Google Offers a Digital Olive Branch July 1
July 1, 2009
In my Google: The Digital Gutenberg, I describe an invention disclosed in a Google patent document for a “partner” to use Google like an integrated motion picture studio. The invention, in effect, allows a partner to create content, post it, control access to the content, run an ad campaign using Google tools, and essential operate like those fun loving moguls Sammy (I am a lamb) Goldwyn and Louis (I am a cupcake) Mayer. Google, according to Reuters, is promoting this “run your own business” service to newspapers. You can read Joseph Tartakoff’s “Google Wants Newspaper to Post Their Videos to YouTube” to get the Thomson Reuters’ slant on this story. For me, the most intriguing comment was:
That [the new offer from Google] contrasts with Google News, where publishers do not get a cut of any of the revenue from the ads that are placed around their headlines. Still, it’s unlikely that many publishers will want to abandon other video platforms, like Brightcove, which also allow them to sell their own ads against their video content—and to link up with several ad networks. Google had already begun to slowly integrate YouTube news videos with Google News last month, when it added videos for the first time to Google News, and the new push should further that. For Google, it’s also a free way to add more professional content to YouTube, and thus attract more premium advertisers.
Will newspapers grab the digital olive branch? Good question. I think that some publishers may do the math and conclude that Google has tipped the odds in favor of the house. I think that’s a wrong way to look at the Google offer, but that’s why I am a fat, addled goose, paddling in the pond with mine drainage run off. I don’t sit in an office tower with air conditioning cooling my pin feathers.
Stephen Arnold, July 1, 2009
XyEnterprise Goes for $15 Million
July 1, 2009
Publishing companies relied on specialized, expensive, and very exotic systems to make magazines, books, technical manuals, and other serious types of documents. Then along came Word—unstable, unable to number, and miserable at layout. Then along came long document software for the desktop computer. Within the last five years, the number of low cost, free, subscription, host, and open source publishing systems have flooded into the Beyond Search computer lab in a damp hollow in Kentucky. The addled goose relies on the aging Framemaker program and when he has sufficiently low blood pressure the whizzy Adobe InDesign.
Life became tough for the specialized high end developers of bespoke publishing systems. These software systems cost six figures or more and could create a footnote that could occupy most a book page. Today’s software decides where to put the footnote and how long it may be, thank you. Most folks don’t get too bogged down in footnotes because the systems available in Word and InDesign can be quite challenging to manage.
Trading Markets reported that XyEnterprise is now part of a global integration company. The name of the company is now SDL XySoft. What’s interesting to me is that venerable company changed hands for $15 million. “SDL Acquires XyEnterprise for $14.7 Million” reported:
The acquisition is being funded from SDL’s existing cash resources. A global business, XyEnterprise has a turnover of $9.9 million.
I think that other content management companies will face a similar bargain basement sale price or simply fold up their tent and move to another business sector. Why? Check out free content management systems in Coding Cow. Alternatively, look at SquareSpace.com. The writing is on the wall in our office in Harrod’s Creek. You can follow SDL XySoft on Twitter, which will definitely generate some new sales here in Kentucky.
Stephen Arnold, July 1, 2009
Wall Street Journal Continues Spam Attacks on ArnoldIT.com
June 30, 2009
For the sixth day in a row, the hapless Wall Street Journals spams me to become a print subscriber. I wrote. I called. I now document these annoying and pointless injunctions to become a subscriber to the print edition. I am a subscriber, and I am now enjoying the demonstration of ineptitude from a newspaper that once had this addled goose’s respect. I nominate the WSJ for the spammer’s Hall of Fame.
Very tasteful colors. I wonder if the WSJ executives consider these “tie colors” for that professional look?
I hope to get a suitable award prepared before this outfit goes out of business. Wow, the nation’s financial newspaper operates like Sean Casey, fake bank officers in China, and the colon cleansing crowd. Must be something I am missing. I don’t think it is just desperation. Seems closer to the type of behavior Tess demonstrates when she can’t find her chew toy: frantic, non productive behavior. She’s a dog. I wonder how one should describe the WSJ behavior? I will do some thinking. This will make a wonderful anecdote for my talk at the Magazine Publishers Association in October 2009. Is Barron’s a magazine or a newspaper? No matter. I think the example will work either way?
Stephen Arnold, June 30, 2009
Struggling Ziff Davis Bids Farewell to Newspapers
June 29, 2009
One deep breathing publishing company has gone out for a long swim. Tom Forenski’s “Disruptive Technologies Disrupt – Goodbye Newspaper Companies” has a simple message for newspapers:
“What could the newspapers have done to survive this disruption?” Even if newspapers had done everything right: started blogging five years ago, offered free classified online advertising as Craigslist, etc. It would not have been enough to avoid the continued disruption of their business models. This is an important point. What’s happening to newspapers, and other media companies, is not a business cycle. It’s not their fault. When an industry faces a disruptive trend there is nothing that can be done — except a complete reinvention of your business. You can’t just tweak a few things here or there. Newspapers cannot survive in the online digital world because the economics of the new world can only support the disruptors — the companies in the forefront of disrupting the old business model.
Keep in mind that ZD has killed its print publication PC Magazine. eWeek is thin. You know the old adage, “You can never be too thin or too rich.” It doesn’t apply to publishing. A few days ago I received a message that Ziff Davis’s Extreme Tech Web site was shutting down. Whoops. I learned a day later. Extreme Tech will be repositioned.
Here’s what Yahoo Finance had to say:
Technophiles in search of reading material have a friend in Ziff Davis Holdings. Through its Ziff Davis Media unit, the firm is a magazine and online publisher targeting the technology and videogame markets. It publishes the print magazine EGM, which covers games and hardware platforms. On the Internet, Ziff Davis operates PCMag.com, along with popular game sites 1UP.com, GameVideos.com, and MyCheats.com. The company also offers consumer events and direct marketing services. Formed in 2000, Ziff David Media filed for Chapter 11 in 2008. It emerged from bankruptcy later that year. In 2008 the company ended the print publication of its 27-year-old flagship, PC Magazine, taking the title online only. [Emphasis added]
As a former laborer in the Ziff Communication cotton fields, I can tell you that the present line up publications does not look like big money to me. There are some weird podcast type of shows. There is the complexity of finding a story from the UK side of the ZD family. There are former Ziff stars who seem to be working for other folks and promoting their Web logs. There are quite a few signs that ZD has itself not been able to make an online business model work in a way that generates the type of cash that the Ziff of old relished.
When one publishing company wheezes that newspapers are losers, I hear the panting and wonder if oxygen starvation is an issue.
It is one thing for an addled goose in rural Kentucky to point out the problems with traditional publishing. It is quite another for a publisher that has tried to go digital to make the statement. When that company has emerged from bankruptcy, the write up by Tom Forenski becomes a message from some dimension to which I am blind.
Stephen Arnold, June 29, 2009
Wall Street Journal, Spam, and a Hint of Desperation
June 28, 2009
I have been running around for a week. I returned to dozens of spam emails from allegedly the Wall Street Journal. I clicked on the “don’t mail me these” link and learned that it takes the alleged Wall Street Journal 10 days to process an unsubscribe request. Odd, I thought software scripts executed more quickly. Well, maybe at more progressive outfits. Here’s the deal:
Now I must say that this graphic approach in the dozens of spam messages I have in my inbox is as catchy as anything from the Viagra vagrants, the PediPaws pushers, or the refinancing idiots.
I don’t like spam, and companies that mail me unsolicited baloney get laser sharp coverage in this Web log. Look at the howls from the Nstein crowd. Bad goose for objecting to multiple copies of meaningless to me email messages. I get lots of email, and I want to get only email directly germane to what I do to get antibiotic shots from the avian vet I frequent. Mine drainage is bad for a goose like me.
Quite professional is the alleged WSJ these days, and after the unsourced story about Steve Jobs’s liver transplant, I think the use of spam to get a person who is * already * a print subscriber to order another subscription is indicative of the desperation at the venerable newspaper.
I spoke yesterday to a former information technology professional about the alleged WSJ’s online service. I think the word he used was “clueless”. And – get this – I have a source too.
I set up a rule to put this enticing missives directly in the trash folder for autodeletion. Unless the WSJ finds a solution to its present troubles, I don’t think I will have to worry too much about this type of AOL-inspired marketing much longer. Nope, I can see the guys who have the Pitchmen TV show tackling subscriptions to the alleged WSJ. I wonder if the Slap Chop writer will be enlisted to explain why I would want to deal with an outfit who spams an existing customer. Oh, oh, I know why. The WSJ marketing manager and / or the alleged WSJ information technology people will say, “We’re sorry. We had no idea that we were sending these messages.” Yeah, I believe that. Perhaps I will dig into my files and recount the sequence of events surrounding the alleged WSJ’s online efforts, culminating with the Factiva fizzle, the direct mail spamming, and the abundance of alleged WSJ content that I can locate on various Web servers? On the other hand, why bother?
If you want this deal and email like I receive, click here. Careful. This outfit might not be the alleged WSJ. I wonder if the WSJ attorneys are checking into this nuisance. Probably not. It’s Saturday. Better things to do.
Stephen Arnold, June 28, 2009
Future of Journalism
June 26, 2009
Short honk: I read “Exploring Journalism’s Future. Civic Media Conference Helps Hatch New Ideas” within interest. MIT is a great place to talk about technology. But what struck me was this quote from the MIT News Office:
“How could anyone worry about the future of journalism after being with these people and seeing what they and so many others are doing?” Gillmor [director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University] said.
When I read this, I asked myself, “Why not ask those journalists who have lost their jobs in the last nine months and those journalists who must endure furloughs without pay, editors at New York publishing houses now looking for freelance work, and the new journalism grads seeking their first job?”
No need to ask an old, addled goose. Not even an online search can turn up jobs for these people who are collateral damage of mismanagement in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2009
Rhode Island and Rooster Pricing
June 24, 2009
When a lad in Illinois, I recall visiting one of my relative’s farm. I learned how to kill a chicken. Learned what tough bird meant. Rooster pricing one of the farming Arnolds told me was that a good bird would fetch a pretty penny. The problem was that once a farm had a rooster, two roosters would be a problem. So roosters had a chance of not being worth too much.
I thought about my early rooster pricing lesson when I read “Why A New (And Unusual) Pricing Strategy By A Rhode Island Paper Will Fail.” This quite interesting article explains that a newspaper reader in Rhode Island (lots of roosters at one time) would charge a premium to get the newspaper in electronic form. Paper only was cheapest. Paper and online slightly more expensive. The online newspaper costs about $350 per year.
PaidContent.org’s write up said the idea will fail.
My view is that it might work when someone really needs only that digital version of the Newport (R.I.) Daily News. I don’t agree. The problem is rooster pricing. I think a few people who want only the digital edition will pay. In my opinion, the number of buyers will be as rare as hen’s teeth. A couple of sales won’t pay the bills. In my opinion, bad idea that rooster pricing. This article inspired me to collect my nine mysteries of online essays in one PDF and make the set available without charge. I will announce the download link in this Web log. No strings attached. No registration silliness. Some of that information will offer alternative pricing ideas. Sorry, no rooster option included.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Twitter Tools
June 22, 2009
Now that outfits like the New York Times and CNN have concluded that Twitter is useful when reporting certain events, the Social Media Guide’s round up of Twitter tools may find some use in the newsroom. The round up “The Ultimate List of Twitter Tools” is long, grouped, and quite good. Highly recommended for dinosaurs and new forms of sentient information life. A reminder: there are other sources of real time info as well. Keep those options open, the addled goose honks.
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Why Social Information Becomes More Important to Investors
June 22, 2009
Few people in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, pay much attention to the publishing flow from financial services and its related service industry. Most of the puffery gets recycled on the local news program, boiled down to a terse statement about hog prices and the cost of a gallon of gasoline. The Wall Street Journal has become software in the last two years with about 20 percent of the Friday edition and 30 percent of the Saturday edition devoted to wine, automobiles, and lifestyles (now including sports). I am waiting for a regular feature about sports betting, which is one of the key financial interests in Kentucky.
Asking your pal at the local country club is not likely to get you a Bernie Madoff scale tip, but there are quite a few churners. Each is eager to take what money one has, recycle it, and scrape off sufficient commissions to buy a new Porsche. As the deer have been nuked by heavy traffic in the hollow, zippy sports cars are returning to favor. A Porsche drivers fears no big bodywork repair by smoking a squirrel.
I read with interest “Washington Moves to Muzzle Wall Street” by Mike Larson. I think Mr. Larson puts his photo on his Web site, and he looks like a serious person. Squirrels won’t run in front of his vehicle I surmise. He wrote:
he Obama administration revealed a sweeping series of new proposed regulations and reforms — all designed to prevent the next great financial catastrophe. The plan is multi-faceted and complex. Among other things, it aims to increase the Fed’s power, regulate the derivatives and securitization markets more effectively, protect consumers from the potential harm of complex financial products, and more. It’s been a long time in the making, with input from key policymakers, consumer groups, academics, and others.
After the set up, Mr. Larson reviews the components of the Administration’s plan. He observed:
I’m hopeful we’ll see meaningful action this year. More importantly, I’m hopeful that policymakers who are empowered to take new actions to police the markets and protect consumers actually exercise them. That’s the key to making any of this stuff work. It’s unclear exactly when these provisions will start to impact the disclosures you get when you take out a mortgage, or when you’ll be able to protest to the new consumer protection agency should you get shafted on a financial transaction.
His story trigger my thinking. One angle that crossed my mind was that the information generated about the US financial circus may get sucked into the gravitational pull of this initiative. The reason is that money is a form of information. Regulate the money, the information stream is affected.
One consequence is that the type of information generated by social networks, Web logs, Facebook posts, and other “off the radar” sources is likely to become more important. If I am right, the value of companies that can make “off the radar” available or better yet in a form that makes sense of many data points will go up.
My first thought is that if the Wall Street crowd gets muzzled to a greater degree, then the underside of reportage–bloggers like me–may become more important. Just my opinion, of course.
In the months ahead, I want to noodle this idea. My thoughts are exploratory, but I have decided that my preliminary musings will be made available as a PDF which you can download without paying for the information. Keep in mind that the editorial policy in the “About” section of this Web log will apply to free stuff that I am not forcing anyone to read.
Stephen Arnold, June 22, 2009
Another Knock against Amazon and Google
June 20, 2009
Cory Doctorow’s “Internet Crapshoot: How Internet Gatekeepers Stifle Progress” opens a new front in the copyright, objectivity, and intellectual property war. The article appeared in Internet Evolution. Mr. Doctorow has a high profile and will elicit significant discussion in the blogosphere. He said:
That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer’s market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold. And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, through malice or negligence, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself, carrying on its cultural discourse — a discourse that ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject.
The article contains five additional sections that lays out clearly Mr. Doctorow’s argument that Amazon and Google represent a challenge to innovation. I found the hooking of the market driven economy to a stifling of innovation refreshing. His conclusion comes right from Speech 101 with a call to action: “Stop working for gatekeepers.” The idea is that individuals can exercise considerable influence over the Amazons and Googles of our market driven world. He asserted:
For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they’re doomed to work for their gatekeepers, rather than the other way around.
Interesting. There are several thoughts flapping through my mind. I will mention one. The short term thinking is going to be tough to shake. There’s the old hierarchy of needs notion. Then there’s the stock market and the imperative to make a buck. And there’s a human’s less than stellar skill in dealing with uncertainty.
In short, gatekeepers have an advantage. Game’s not over, but time is not on the side of anyone except Amazon and Google. Both continue to expand and pretty soon the “space” will be exhausted. A new paradigm will emerge if our pal Hegel is correct. But can those short sighted folks “see” that and make here and now decisions that will exert sufficient influence before monopolies take hold. Maybe? Maybe not? Great for lawyers, though.
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
