that companies like Digg have made to their user-generated content-driven services.
But is mafia sourcing really a problem?
In my opinion, the answer is no. The reason: individuals and businesses pay for promotion in every medium. PR firms help companies obtain earned media on television, in print, and on the radio. SEO firms help businesses grow their exposure in the SERPs. And so on and so forth. Which begs the question: why would anyone expect social media to be different?
The truth of the matter is that anywhere there’s an abundance of attention floating around waiting to be focused, somebody will be doing the extra mile to obtain it. The exposure driven through social channels is often very valuable, and it’s only getting more so. Thus we’ll continue to see social media mafia sourcing.
But online, there has to be some substance. Mafia sourcing can only do so much. A blog post is unlikely to hit the front page of Digg, for instance, if it’s devoid of any value. Which is why, in fact, mafia sourcing may be a good thing. If a company pays a lot of people to promote a message that has no resonance whatsoever, chances are it will still fail to spread. Particularly in the realm of social media. Yet in other channels that have an entrenched culture of pay-to-play, a message with no resonance may still be distributed far and wide.
From this perspective, one might even go so far as to encourage mafia sourcing. The companies that think they can buy distribution for a lacking message will probably lose money, and in the process, they might just learn to create something more compelling the next time around. And when that happens, everyone wins.
TV rentals: will Amazon’s pricing trump Apple’s brand?
Sep 2nd
Amazon, of course, also competes with Amazon in the digital music space. And it has actively been looking to get a big piece of the action as the digital content wars extend into the realm of the big and small screens. The Amazon On Demand offering already gives consumers the ability to watch movies and television shows through a computer or one of the devices, such as the Roku player, that come bundled with the Amazon on Demand software.
Apple TV is a potential threat to Amazon on Demand, and many of the devices that come with Amazon on Demand. But right around the time Apple was announcing 99 cent rentals of Fox and ABC television shows, Amazon was unleashing a surprise of its own: 99 cent purchases of shows from ABC, Fox and the BBC. While it appears that Amazon may have cut into its own margins to bring pricing down to this 99 cent level, Amazon is clearly hoping consumers will ask a simple question: why rent when, for the same price, I can own?
If it can get enough of them to ask that question, it may find that it has more success competing against Apple in this market than it arguably has had in competing with Apple in the digital music space. One thing Amazon has going for it: Apple doesn’t have a huge head start. When Amazon launched MP3 sales, for instance, Apple, thanks to the potent combination of iPod and iTunes, was already the 800 pound gorilla of digital music.
Additionally, Amazon may benefit from the fact that consumers already have quite a bit of choice. Companies like Roku and Boxee may not have anywhere near the brand recognition Apple does, but that doesn’t mean their products aren’t compelling, especially when compared to Apple TV. Bottom line: Apple TV doesn’t appear to be revolutionary. That’s one reason Apple will arguably find greater competition for Apple TV than with any other device and content offering it has launched previously.
That, of course, doesn’t mean that Apple won’t succeed. After all, Apple’s brand is everything and Apple TV may not need to be revolutionary. But Amazon is already fighting back, and I’m sure others will too. This means Apple just might face a level of competition it’s not used to. And that is probably going to be a good thing for everyone, Apple included.
Is Tumblr important, or just a distraction?
Sep 1st
Why has Tumblr become of interest to large publishers? It certainly isn’t the revenue; there’s little to none of that. And it isn’t exactly Tumblr’s mainstream popularity. While Tumblr’s popularity is growing rapidly, it’s not exactly what one would probably refer to as a ‘mainstream‘ service, at least not yet.
So what is it? Tumblr is, as Megan Garber of the Nieman Journalism Lab, puts it, “whimsy.” Which is probably one of the reasons why The Atlantic’s deputy online editor, J.J. Gould, says that Tumblr “looks like a lot of fun.” With that in mind, Gould indicates that The Atlantic will avoid trying to think too strategically when it comes to its new Tumblr presence, at least initially. It’s going to try to be savvy, but not “over-thought.“
Pragmatically-speaking, that might not be such a bad move. While strategy is important, strategy often carries with it something else: expectation. Brands experimenting with new platforms should always be thoughtful, but too many expectations can also be harmful.
New platforms often function in ways that are foreign to brands, and expectations can easily create limitations. Keeping an open mind and seeing what happens gives brands the ability to learn and spot new opportunities.
Perhaps publishers will discover that a platform like Tumblr can make a meaningful contribution to the brand and business, even if it doesn’t make a huge contribution to the bottom line. Perhaps the mere act of experimenting with Tumblr will offer some
benefit. After all, many publishers are in a precarious situation andwill have to experiment if they want to survive. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that publishers should invest in presence on every emerging platform.
As my colleague Matt Owen has pointed out, time management is important. Publishers can’t be everywhere, and once a presence has been established on a new platform, it can be difficult to close down shop, particularly when the platform is driving exposure but not revenue. If Newsweek’s Tumblr experience is any indication, publishers may want to consider that.
Innovation in content strategy
Sep 1st
“In 2011, content strategy will cause a bigger buzz than social media.” So said the opening speaker at this year’s Content Strategy Forum in Paris.
Developing effective content is nothing new, but the last twelve months have seen the emergence of content strategy as a more well defined discipline with well developed processes to make it an essential part of the digital marketer’s toolkit. Increasingly, well-targetted, cost effective, on brand and usable content is fast becoming the differentiator for organisations, with plenty of opportunities for those who do it best to capitalise, both personally and as business.
So is “Where’s our content strategy?” simply next year’s “Don’t we need a Facebook page?”
Or does it perhaps represent something far more exciting – the coming
of age of digital content?
What the evening will cover:
- What is content strategy? Haven’t we all been doing it for years? So why the fuss now – and what’s new about it?
-
How do you create a content strategy? What activities do
you need to undertake in order to do this? And what skills are required?
Could you be your company’s content strategist?
- Auditing the content you have. What’s best practice in qualitative content audits?
- Editorial strategy. What we can learn from print publishing, and use to our advantage online.
Catherine’s
presentation will finish by 7:45pm, leaving plenty of time for
networking to take advantage of the wine and canapes. Seats are limited so make sure you
book early to reserve your place.
This event is kindly sponsored by Lynchpin Analytics, the UK’s leading online data specialist.
Is Digg digging itself into a hole with its new design?
Aug 26th
With Version Four, Digg hopes to start the process of regaining some of its lost luster. It officially launched yesterday, and as founder and CEO Kevin Rose notes, it’s a “major revision of our platform – front end to back end.” Digg’s focus, of course, hasn’t changed, but Version 4 looks to bring the site up to speed with the evolution of social media.
Personalization and social networking are at the heart of the new Digg. This new version of the site encourages users to follow friends and other interesting people in an almost Twitter-like fashion.
The stories shared by these individuals are then used to populate a customized Digg homepage, one that ostensibly will be more relevant. Additionally, social connections are highlighted throughout the site. As Rose explains, “You’ll notice activity from the profiles you’re following highlighted in
stories, on comment pages, and even on their profile page as you navigate the
site.“
On the surface, most of this new functionality seems like a no brainer, and in fact, one might even argue that it’s long overdue. But at the same time, some say Digg is now trying a little bit too hard to be like Facebook and Twitter. As GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram notes:
While [the changes] may make the new site more familiar, it also runs the risk of
duplicating content users are already seeing elsewhere. Most of the links that
appear in the “My News” view when I login, for example, are links I’ve already
seen in my Twitter stream, since I follow the same people and accounts there.
From this perspective, it would appear that Digg has a Catch-22 on its hands. If it doesn’t become more ‘social‘, it runs the risk of becoming less and less relevant as more and more content is shared through sites with more social connectivity (read: Facebook and Twitter). On the other hand, if by becoming more social, Digg doesn’t offer anything those sites don’t, it will also continue to lose relevance.
Clearly, there are no easy fixes, and whether this revamp reignites Digg’s internal fire or flames out will largely depend on the site’s loyal but vocal and often hard-to-please hardcore users.
If they come to love the new Digg, it just might mean that there’s hope yet for the company. But if it loses them, it will have a really big hole to ‘digg‘ itself out of.
Photo credit: denharsh via Flickr.
Will the RIAA seek a DMCA replacement?
Aug 25th
Those are the words of RIAA president Cary Sherman, who believes that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is letting content creators down. The DMCA, of course, is the copyright law enacted in the United States in 1998 which has, in part, given online service providers, like YouTube, safe harbors from copyright infringement claims provided that they aren’t directly involved in the infringement and respond expeditiously to takedown notices from copyright holders.
The DMCA’s safe harbors, however, are nothing more than loopholes according to Sherman:
The DMCA isn’t working for content people at all. You cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It’s simply not
possible. We don’t have the ability to search all the places infringing content
appears, such as cyberlockers like RapidShare.
To be fair to Sherman and the RIAA, one can be fairly certain that Congress never anticipated the rapid growth and evolution of the internet when it wrote the DMCA. And that means they could have never contemplated the rise of services ranging from Napster to Limewire to YouTube. Recognizing this, it is quite possible that had Congress been equipped with a crystal ball, the DMCA would have been structured a lot differently. Perhaps the world would be much tougher for services like YouTube, which was vindicated this year in its copyright infringement battle against Viacom on the grounds that it is protected by the DMCA.
But even if we give recording industry heads the benefit of the doubt, the general problem with the RIAA’s position is that it’s untenable. If the RIAA can’t monitor every single online hub in which infringing content appears, neither can service providers. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to detect every infringement online, let alone prevent it from happening.
If service providers are forced to police the internet on behalf of record labels, movie studios and other copyright holders, you can be sure that the costs — both monetary and otherwise — will eventually be passed on to consumers. That’s not a good thing, and an overly expensive, overly policed internet won’t benefit the recording industry because for all of the challenges it presents, it’s still the industry’s future. Consumers are simply not going back to buying CDs like they used to.
But don’t tell that to the RIAA. It is trying to convince ISPs as well as “search engines, payment processors, [and] advertisers” to voluntarily become the industry’s eyes and ears. If that doesn’t work? Sherman has a stick; he claims he doesn’t want Congress to be involved, but “if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation,
fine.” Translation: if we can’t get what we want, we’ll lobby for a replacement to the DMCA.
Unfortunately for the RIAA, it’s questionable as to what effect that would have at this stage of the game. The internet is global, and it’s really, really big. In other words, the cat is already out of the bag. The future for the recording industry may be bumpy, but there is no doubt that its future depends on innovation, not procrastination. If Sherman’s comments are any indication, the industry is still focused on the latter.
Photo credit: hiimniko via Flickr.
What happens to OpenOffice.org under Oracle?
Aug 25th
One of the reasons that antitrust regulators scrutinized the deal was concern over the impact that acquisition would have on MySQL, the popular open source RDBMS developed by MySQL AB, a company owned by Sun. Oracle, of course, is known for its expensive enterprise RDBMS offerings and some speculated that it would have no incentive to treat MySQL lovingly.
While Oracle hasn’t (yet?) attempted to kill off MySQL, Larry Ellison’s software giant has been going after open source recently, and some believe that OpenOffice.org could be on the chopping block. Oracle has reportedly decided to axe its support for OpenSolaris, and as Katherine Noyes of PC World points out, OpenOffice.org has far less protection than MySQL and even OpenSolaris.
But can OpenOffice.org survive if Oracle cuts support off? It has several things going for it. Specifically, it’s pretty popular, and apparently 450,000 individuals have already contributed to its development. So there’s hope that OpenOffice.org would be able to survive and thrive without Oracle’s backing. Nonetheless, it’s difficult to predict what OpenOffice.org’s future might look like without the kind of strong corporate backer that helped make it what it is today.
From this perspective, the specter that a prominent open source project like OpenOffice.org could face rough seas ahead as a result of an acquisition highlights a risk that is often overlooked when dealing with open source products: even though the products are open source and can technically survive without the perpetual support of a corporate benefactor, the loss of the corporate benefactor’s support has the potential to strike a blow to both the project and users.
In effect, this is a hidden cost of using open source, and while this certainly doesn’t mean that open source isn’t attractive — in many cases it’s still very attractive — it’s something that should be considered when picking a product.
Photo credit: pegwinn via Flickr.