Newspaper Circulation Woes
November 23, 2009
I find that I am spending less and less time with the Sunday newspapers. I subscribe to the Courier Journal (I used to work there) and the New York Times (I did some projects for this outfit years ago). I suppose that is the sentimental side of the addled goose. This morning I flipped through both papers and watched number one son and founder of Adhere Solutions read a couple of stories on the sports page. We talked about the “old news” in both papers. He went for a run, and I rode my bike. On the way out the door, we dumped the papers in the recycle bin. Another Sunday with newspapers becoming less and less useful to a couple of wired dudes, one old and one considerably younger.
I urge you to read this AP story by craft master Michael Liedtke, who certainly has a stake in the health of traditional publishing. His article “Newspaper Circulation May Be Worse than It Looks” is probably old news to newspaper mavens and sort of obvious to me. The addled goose is terrified of the AP, so I won’t quote from the scintillating write up. Without a quote to anchor my remarks, I know that my seventh grade teacher (may she rest in peace) would have hit me on the head with her ruler. But quoting is one quick way to get into a fair use squabble. The goose is too old, tired, and jaded to want to get tangled in that thorn bush.
The point of the write up is that after a romp through circulation data, the newspapers in the sample are not having banner years. There were lots of reasons, but none of them nailed the core problem in my opinion. The children of the newspaper industry executives and pundits are the reason. The demographic shift finds that mummy and daddy produce information in a way that is not what the Trents and Whitneys want.
Mr. Liedtke wrote a long article, stuffed with data, and explained everything except the obvious. The traditional media are like the Babylonian cuneiform crowd when sheepskin caught fire among the scribes. Times changes. Needs evolve. Kids ignore mummy and daddy.
Stephen Arnold, November 23, 2009
I want to report to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing that I was not paid to point out that children want information in a relevant medium. Oh, while I have the Bureau’s attention, the quality of the $5 bills seems to be deteriorating. The DC subway ticket machine could not read the three fives I had with me. I suppose these machines are like some of the kids who are reading averse.
Google and Its Desired Repositories
November 21, 2009
I find “desired repositories” quite enticing. I was going to call this write up “A Repository Named Desire” but I was fearful that some lawyer responsible for the Tennessee Williams’ play would object. Most of the Sergey-and-Larry-eat-pizza Google pundits follow the red herrings dragged by the Googlers toward the end of each week. Not me. I pretty much ignore the Google public statements because those have a surreal quality for me. The messages seem oddly disconnected from what Google’s deep thinkers are * actually doing *. When Google does a webinar, it is too late for the competitors to do much more than go to their health club and work off their frustrations.
That looks simple. From US20090287664. Notice that the types of repositories are extensible.
If you want to see some of the fine tuning underway with the Google plumbing, take a peek at 20090287664, Determination of a Desired Repository. This is a continuation of a 2005(!) invention in case you thought the method looked familiar. You can find the write up at your favorite US government Web site, the USPTO. (Don’t you just love that search interface. Someone told me that the search engine was from OpenText, and I am trying to verify that statement.)
Here’s what caught my attention:
A system receives a search query from a user and searches a group of repositories, based on the search query, to identify, for each of the repositories, a set of search results. The system also identifies one of the repositories based on a likelihood that the user desires information from the identified repository and presents the set of search results associated with the identified repository.
Seems obvious, right? Now think of this at Google scale. Different problem? It is in my book. What has the Google accomplished? Just one claim. Desired repositories at Google scale.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
Again, I want to report to the USPTO that I was not paid to write yet another cryptic comment about a Google plumbing invention.
Medical Disinformation: Is My Doc Getting Dis-Info?
November 21, 2009
I read an article, which if spot on, troubled me. The story appeared in TechDirt with the catchy title “Senate Exploring Med School Profs Putting Names On Ghostwritten Journal Articles In Favor Of Drugs.” I have some modest experience in the halls of Congress, and I have heard about the influence of big pharma. As a result, I am doubtful that much traction will come from the drag strip tires slapped on the information highway over this matter. Nevertheless, let me point you to the passage in the article that I found memorable:
…often the pharma companies would ghostwrite articles, and then get professors to basically put their names on the works, which were designed to emphasize the benefits of certain drugs, while hiding or de-emphasizing the risks.
My father is ill, and I am concerned about his care. The idea that some medications may not work as “advertised” bothers me. Heck, I take some medications. What about me? Maybe this marketing stuff has strayed outside the faded white lines on the information highway?
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
I think I will disclose to the US Senate Sergeant at Arms that I was not paid to write this article. Think it will help? Will some online vendors charge for possibly incorrect marketing collateral?
Google and Artificial Anchors
November 20, 2009
Folks are blinded by Chrome. What might be missed is what’s often overlooked—Google’s plumbing. Once you have tired of the shiny, bright chatter about Microsoft’s latest reason for its fear and loathing of Google, you may want to navigate to the USPTO and download 20090287698, “Artificial Anchor for a Document.” Google said:
Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products, for linking to an intra-document portion of a target document includes receiving an address for a target document identified by a search engine in response to a query, the target document including query-relevant text that identifies an intra-document portion of the target document, the intra-document portion including the query relevant text. An artificial anchor is generated, the artificial anchor corresponding to the intra-document portion. The artificial anchor is appended the address.
The system and method has a multiplicity of uses, and these are spelled out in Googley detail in the claims made for this patent application. In this free Web log, I won’t dive into the implications of artificial anchors. I will let you don your technical scuba gear and surf on the implications of artificial anchors. Chrome is the surface of the Google ocean. Artificial anchors are part of the Google ocean. Big, big difference.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
I want to disclose to the USPTO itself that no one paid me to be cryptic in this article.
For-Fee Content Dreams Meet Common Sense
November 19, 2009
I highly recommend “Paying for Online News.” The article looks at some data in the New York Times, does some reasoning about demographics, and reaches a conclusion that resonates with my experience. For me, the key point in the write up was:
Consumer[s], however are not willing to pay for news that is freely available all over the Internet. The consumers that are most willing to pay for their news are those that are already paying for newspaper. I suspect that this is an older and increasingly smaller audience. Even if consumer are willing to pay for their subscription, they are not willing to pay enough to make up for the lost of advertisement that newspapers have been dealing with. A pay wall might slow the decline but it will not stop it. The only way that newspapers can survive is to adapt to the new world, the old model is no longer viable and to try to save it is doom to fail.
There are some workarounds. The problem is that some will take time and others will cost a lot of money. That puts pay for news plans behind the eight ball.
Stephen Arnold, November 19, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Vocational and Adult Education agency, which is involved in such things as making billiard tables and billiard balls that I was not paid to write this short article.
Convera Corporation Liquidated
November 18, 2009
Convera, according to Guru Focus is in liquidation mode. You can get the gory details and a link to the SEC filed 14c statement in “Liquidation Play: Convera Corporation (CNVR).” I wrote about Convera in one of the early editions of the Enterprise Search Report. The write up summarized the assertions about the Convera system. Few people in the enterprise search game recall Excalibur’s origin as a document scanning outfit or the meshing of the ConQuest system with Excalibur technology. I bet, however, that the NBA and Intel remember. The Intel deal apparently hit a small pot hole.
Source: http://www.picturesfromjamaica.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/pothole-garelli-02.jpg
Both of those firms found the blandishments of Convera most compelling. Both NBA and Intel moved away from Convera, setting off a financial chain of events that seems to be reaching another pivotal point in its history. There will be a distribution, but it certainly looks as though Convera may be following in the footsteps of other search and content processing companies that could not survive in an increasingly tough market. Convera morphed into a vertical search company, but Google gives that function away in a couple of different services. On the bright side, if you are a financial player, maybe there’s an opportunity in the liquidation. I recall the hours I spent manually updating the controlled terms lists that Convera used to know that a “truck” was a “pick up” and a “semi”. Good consulting money there once upon a time.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Department of Defense that I was not paid by any firm, including Allen & Co., to write this short item. I would wager a dime that someone in the DoD remembers Convera’s search system. Is that a fond remembrance? Probably.
Buy a Daily Newspaper by the Day
November 18, 2009
I read the Guardian’s report about the London Times’s method of monetizing the information in the newspaper. The idea is an interesting one if I understand “Times Editor James Harding Outlines Plans for Online Charging”. The idea is to sell a 24 hour access token to the day’s content. I chortled when I read the alleged quote made by a Times’s executive; to wit: “rewrite the economics of newspapers”. A rewrite is needed. The article made this point I found memorable:
“We think it’s good for us and good for business to stop encouraging the trickery and fakery of the ABCs. We want real sales to real customers – that’s what our advertisers want too.” He said the Times would also enhance its relationship with its most loyal readers through home delivery and a reward programme through the recently launched Times+ membership venture. “Historically, newspapers have treated their best customers worst and their worst customers best,” he said.
Yep, now newspapers are going to start treating me better. And because I am encouraged by the Times’s bold move, I won’t mention that Google gets another knock on the nose in the write. That’s a standard poetic touch in some literary circles.
There are some interesting swirls of hope percolating in the reported pricing method; for example:
- Some people will pay for a one day pass or an annual subscription. The assumption is that a lot of people will pay. In the online world, the impact of a for-fee approach can be severe. A site can lose a big chunk of traffic once a price tag is attached. This is the difference between “nice to have content” and “must have content”. The Times is in the warmth of the “must have content” sauna. I think that the Times will discover that it is in the “nice to have content” ice house.
- The early online content vendors went with the per item charge. Users could select what was needed from the information warehouse, check the cost of the item, and buy or not. Bundles make a lot of sense in MBA class, but in the grimy world of online, the per item approach has some appeal based on my experience.
- The revenue models for online content generate less bang than a traditional print business model. The notion of commodity content is a potent one. When content becomes a commodity, that content requires a different business model. Google has cracked that problem using the learnings of Overture to add some boost to the company’s approach. The Times’s pricing mavens are not innovating, and I think the revenue reports will make clear how right or wrong the approach is.
The pricing, not surprisingly, is not set in stone. That’s a good idea, because I think the Times’s financial wizards will be holding some chats around the chuck wagon to figure out how to generate substantial, sustainable revenue. How quick? I hear the dinner gong ringing now.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
Since I will be in the UK in 12 days, I must notify the UK Trade & Investment entity that I was not paid by either an Australian or UK entity to write this article. the UKTI oversight unit will have some work ahead as certain publishing entities begin to adjust their business models. That will have a cost, but the goose is not involved.
Google, the Deaf-and-Dumb Larcenist
November 17, 2009
You may want to read “Google Books Deal: Don’t Expect a Library Utopia, but Bring It On”. The write up describes the new Google Books deal. I found it useful, not so much for the analysis. The write up contains a wonderful Argumentum ad Hominem. The phrase that delighted my rhetorical sensitivity appears in this passage:
The resuscitation of out-of-print books is more like a thick burglar taking that ragged flea-bitten sofa left behind by your ex, putting it in the back of his white van, selling it to a sucker on eBay and splitting the profits with you. Bring it on, I say. Bring on Google, the deaf-and-dumb larcenist.
Google has been working away on books for a decade. Publishers have been asleep at the switch, so now the Google is a “deaf-and-dumb larcenist”. A calculating predator based on my research but not a larcenist. A larcenist is a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it. Google is an opportunist and a construct that must consume information to survive. My wonderful Tess is a predator. She ate a baby rabbit but I still find her a loyal pet and my favorite girl. Maybe the Times’s editorial team should rethink the Google and look at the bright side of the Google knowledge base?
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
Because of the fragile state of some publishers, I will report to Endangered Species Committee that I was not compensated with a crust of bread for this write up by the addled goose. Geese are filthy stupid animals. What’s the Latin phrase for an attack on an addled goose?
Control and the Days of Hot Type
November 16, 2009
Short honk: The electronically adept Guardian (UK newspaper) ran “The Case for Books by Robert Darnton. Dinah Birch praises Robert Darnton, a passionate defender of the printed word.” This is a book review laced with the Guardian’s nostalgia for a time when newspapers were the curators of intelligent discourse. Now you are reading the thoughts of an addled goose. Quack. At the foot of the review was a passage of interest to me; to wit:
In his final essay, Darnton [book author] remarks that “reading remains mysterious”, despite the burgeoning debates surrounding the production, preservation and interpretation of texts. The practice of reading shifts in every generation. No commercial or political process has yet succeeded in controlling its evolution and nothing suggests that its unruly energies are likely to diminish in a digital world.
Yep, mystery, understanding, and control. Oh, how we long for the good old, analogue days.
Stephen Arnold, November 16, 2009
The Government Printing Office will receive an email that says, “Mr. Arnold was not paid to write this brief article insinuating that the Guardian wants to be a Luddite”, a word that appears frequently in its articles about technology.
Google Books, The Nov 14 Edition
November 15, 2009
If you were awake at 11 54 pm Eastern time, you would have seen Google’s “Modifications to the Google Books Settlement.” Prime time for low profile information distribution. I find it interesting that national libraries provided Google an opportunity to do their jobs. Furthermore, despite the revisionism in the Sergey Brin New York Times’s editorial, the Google has been chugging away at Google Books for a decade. With many folks up in arms about Google’s pumping its knowledge base and becoming the de facto world library, the Google continues to move forward. Frankly I am surprised that it has taken those Google users so long to connect Google dots. Google Books embraces more than publishing. Google Books is a small cog in a much larger information system, but the publishing and writing angles have center stage. In my opinion, looking at what the spotlight illuminates may be the least useful place toward which to direct attention. Maybe there’s a knowledge value angle to the Google Books project? You can catch up with Google’s late Friday announcement and enjoy this type of comment:
The changes we’ve made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we’ve heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rights holders with ways to sell and control their work online. You can read a summary of the changes we made here, or by reading our FAQ.
Yep, more opportunities for you, gentle reader, to connect Google dots. What is the knowledge value to Google of book information? Maybe one of the search engine optimization experts will illuminate this dark corner for me? Maybe one of the speakers at an information conference will peek into the wings of the Google Information Theatre?
Stephen Arnold, November 15, 2009
I wish to report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that I was not paid to point out that national libraries abrogated their responsibilities to their nations’ citizens. For this comment, I have received no compensation, either recent or historic. Historical revisionism is an art, not a science. That’s a free editorial comment.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
