Wall Street Journal Proving that Newspaper Marketing Is Off the Rails
November 5, 2009
Okay, I am a real life subscriber to the Wall Street Journal. I have written the company, called its 800 number, and captured the spam attack on me in this blog. The Wall Street Journal simply ignores a customer’s requests to be treated as a – well – paying customer.
Today more spam. Here’s the crap that floats into my personal mail account:
This is the same annoying, repetitive, stupid offer. I am a subscriber. I paid more than $204 for my print subscription. If I am smart enough to subscribe, perhaps I am smart enough to figure out that the WSJ is low balling me. Why would I buy a second subscription at a lower price when I have learned that the WSJ gouged me earlier this year?
But that’s not enough!
The Wall Street Journal mailed me the following offer:
Note that this special offer to me, a paying customer, is yet another astounding discount. How much can I buy a second unneeded subscription to the Wall Street Journal?
The cost is only $59. Keep in mind that I paid more than the spam offer. Now this desperate, confused and inept publisher is reminding me that its premier business publication is worth $59 a year or in the $0.20 per day range.
How stupid does this outfit think I am? Pretty stupid, I assume.
To recap:
- I am a customer.
- I paid hundreds of dollars for one subscription to the Wall Street Journal
- One one day I received an offer via spam email and then a second lower ball offer via snail mail.
Folks, this marketing is a clear signal that the Wall Street Journal does not care about me as a customer. It is marketing special offers that make me feel as if I were duped. The company ignores a customer’s request to be spared unneeded, unwanted offers.
Mr. Murdoch, you have a method that angers me and demonstrates poor business judgment. Keep in mind that I am an existing customer. Amazing.
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2009
- To the Government Printing Office: I was not paid to write this case analysis. Do you think the WSJ would pay me to do anything for them?
Tribune Tests Zapping the AP
November 5, 2009
My recollection is that the AP (Associated Press) had its roots in the newspaper industry. The idea was that newspapers could pool some resources and get better coverage without putting their own feet on the street in certain news hot spots. Well, the times are changing. Phil Rosenthal’s “Tribune Co. Papers Rewiring for Experimental Week without AP” describes an interesting test. A big newspaper will publish without content from the AP. For me, the most interesting comment in the article was:
Some newspapers have determined that shared wire content that is available to readers from many other outlets is worth less to them than unique, proprietary content, especially online. Coupled with reductions in the space allocated for news in print, papers are weighing whether there’s the same need for Associated Press content as in the past.
If the experiment provides data that the Tribune cannot move forward without the AP content, that’s a plus for the AP. If the experiment provides data that the Tribune can operate without the AP content, that’s a negative for the AP.
Set aside the outcome. If the AP is “must have” content, why is a test needed? If there is uncertainty, there must be substantive cause. Ergo: big trouble brewing in my opinion. Either way, the “value” of the AP causes doubt.
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2009
The Kentucky county commissioner must hear from me that I was not paid to write this blog post. Oyez.
Making Content the Old Fashioned Way
November 4, 2009
When I write a crappy story, Tess bites my ankle. The rest of the goslings don’t care. Programmers are not entranced by my prose. I found it interesting that the mavens of real journalism, the custodians of news, resorted to a fist fight, if the story in the Washingtonian is accurate. Navigate to “Fists Fly after Post Editor Tells Writer, “It’s the Second Worst Story I Have Seen in Style in 43 Years”. The passage I liked was:
Veteran Style writers said they knew Allen [the attacking editor] wasn’t happy. He had come up in Style’s heady days, when writers could wax for a hundred inches on the wonder of plastic lawn furniture or the true meaning of the Vietnam War Memorial. No more. Working part time on contract, Allen seethed over the lost art of long-form journalism.
The writer and the editor had a fist fight. Yep, the lost art. I wonder if the metadata for the news story will include such terms as fight, culture, custodian, intellectual, and maturity?
Stephen Arnold, November 4, 2009
I want to disclose to the Peace Corps. that I was not paid to write this short article.
Google Books a Pressure Point
November 3, 2009
SiliconValley.com’s “Desire to Scan Old Books Has Critics Casting Google as Goliath” provides an interesting insight into scale. The meaning of “scale” means big. Google is a cutting edge company because it operates at scale.The company has been focused on big data for more than a decade. Now the light bulb has been turned on. Most of Google’s competitors do not work at scale, although companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo are working overtime to convert their existing systems so they too operate at scale. The challenge is that Google’s infrastructure is “as is”. Most competitors are in “to be” mode.
The SiliconValley.com article makes clear that scale is the reason that Google Books has become a problem for publishers, competitors, authors, and rights holders, among others. For me the most interesting comment in the article was:
“It really took something this big and grand to show that Google does have problems, and does have vulnerabilities, and can be exploitative,” Vaidhyanathan [law professor] said. “I’m as surprised as anybody that this turned out to be the moment in which Google’s true nature came to light.”
In my opinion, these types of write ups are useful. I wonder what critics of Google have been doing for the last decade. Google Books is not a new project. What’s new is that observers are now in the same position as a person who hears a sonic boom and looks into the sky to see the aircraft. The problem is that the sonic boom alerts the observer that an aircraft has passed, not where it is or where it is going.
Google Books is not an end game. Google has more options to exercise.
Stephen Arnold, November 3, 2009
Nope, a freebie.
Educational Publishers, The Google Is Here
October 30, 2009
Google has been making baby steps into the education market. Its enterprise group has been landing sales in universities and in public schools in New South Wales. The Google has a tie up with IBM to goose (no pun intended) computer science majors into coding for massively parallel, distributed systems. Wave is splashing against some educational rocks. Google’s neighbor (NASA) is in the university business with Google and some other interesting partners. If you are not familiar with Singularity University, you may want to read the Wikipedia write up. Finally, for those really behind the curve, watch the videos on Google Video.
Now with some context, you can appreciate the story in the Los Angeles Times on October 28, 2009. “Google Co Founder Sergey Brin Wants More Computers in Schools”. The article included a passage I found interesting:
He [Brin] advocated putting all textbooks on computers, to make for easier access, and for putting high school students to work — writing Wikipedia articles, and teaching technology to senior citizens and middle school students. In teaching, they will learn. Brin spoke today at a conference on Google’s campus, Breakthrough Learning in the Digital Age, which the tech company is co-hosting with Common Sense Media and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. By and large, speakers passionately spoke of the advantages of equipping schools with the latest in digital technology, and of engaging students on their home turf — computers. Google has been relatively quiet in the field of education, but the company is starting to make a splash.
In my Google: The Digital Gutenberg I describe some use cases for Google as an educational ecosystem. What I find interesting is that if I were teaching a class in computer science, I would require no other resources than those available from Google. If I were a publisher of computer science textbooks, I would be asking, “Hmm, what’s my Plan B?” I discuss the business implications in my monograph.
Google’s method is to seep and surround. Once the ground is watered and fertile, new businesses grow. If you think Google’s end game is to scan library books and sell ads with some Web search functions, you are misreading the rather clear writing on the Googleplex’s big white board.
Stephen Arnold, October 30, 2009
The Google once gave me a mouse pad. Does that count as a pay off for explaining how Google will reshape education? I think not but the Railway Retirement Board may, hence the disclosure.
The Trust Survey, Google and Microsoft
October 27, 2009
“IT leaders trust Microsoft more than Google, 2-to-1” opened a line of thought for me that I had not considered. Large, publicly traded companies and “trust” are not concepts that I juxtapose. In fact, I don’t think I ever considered a company’s “degree” of trust. Google has the Guha patent document which reveals a system and method for determining trust. Asking humans what big company is more trusted seems somewhat subjective. Dr. Guha’s approach has the benefit of using a specific numerical recipe and data. A survey is a more slippery beast. There’s the notion of the sample, the sample size, and the mechanics of the interview. For example, I just received a second email reminding me to provide a search vendor called SLI Systems with my “views” of the search industry. The fact that a second email is required to get a response tells me quite a bit about the methodology of the survey and, of course, about the credence I will give to the “results” if I see them.
The “score” for Google and Microsoft on the “trust-o-meter” is another kettle of fish. Enron was publicly traded. I wonder what that firm’s trust score is / was. Tyco? You get the idea. Large publicly traded companies create an impression of trust. The reality of the company are often opaque to me until I see news reports of an alleged issue. Sometimes I get a view of trust when I watch a high profile executive in the warm embrace of law enforcement.
Degree of trust? That’s a new thought.
Jason Hiner’s write up reported that Microsoft is more trusted than Google. He said:
We decided to examine that question. On October 20, TechRepublic polled its 90-member panel of U.S. IT executives and asked, “Who do trust more as a technology partner, Microsoft or Google?” The jury – made up of the first 12 respondents – voted 8-4 in favor of Microsoft.
If you are a survey fan, you will want to read the results of this study.
If you are like me, you may want to get additional data and more information before deciding that one large, publicly traded company is more or less trusted than another. As an addled goose, I see some larger philosophical issues in this type of survey. One thing is reasonably certain. Philosophy does not play too much of a role in business when it comes to hitting those quarterly numbers. And what about the issue of public relations spin and marketing wordsmithing?
Trust? An interesting notion, but I don’t accept that there is much difference among large publicly traded companies in the information technology space. Google and Microsoft are similar, just at different points on the capitalist timeline in my opinion. This survey is a great way to generate traffic, however. Trust? Hmmm.
Stephen Arnold, October 27, 2009
Internet Laws Revisited
October 27, 2009
I am an old, addled goose. I read “Internet Rules and Laws: The Top 10, from Godwin to Poe”. I was puzzled. The laws struck me as an odd mix of CollegeHumor.com and an Onion article. The source was the Telegraph, a newspaper that is printed on very large sheets of paper. The Web site’s bread crumbs indicated that the story was News and tagged Technology. I understand the Internet is a buzzword used without definition. Technology makes the Internet chug along. The laws indicate that the Internet is a pretty miserable place. In fact, one law—Rule 34—converts information into pornography. Nice.
Here are three observations from the Beyond Search regulatory archive:
- The business processes of the Internet will erode the revenues of traditional publishing and information companies.
- The children of traditional publishing company executives use tools, software, services, and systems that undermine the efforts of their parents to prevent such erosion.
- The Internet has given birth to a “digital Gutenberg” that marginalizes traditional publishing and information companies.
Unlike the Telegraph’s story, I am not joking.
Stephen Arnold, October 27, 2009
Flagship Magazine Heads to the Bone Yard
October 27, 2009
I was in some far off country and remarked about the large number of ships anchored offshore. I asked the captain of the ship about these vessels, “Headed for the bone yard. Maybe scrap. Pence on the pound they are.” I thought about this bone yard example when I read “Business Week’s Fire Sale Nets McGraw Hill $5.9 Million, or $15,000 Per Staffer.” Properties change hands frequently. What struck me about this particular transaction is that the Economist seems to be sailing along quite nicely. The US business flagship—Business Week Magazine—is not doing so well. I thought about the $15,000 per staff member angle as well. I rejected it. Knowledge workers are a dime a dozen today, so finding replacements should not be much of a chore in New York or even Louisville for that matter. The point that struck me was this passage in the article about the rendering of Business Week:
Today the company told investors just how much it will net from the sale of the 80-year-old title: $9.3 million, or $5.9 million after taxes.
I wondered if buying out of service ships would provide a more lucrative return for the buyer. I will refrain from using such colorful and emotion charged language as “rusting hulk”, “coal fired”, or “sailing into the sunset.” Too painful even for me. Imagine what the magazine publishers are thinking about the value of their publications. Hopefully the full text of Business Week’s articles will be available somewhere. There used to be quite a bit of useful information in the publication, but I stopped reading it three or four years ago. Sad and somewhat unnerving even to an addled goose in rural Kentucky. Business Week. Pence on the pound.
Stephen Arnold, October 27, 2009
Charging Backward by Charging for Content
October 25, 2009
In my years in the commercial online business, I learned a few things the hard way. When I got rolling in the commercial database business, there were few examples of proven money making methods from digital content. As a result, one had to do some thinking, devise tests, and then go forward. Today there are some models to examine. For example, the idea of the third party payer is a useful one. Originated by GoTo.com (I think), Google looked at the model and used it as the lifeblood of its revenue approach. Another model is what’s called “must have” information. A lawyer engaged in patent litigation knows the USPTO system is less than perfect. Commercial services such as those available from Derwent and Questel provide an alternative but an expensive one. In fact, these services are sufficiently costly to keep most online users in the dark about what the services contain and how they work.
This is an image of Stephen E Arnold when he worked at a traditional publishing company. The environment and the business processes created a case study in the nature vs nurture debate.
One lesson I learned was that an online company has to find a mix of business methods that produce revenue. There is no one size that fits all. Even the Google is pursuing subscriptions, license fees, and partner upfront payments as ways to keep the money pumping.
This is a picture of Stephen E. Arnold when he focused exclusively on electronic publishing. His Neanderthal characteristics have become less evident.
It is, therefore, not surprising that publishing companies want to charge for content. What I find interesting is that some of the publishers are taking a somewhat war like stance to what is little more than a business problem. For example, read “WSJ Editor: Those Who Believe Content Should Be Free Are Neanderthals”. The idea that I took away from this article is that ad hominen arguments are in vogue. I am not sure that I am upset with the possibility that I am prehistoric.
The question I had when reading the article was, “Why are publishers so late to the pay for content party?”
I know that publishers have been trying to crack the online revenue code for a long time. I was a beta tester of the original Dow Jones desktop software. The idea was that I could use the software to search for content on the fledgling Dow Jones service in the 1990s. The Wall Street Journal is still trying. In fact, a person with whom I spoke last week told me, “Dow Jones is the only publisher making money from its online service.” That’s not true. One of the most successful online publishing companies is Thomson Reuters. Others include Reed Elsevier and Consumer Reports.
A New Page in Google Books
October 23, 2009
Short honk: How do I know Google Books is important to Google? One clue is available when I look at the inventors of Google’s scanning technology, systems, and methods. Take a gander at US7,605,844, “Imaging Opposing Bound Pages at High Speed Using Multiple Cameras”. granted on October 20, 2009 and filed in November 2003. The inventor? Larry Page. Here’s the abstract:
Systems and methods for capturing images of opposing pages in a bound document at high speed using multiple cameras are disclosed. The system generally includes a cradle preferably tilted toward an operator for holding a bound document having two opposing sides, and two cameras each positioned to capture an image of a corresponding side, each camera having an image capture size approximately the size of each side. The cameras may be high definition and store images via direct high speed data communication interfaces, e.g., firewire. A controller and/or foot pedal may provide control of the cameras. The controller may control flashes to selectively light each side simultaneous with each camera capturing the image of the corresponding side. A positioner may position a light-absorbing page between opposing sides.
My research suggests that the inventions of Google founders are significant, acting like beacons in a sea of innovations. In short, Google Books is an important project.
Stephen Arnold, October 22, 2009
No dough from the Google for this write up.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
