Great infographics in this Mashable post about women in tech, including this one:
Changing the ratio
Author: Anna Wahrman
The myth of the portable employee
Bit of a follow up to my earlier post about bringing back “the Company Man” in the Times today. The article discusses “the myth of the completely portable employee,” arguing that though so-called knowledge workers’ “means of production is found between their ears,” they actually don’t continue at the same level of performance if they go to a new company because the institutional knowledge they had acquired must be rebuilt. When you change jobs, the article says, you lose your “spheres of influence,” that is, your knowledge of the people and processes at the old job.
“Companies consistently underestimate how long it takes new hires to be effective in a job, especially when it comes to building relationships.”
Though external hires “can bring fresh skills and ideas, along with a healthy skepticism about long-held practices,” employers should aim for “the right mix of old and new.”
Nisenholtz on content and tech
Four important bits from this interview with former NYT digital guy Martin Nisenholtz.
“Human-mediated content is important to me because it both introduces a hierarchy of importance as well as a kind of serendipity.”
“If you’re in the business of creating news and information, you get these kind of blinders, where you think everybody is into it. But the fact is, when you go out and you talk to people who are not in the business, they’re leading their lives and doing what they do, and for them everything is just totally optional. … [99 percent of people] care about how what you do affects their lives. Unless you touch them, in a very meaningful way, you will fail. If you focus on the technology, or focus on what will be cool about it to a very small group of people, it’s just not going to work.”
“I really think it’s important for traditional news sources to embrace the technology side of our business — and really understand what the application side can do for content. Not just publishing content from one source and porting it into a bunch of templates.”
Here he’s referring to Twitter, but this is arguably the principle behind the rise of Facebook, too, and the stagnancy of Google Plus:
“If there are no other people on the network, it’s going to be pretty useless. But the more people that join the network, the richer it gets.”
Blogging and journalism
Smart thoughts from GigaOM as the HuffPost wins a Pulitzer and the NYT launches another stand-alone blog:
“The question ‘are blogs journalism?’ — or similar questions such as ‘Is Twitter journalism?’ — make no sense any more, if they ever did. Are telephones journalism? Are pencils and pens journalism? No. They are just tools. A blog is also just a tool, one which can be used for journalism and for many other things as well.”
I mostly agree, but that being said, I think there is a big difference between original reporting and aggregation, between thinking and curating. The tools of blogging have made the latter items much easier to do.
One challenge for so-called old media in adapting to the new world order is that the audience still has an expectation from them of quality original reporting, and it’s difficult if not impossible to fund news analysis, foreign bureaus, unions, reporters on assignment, long-form journalism, spotless editing (etc.) and still make payroll, while your upstart competitors do not bear the burden but often do reap the rewards of these expenditures.
Must-read article of the moment
Fascinating, well-reported and just epic (and lengthy) piece in CJR. Covers everything from clusters and strong networks (and Arianna Huffington’s charm in the creation at scale of both) to the ill-conceived AOL Way. Manages to discuss what it means to have conversations with readers, the difference between content and journalism, and the magic of good timing and serendipitous, seemingly unrelated events. While acknowledging that some things just happen, also recommends SEO’ing the hell out of content to grease the skids. References Lord of the Flies and “Why wasn’t I consulted?” Frankly, suggests a new paradigm for business: embracing failure and iterating. Epic!
[jamiesocial]
Personalization by way of automation
Interesting peek at what happens when personalization by way of automation and algorithms takes a dark turn.
“Unlike tabloid television, algorithmic personalization does not announce that it’s pandering to base interests. When sensationalized reports about violence against children are on TV, I can change the channel — an act that is harder to do on the Internet when seemingly ‘neutral’ spaces, like Yahoo’s homepage, leave no tell-tale trace of manipulation. You can’t change the channel when you don’t know you’re watching the program.”
Another argument in favor of the human curator (read: editor) as we stumble through sorting out what can be programmed, what should never be, and where the middle ground is.
Search vs. social
The sands of the Internet are constantly shifting underneath us. One major example is content distribution and audience reach via search vs. social. So much has changed even in the last year with regard to how people get information via search vs. social. This article is ostensibly about how Google+ isn’t a Facebook killer, but the part that stood out to me was this:
“Once upon a time…you hopped onto a search engine, plugged in a search term, found what you were looking for and went your merry way. [But] sharing and following and ‘liking’ and so forth have become the primary way people gather and dispense information. Search is still a big part of the equation, but social is getting bigger.”
In many cases—many, certainly, but not all—people trust their networks more than they trust a search engine’s results. It’s a fundamental understanding that content creators must adapt to. It’s no longer just about gaming SEO to rank in search; it’s about creating quality, sharable, trustworthy content.
Why didn’t Kodak create Instagram?
Intriguing question, Bits Blog! Following up on my previous post about how it’s nearly impossible for old media to compete with new, given their (so far justified) so-called baggage: According to a Kodak exec, “One reason that the company went out of business was that the revenue it was reaping from film sales acted like a blockade to any experimentation with new business models.”
Furthermore, hallelujah and amen:
“The challenge of creating something small and disruptive inside a large company is one that many face today.”
Content as a product
Really interesting piece on treating content as a product and what that means for scaled production, if there is such a thing:
“You can’t apply industrial-age economics to content production. Content doesn’t get cheaper as the volume goes up. Unlike Ford’s automobiles, the cost of quality content goes up with the volume because content production involves skilled labour and very few economies of scale. Plenty of organisations try to work around this hard fact using various forms of automation.”
The author’s point is that it’s a gamble to “churn content without a plan”:
“While automated tools can be useful, letting general trending topics or ill-chosen metrics replace a strong editorial strategy will drive the relevance of your content down. Licensed or crowd-sourced content will rarely be tailored for your audience’s needs, the tone of voice they are most accustomed to, etc. Every mismatch drives relevance down and reduces your chances of the gamble ever paying off.”
I’d further argue that, content-wise, in the age of social sharing and a meme a minute, tone and trust are everything.
Old media vs. new debate redux
Some solid thoughts here about the advantages of digital-native media versus “old” media. Conclusion: It’s hard to adapt to the changing media landscape when you’re busy running your existing business…you know, the one that pays the bills. Because even significant gains in magazines’ digital circ means they’re up to a whopping 1 percent of total circ. Yes, 1 percent. Rather unbelievable, given how often the media talks about what’s next and the mythical untold opportunities for tablet reading and product/brand integration.
And that would be why “old” media companies need to focus on their core business.