Media Moguls Want Money the Old Way. We Pay Them
July 26, 2009
I found the Bloomberg story “Diller Calls Free Web Content a ‘Myth, Joins Refrain” useful for my snippet file. I am doing a talk for the Magazine Publishers Association, and I want some current quotes to make clear the hopes and beliefs of media moguls. Mr. Diller knows how to make money. His judgment is not quite so good when it comes to Web search. He is the proud owner of Ask.com, the search engine of NASCAR. This is a sport that is struggling just like most Web search companies. At least eHarmony.com did not make the match up.
The Bloomberg story runs down some examples of media executives’ plans for getting those who connect to the Internet to pay for content. You can work through the examples yourself and decide which approach is right for you.
My thought after reading the story was that the information on my Web site and in this marketing blog is free. I run some Google ads, but the revenue doesn’t pay for Tess’s heartworm medicine. I don’t charge for the information available from ArnoldIT.com. I even have a couple of monographs available for free if you click around and do some hunting.
So categorical assertions aside, this Web log costs a reader nothing. I don’t market the Web log. I don’t care if people are annoyed at the comments the addled goose makes.
I think the point is that as long as there are individuals who have time and some ideas to share, there will be free content on the Internet. In fact, for a person wanting to keep track of the topics covered in Beyond Search, some of the for fee information comes in a distant second to what I provide.
The difference, of course, is that I have a reasonably zippy business model compared to traditional information companies. I don’t have to huff and puff. I don’t have to deny that the older models are not as flexible as they once were. I don’t have shareholders to reassure.
For that reason, there will be information available to anyone with an information connection as long as this addled goose can paddle and a handful of fellow geese flock to the information opportunities of the Internet. Quack.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
AP News Registry
July 25, 2009
Important initiative from the Associated Press. A news registry. You must read the official announcement with the killer title “Associated Press to Build News Registry to Protect Content”. Because I am fearful of legal reprisals against me, I won’t quote from this “news release.” I do have some questions:
- What’s news?
- When news in in a public news release, what is protected?
- What happens if some addled goose cites an AP story and includes a sentence or two in a blog post?
Will this initiative protect content? I only know that if I was cautious about AP before reading this announcement, the addled goose wants to steer clear of underpaid stringers, constantly changing stories sent down the wire, and the general made AP’s intellectual property because a publi9c announcement from a state government office in Illinois finds its way into the AP state feed. Honk if you are afraid of change.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Wake Up Call for Smaller Scale Digital Initiatives
July 24, 2009
Thank goodness I am not trying to get a small scale archiving or abstracting project off the ground. The story “Japanese E-library Project Could Lose Out to Google Book Search without Government Flex” in the Mainichi Daily News caused a number of thoughts to flap through the addled goose’s brain. The story asserted:
It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books’ content in Japan, including the e-library project.
I took a look at the Japanese original and could not make sense of Google’s transformation. Despite the prose in the Mainichi version, I concluded that Google operates at a government or nation state level. A library scale project is a non starter unless a motivated government jumps in to pay the cost of dig9itzation, transformation, and indexing. The commercial database publishers will the next group of entities to find themselves in Google’s pressure cooker. Commercial database publishers have been forced to innovate in pricing, packaging, and placement. Once these dinosaurs run out of wiggle room, the Google pressure cooker will infuse some excitement into these low profile operations.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Network World Discovers Vanity Publishing
July 24, 2009
If you don’t know about self-publishing, you will want to read Mark Gibbs’s rundown of online vanity press outfits. The story was called “Net Makes Getting Publisher Easier”. Sorry, I don’t like to put apostrophes as the first word of a headline. Indexing by Web spiders is important and the apostrophe is not content rich. The addled goose’s view is that vanity publishing has been around a long time. The key point not addressed in this write up is marketing. Getting a book written and published is 90 percent of the battle. The deal breaker is marketing. In fact, book and monograph marketing is sufficiently difficult for established firms with legions of underpaid, recent Ivy League graduates. What happens when an online giant (no names, of course) gets into the publishing business AND has its own smart advertising system? Answer: game changes. For me the question is now when an online giant will make that move. I think there is quite a bit of network news and information in this topic, but a run down of a handful of vanity publishers is not the important angle.
Stephen Arnold, July 23, 2009
Elsevier and Its Article of the Future
July 23, 2009
I write a column for Information World Review for money. As an addled goose blogger, I want to call your attention to an item that appeared with the headline “Elsevier Releases Article of the Future Prototypes.” For me, the most interesting comment in the story was:
IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, vice president of content innovation for Elsevier science & technology journal publishing said: “These tools will enhance the presentation of scientific results and improve the interpretation and speed of results analysis. They are central to driving innovation in scientific publishing and represent our investment in the future of research, enabling scientists all over the world to access, interpret, and create better science more efficiently.”
I will not put up pointers to my Web log posts about sponsored articles or other material that may not be exactly what readers expect from certain sci-tech publishers. I hope that the Article of the Future does not drag along some methods from the not-to-distant past. I hope legitimate publishers regardless of type find ways to generate revenue without hip hopping over content accuracy. Alas, unlike the addled goose, some publishers are human.
Stephen Arnold, July 23, 2009
The Future of Newspapers
July 22, 2009
Location: Belfast. When: July 14, 2009. Look at the photograph I snapped from a large vehicle below. The advert explains that a small Belfast Chronicle is better than a big, thick, ad-stuffed Belfast Chronicle. Now look at the missing letters on the newspaper’s building. Not too prosperous.
Grim in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, July 22, 2009
Wall Street Journal Suggests Internet Is Dead
July 19, 2009
The addled goose is not certain if the story “The Internet Is Dead (As An Investment)” will be online without a charge when you click the link. Newspapers fascinate me. Some of their information is free; some transient; and some available for hard cash.
What I find useful to follow are stories that make it clear that certain business sectors are “dead”. In Heathrow on Friday, June 17, 2009, I received a free Daily Telegraph when I bought a nut and granola bar. I did not want a newspaper because my Boingo connection was alive. Even though the Daily Telegraph was a svelte bundle of paper, the news was old. Free “yesterday” was not compelling. The argument in James Altucher’s wealth column is that utilities like electricity and the Internet are linked in this way:
Electricity greatly improved our quality of life. But I’m not going to get excited about buying a basket of utility companies. Same for the Internet. Can’t live without it, but can’t live with it (in my portfolio).
I recall reading a business monograph The Mind Of The Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business by Kenichi Ohmae. Now more than a decade old, I recall the case analysis of the bulk chemical business. I wonder if that discussion of an uninteresting, commodity business holds some truths for Mr. Altucher and newspapers thinking along the same lines as the Wall Street Journal. The Daily Telegraph may benefit as well. There were many discarded Telegraphs in the lounge at Heathrow. Online economics requires a recalibration of some business yardsticks. Is Internet investment dead like the company who hit the jackpot with bulk chemicals? Glittering generalities are useful but may reveal more about the thinking of a newspaper’s editorial team beliefs, not the opportunities utilities and commodities represent.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2009
Google Books: More than Scanning
July 19, 2009
I think Cnet is owned by a larger media entity. Large media entities have their own DNA. When I see a story about Google Books, I step back and remind myself that the selection of a story is an objective matter, usually left to the writer and maybe the person who does a final review.
I found “Google’s Digital Book Future Hangs in the Balance” quite interesting. The writer, Steve Shankland, said:
Nobody in recent years has accused Google of lacking ambition, but its Google Book Search project is certainly among the company’s top projects when it comes to chutzpah. That’s not just because of the technical and financial hurdles of scanning, indexing, and displaying online millions of books, it’s also because of the tangled intellectual property and legal concerns involved in the controversial project.
I agree. The project is ambitious and interesting. Mr. Shankland continued:
What’s not to like for authors? Google Book Search gives them a way to sell books that are out of print, which today for them make money only for used booksellers. And through other provisions, students and other researchers would get access to vast online libraries at institutions that pay for subscriptions, and the public would get a Google-funded computer with free access to the same in every U.S. library.
He concluded:
Indeed, who else but Google has the capability to transport centuries of accumulated text into the digital future? Microsoft dropped its book-scanning project, and Amazon appears more interested in commercial transactions. The Internet Archive has hundreds of thousands of books available, but it doesn’t operate on Google’s scale, and the nonprofit group hasn’t pushed hard enough to try to break the copyright logjam the way Google has. Then, too, think of the consequences of Google controlling the content of the world’s books. Do you want the act of browsing the library to leave fingerprints in a server log, to become a transaction whose details can be revealed through a subpoena? Google has the best search engine, the most complete online maps, the most popular video site, and it wants to house your e-mail, spreadsheets, blogs, photos, and health data. Do you want Google to keep the keys to the world’s library as well?
Several observations about this long article which included a technical diagram of one of Google’s scanning innovations:
- After reading the article, I wonder if the same issues will surface when Google moves into other media types, or is a library type of publication a special case?
- If concerns are sufficiently high, will a fund raising initiative or a government action make it possible to put another organization in the role of Google; for example, the Library of Congress? The LoC may be one candidate, but other countries’ might have candidates as well that will move beyond highly specialized materials.
- With the Book project now about six years old, will Google find supporters in the library and research community? If the project is killed or delayed, will an oligopoly emerge to do the work and sell the digitized access? Dialog Information Services and Lexis Nexis were in the pole position in the 1980s and might want to get that spot back again. Of course, the financial issues are different now than they were in the 1980s.
- Will funding authorities increase the flow of cash to libraries so consortia could tackle the job and make the information in hard copy available to a wider constituency? Libraries are changing and some might be ideal candidates to tackle this type of scanning project.
I used to work for the “old” University Microfilms. I left the company before the implosion in the late 1980s but I learned that scanning is expensive, complex, and fraught with technical challenges. UMI made its Dissertation business work because student bought copies of their work for either work or personal use. The sale of Dissertation Abstracts indexes were long a staple of the research library community, but to make money with the business required a very sharp pencil.
Google finds itself in an interesting spot, and I was hoping that this article would have addressed the issue of Google’s doing what I thought the Library of Congress might have undertaken. Alternatively, I was looking for a mini case about how the scanning efforts of commercial outfits like UMI might shed light on the economics of the scanning business.
Quite a lot of information exists about scanning. Hopefully Cnet or one of the other serious Web information services will dig into the subject. As long as Google Books remains an issue for lawyers, I don’t think a full picture of the options, issues, and challenges will become available.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2009
Software Robots Determine Content Quality
July 15, 2009
ZDNet ran an interesting article by Tom Steinert-Threlkeld about software taking over human editorial judgment. “Quality Scores for Web Content: How Numbers Will Create a Beautiful Cycle of Greatness for Us All” is worth tucking into one’s folder for future reference.
Some background. Mr. Steinert-Threlkeld notes that the hook for his story is a fellow named Patrick Keane, who worked at the Google for several years. What’s not included in Mr. Steinert-Threlkeld’s write up is that Google has been working on “quality scores” for many years. You can get references to specific patent and technical documents in my Google monographs. I just wanted to point out that the notion of letting software methods do the work that arbiters of taste have been doing is not a new idea.
The core of the ZDNet story was:
Keane is at work on figuring out what will constitute a Quality Score, for every article, podcast, Webcast or other piece of output generated by an Associated Content contributor. If his 21st Century content production and distribution network can figure out how to put a useful rank on what it puts out on the Web then it can raise it up, notch by notch. This scoring comes right back to the Page Rank process that is at the heart of Google’s success as a search engine. “The great thing about Page Rank in Google ‘ s algorithm is … seeing the Web as a big popularity contest,’’ said Keane, in Associated Content’s offices on Ninth Avenue in Manhattan.
Mr. Steinert-Threlkeld does a good job of explaining how the method at Mr. Keane’s company (Associated Content) will approach the scoring issue.
My thoughts, before I forget them, are:
- Digging into what Google has disclosed about its scoring systems and methods is probably a useful exercise for those covering Google and the businesses in which former Googlers find themselves. The key point is that the Google is leaning more heavily on smart software and less on humans. The implication of this decision is that as content flows go up, Google’s costs will rise less quickly than those of outfits such as Associated Content. Costs are the name of the game in my opinion.
- Former Googlers are going to find themselves playing in interesting jungle gyms. The insights about information will create what I cool “Cuil situations”; that is, how far from the Googzilla nest with a Xoogler stray? My hunch is that Associated Content may find itself surfing on Google because Associated Content will not have the plumbing that the Google possesses.
- Dependent services, by definition, will be subordinate to the core provider. Xooglers may be capping the uplift of their new employers who will find themselves looking at short term benefits, not the long term implications of certain methods.
I think Associated Content will be an interesting company to watch.
Stephen Arnold, July 15
UK Book Industry Under Pressure
July 14, 2009
The Independent on July 13, 2009, ran “Two Weeks to Save Britain’s Book Tread.” You can locate a version of the story by poking around on the newspaper’s Web site. The article explains that book stores are closing and publishers are in a world of hurt. Not too surprising in the wake of similar woes in the American publishing sector.
Two aspects of this write up surprised me. First, there were some telling quotes. Let me highlight two:
The first is attributed to Jonny Geller, an executive at the Curtis Brown literary agency. The remark pertains to the advances that publishers pay to authors who can sell books that are likely to be blockbusters:
Publishing has become quite reactive., It is sales led. We need publishers to starting taking risks again.
I found this interesting because the Independent ran a special section of the July 13 newspaper made up of old news. Yep, recycled information. I found that revealing.
The second was this statement in a side bar written by Arifa Akbar. She wrote:
The agreement’s collapse did not just pave the way for supermarkets and chain stores to dominate the trade with deeply discounted prices, but it was at this point that books lost their immunity from the changing winds of market forces.
The “agreement” refers to the Net Book Agreement which provided guidelines for how the book industry would be run in order to prevent market forces from operating.
There is a keen insight in her “Comment”; specifically, book publishing works when the market forces are blocked. Remove the force field and the book industry faces a tough financial storm.
Will the British book trade survive? In my opinion, books the “old fashioned way” face a bleak autumn. I noticed a promotion for Dan Brown’s latest blockbuster. Place a prepublication order and save some money. Will one novel power the book trade’s trireme? Possibly, but I think the book industry’s vessel will be safer in a protected harbor tied to a dock. The old ship may have difficulty in the open sea.
Stephen Arnold, July 14, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
