old vs. new – Page 2 – Anna Wahrman

Publishers tackle the outdated CMS and the damn DAM

July 7, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

This article in Folio about CMSes and DAMs reads like a primer for magazine-based web publishing. It’s a bit dumbed down for those of us in the industry, who’ve been having this exact conversation since, oh, 2006. But that’s precisely why this quote from Time Inc. CIO Mitch Klaif is so hilarious (and hilariously sad). “Time is currently evaluating CMS platforms that offer ‘create once, publish many’ capabilities, but Klaif notes that it is too early to know if these can meet Time’s multi-channel needs.”

It’s too early to know and the company is evaluating CMSes? Interesting spin. Here’s what’s actually going on: Time Inc. uses outdated technology that was created in 1997. I’ll say that again, in all caps: NINETEEN NINETY-SEVEN. They rely heavily on a CMS that was built in 2002. So in web years, that translates to, what, around 50 or 75 years behind the times? Consider that the company that makes the CMS Time Inc. uses doesn’t even exist anymore.

So it’s more than a little disingenuous to claim that “it’s too early to know.” They know, it’s just that what they know is either, “We don’t have a strategy except to keep maintaining this ridiculously outmoded tech that doesn’t even use languages recognized these days and for which the runway is quickly vanishing under our wheels” or “We’re scrambling to find a solution that won’t leave us in this exact same position five years hence, except no one on our tech team is remotely bold or forward thinking, so we have no clue.”

As for the rest of the article, I certainly agree that a CMS or DAM environment that makes assets “smarter” is desirable…and has yet to be built. Letting publishers “easily find and use relevant content — not only based on the article’s specifics, but also on the asset’s relevance to a particular platform” and allowing “access only to assets for which sufficient rights were secured” are both awesome ideas. But no one in publishing does this well.

I’ll grant that media tech — heck, all of tech — is constantly evolving, and often in unpredictable ways, and getting digital rights from writers and photographers is its own hell. But after all these years, no turnkey solution has yet been built. It simply does not exist, and it likely will not until actual technologists take an interest in what publishing is doing and the particular challenges the industry faces. But they probably won’t, because (have you heard?) the media industry is dying, and it’s unable to monetize itself, let alone create forward-thinking systems.

Apparently at Hearst, “Our plan is to have a system where, no matter where content is created, we’ll be able to store it in such a way that it can be easily used on any platform.” Really, is that your plan? Do you plan to do that? How about less “planning,” less “it’s too early” and more doing, building, iterating, testing, shipping code? The time is now; in fact, the time was years ago.

[Disclosure: I used to work at Time Inc.]

Hyperlocal news in context

July 2, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

The New York Times quietly announced that it was ending its three-year-old experimentation with hyperlocal journalism, and on its heels, the Neiman Journalism Lab wrote a piece following up with some of the players and laying out five specific lessons learned. These lessons are:

1. It just doesn’t make sense for big media companies to pay their staffs to go hyperlocal.
2. Hard-hitting hyperlocal coverage benefits from some professional journalism.
3. Create a platform that makes it easy for people to participate in diverse ways.
4. Understand the power of email.
5. Don’t abandon experiments in “innovation land.”

Hyperlocal — which I define as small-time stories that are confined to a geographic area but which are incredibly important to that area — is a serious puzzle, one that no one has found a good solution for yet. When hyperlocal had buzz — probably back two or three years ago now, when it wasn’t yet clear that it was such a quagmire — the indicators were that as papers were shutting down left and right, folks needed an online equivalent for news and such. The argument was that print papers were closing down because their “business model” — which is to say, putting interesting and germane copy around relevant ads — was failing, but online news would somehow be the answer. For some unknown reason, but probably because it was much, much cheaper, the people running these new hyperlocal startups (or sometimes online versions of existing papers) also convinced themselves that, in addition to going online instead of print, they would also do it on the cheap: Instead of paying experienced beat reporters to do good ol’ writing about the day’s local news, a model that had worked forever, they would instead fired those people, “engage the community” and hire “citizen journalists.” In retrospect, that didn’t work so well.

According to the Times‘s Jim Schachter, it turns out it’s “impractical” for the New York Times, being a national and international news org, to turn to hyperlocal coverage. Well, yeah. Despite the fact that the Times itself has a well-read City Desk (read: hyperlocal news), it’s not their model to start an equivalent in Wherever Else, USA. They know New York City. They have a giant, well-recognized brand in which local places want to place their trust and their ads. It’s a good combination — it’s a business, in fact! — called “the news media.” It’s “scalable” in that it works (or used to) in almost every community across the world.

Another now-obvious hyperlocal lesson learned: Professional journalists are good at writing and editing. Non-journalism-skilled “citizens” aren’t necessarily good at that stuff. Extrapolating, when readers want information, they want it to be relevant and clear. They don’t want to have to work for it. When these waters are muddied — trying to parse what a non-journalist is trying to say among possibly irrelevant, definitely badly written prose — it is not a fun time. Readers’ response to this isn’t to get even more engaged and volunteer to be the citizen journalist, much as the bottom-liners at media companies wish they would. It’s not even that they get riled up and want to comment about the quality. What readers do is, they just stop reading.

The thing is, though: People care deeply about and do want to read about local news. They care about school board meetings and and city council decisions and high school sports scores and local heroes. They just don’t want to go to the board meetings or ball games themselves. They don’t care that much. Plus, they’re busy doing their own jobs.

So these are two key realizations of the hyperlocal business: You have to provide relevant and well-written copy that doesn’t ask anything of the readers other than to read. (And maybe, if it’s well-written and relevant enough, they might actually pay for the privilege and/or comment on a story.)

Another essential understanding is recognizing and respecting a corollary phenomenon: the rise of social media as a determiner of local relevancy. The Neiman article doesn’t touch on it at its own embarrassment, since engagement is this area is absolutely insane, off-the-charts, disruptive, phenomenal, revolutionary, whatever word or phrase that means a new paradigm has been created. That a new paradigm for social interaction occurred simultaneously yet oppositionally with the attempt at a new paradigm for local news is a coincidental but unfortunate event (unfortunate, that is, for these news sites).

My understanding of the fourth finding, “Understand the power of email” is that people like newsletters. But in my experience this is neither true nor relevant. However, the third lesson, the idea that technology must facilitate participation, is huge, and it’s another key point to answering the question that Schachter proposes: “How do you prompt communities into the act of covering themselves in a meaningful way?” I don’t have the answer (does anyone?), but I think social is playing no small part in this, too, and one need only see all the check-ins and status updates to see that people do like participating in the community around them (and, in turn, telling others about it in order to either humble-brag or exacerbate their followers’ FOMO or both).

I almost want to (badly) paraphrase Mean Girls by saying, “Stop trying to make hyperlocal happen.” But actually, I do think hyperlocal has a place in our evolving news, online and social ecosystem. Hell, I think algorithms have a place. It’s early days yet. But it seems to me that what successful products have in common, and what they all come to realize sooner or later, is that above all else, they must serve the reader (or user). It’s so incredibly obvious yet so often overlooked. And as soon as hyperlocal sites incorporate this truth into their businesses, the better the experience will be for readers and the online news industry at large.

A simple solution

May 9, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

Forbes’ Lewis DVorkin attempts to drop some wisdom with his nine “requirements for a sustainable model for journalism.” His opening words are powerful:

“FORBES and the entire media industry face daunting challenges. Digital publishing is perhaps the most disruptive force the media has ever encountered. Anyone can publish anywhere, anytime and attract an audience. Questions loom about the future of print in a tablet world. As downward pressure on CPMs indicate, new kinds of digital ad products are required. Journalists must learn entirely new skills or risk being run over by a competitive force of native digital content creators. News organizations need to develop new labor models (our contributor network is one) that can produce quality content efficiently. Most scary of all, news stalwarts must recognize that brands are publishers, too, and they want the media to provide new solutions for them to reach their customers.”

Yessir!

But then his nine simple tips come into play. We need to create quality content. I agree! Journalists need to engage with their readers. Yes, I think that’s smart. The things we write and products we create need to be usable and efficient and at scale and…wait, what? All of that, all at the same time? Hardly.

Who would disagree that a journalistic business (or any other, for that matter) should strive for a quality product from an authentic source who efficiently creates content via usable platforms and is also, simultaneously, profitable? What advertiser would not like to create “premium products that enhance, rather than disrupt, emerging consumer experiences” to win audiences and sell their stuff? No one, that’s who!

But the reality is that it’s really, really, really hard to actually do all those things. Really.

I don’t know if it is, as one commenter says, “the ‘do more with less’ pixie dust mantra that executives who don’t have a specific answer like to use,” because I want to be more positive than that. But DVorkin’s statement that “Scalable content-creation networks and open-source publishing tools that have been highly customized can drive the timely output of quality content” makes me go

As I mentioned in a previous post, the ground is always shifting, and none of us has the answers. We theorize, test and iterate. With any luck, people earn a living wage to experiment with how to create content that others find compelling, and to somehow monetize it. But expecting this business to be all these things — efficient, engaged, supremely usable, scalable, transparent, authentic and profitable — all at the same time, when the reality reshuffles itself every three to six months and all of us are merely guessing at the industry’s next steps, is a very high bar indeed.

DVorkin has at least cobbled together some theories. It’s a start. He is, like we all are, trying, throwing stuff at walls and seeing if it sticks, building the plane in midair. Maybe he thinks quality and quantity can live harmoniously together — my experience has not borne that out. Perhaps he really does believe that efficient can also be engaged — I’ve not seen that happen without either burnout or, at minimum, tears.

But at least he’s out there doing it: Theorizing, testing, iterating.

Keeping up with users

May 8, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

Two very interesting pieces, and made more interesting when juxtaposed. One is a fascinating look back at Technology Review’s app-creation process and attendant drama. The other is about how those annoying Social Reader apps, after a moment in the sun, are being shunned by users.

The thesis of both seems to be that brands are stumbling in the dark to understand user/reader behavior. And just when they think they’ve found the light, after spending hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of dollars, users look, shrug and move on.

From Jason Pontin, the EIC and publisher of Technology Review:

Absurdly, many publishers ended up producing six different versions of their editorial product: a print publication, a conventional digital replica for Web browsers and proprietary software, a digital replica for landscape viewing on tablets, something that was not quite a digital replica for portrait viewing on tablets, a kind of hack for smart phones, and ordinary HTML pages for their websites. Software development of apps was much harder than publishers had anticipated, because they had hired Web developers who knew technologies like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Publishers were astonished to learn that iPad apps were real, if small, applications, mostly written in a language called Objective C, which no one in their WebDev departments knew. Publishers reacted by outsourcing app development, which was expensive, time-consuming, and unbudgeted.

The ground of the Internet is constantly shifting, and brand and businesses have to keep up. It’s very expensive, frustrating and often fruitless to try, but keep up one must.

No one really knows the answers. No one really knows why some apps are successful and others aren’t. Or why communities spring up or fall away. Why sites run hot then cold. Engagement, sure. Great user experience, yes. Brand loyalty. Easy tools. Peer motivation. Curiosity. The urge to be heard. Bragging rights. Belonging. Good deals. FOMO, especially with social.

Like magazines before them, sites and apps, and programming languages, and CMSes, and devices (and on and on) heat up, run hot…but then — poof! Gone. Or at least diminished.

Truly, no one knows. Many people have theories, but that’s all they are, because this technology stuff is brand-new. But it’s important to note that it’s not a waste of time to theorize, build upon that theory (aka experiment), test it and learn from it. As a matter of fact, that’s all we can do: Learn, adapt and with any luck succeed.

Algorithms as a tool to better journalism

April 27, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

Wired‘s recent story about Narrative Science seems to have put some journalists into a bit of a tizz. The article is a must-read for journalists and coders — really interesting tidbits about what’s going on in this field now, and what might come to pass in the future.

I’m actually very excited about the possibilities of Narrative Science, an artificial intelligence product that transforms data (currently primarily from the sports and finance world) into stories. This is the exact kind of thing we’re after when we encourage J-Schools to put software engineering into journalism curricula so we can teach young journalists valuable new skills so they, in turn, can not end up helpless on the sidelines, as many of us current journos have been during the technology advances of the last decade.

The method does not determine the value

Narrative Science is not a threat, it’s a tool, and it fills a need. Instead of some capable writer poring over boring financial statements and trying to add sizzle in reporting on them, a machine reads the data and spits out two grafs. Two serviceable but really snoozy grafs, which probably would have happened if written by a human, too.

Here’s what’s intriguing, though: Narrative Science is working on ways to be not-snoozy, and in so doing they’re calling journalists on our BS, in a way. What I mean is this: Journalists have formulas. We do, and they’re taught in schools and learned on the job. “Reverse pyramid.” “Nut graf.” “Lede.” “Attribution.” These are plug-and-play tactics most of the time. Sure, these elements vary from story to story, and that is the fun part of what we do. We add details and context. We observe and report. But at core, we tell different stories using some slightly different combinations of these tactics and tools.

Arguably, feature stories have slightly more variety, but I’d also point out that (sadly) many features are also just puzzle pieces, if not downright parodies of themselves. For example, every feature on every female celebrity ever starts this way:

“[Lady celeb] walks into [L.A.’s or New York’s] [restaurant or cafe in trendy neighborhood]
looking gorgeous in [brand] jeans and no makeup.”

Whether the editors or writers are making the words hacky, hacky they are — and boring, just like the pieces Narrative Science is creating with its algorithmic journalism. Fascinatingly, according to Wired, the company actually has “meta-writers” whose job it is to help the computers add context:

“[Meta-writers are] trained journalists who have built a set of templates. They work with the engineers to coach the computers to identify various ‘angles’ from the data. Who won the game? Was it a come-from-behind victory or a blowout? Did one player have a fantastic day at the plate? The algorithm considers context and information from other databases as well: Did a losing streak end?”

But to answer the question posed in the headline of the piece, “Can an Algorithm Write a Better News Story Than a Human Reporter?” for now the answer is no. And journalists vs. algorithms is a faulty comparison.

Writers and editors add value using tools

Narrative Science, thanks to algorithms created by human engineers and journalists, is now at the level of being able to programmatically spit out phrases like “whacking home runs.” But it can’t gauge a crowd’s restlessness or excitement. It can’t interview a superfan after the game, sense that he’s fed up with the team and write a mood piece. It can’t connect on a human level to a victim of a crime, or spend days following a subject then put together disparate threads of the subject’s life into a coherent portrait.

Which is why it’s not a real threat just yet. The way I see it:

Narrative Science : journalists : : spell-check : copy editors

It’s a tool that does a programmatic task, but not a contextual one, as well as a human. Does spell-check tell you you have the wrong “hear/here”? No. Does it correct you when you’ve spelled “embarrassing” incorrectly because it is drawing from an enormous database of correctly spelled words? Sure, easy enough. Can it check a fact’s accuracy against a thousand links on the Internet? Probably. But can it call a source and make sure she wasn’t misquoted, then correct the quote before publication? Not likely.

Context is everything, and it’s ours to use. But we journalists have to use it. Yes, we have formulas. We write ledes, and we edit the story so the most important information is up front. But we have to step up our game. We have to go to the match, or the crime scene, or the meeting, or the fashion show, or the foreign city, or the war, and add context for readers. We shouldn’t hack our way through the really interesting stuff — we shouldn’t be allowed to. Let’s let bottom-scrapers scrape the bottom for us. Let’s not waste human effort on shitty content farms that pay $2 (!) an article. Let’s leave that for robots and invest elsewhere: in hiring more and better writers and editors to make connections, describe the atmosphere, make sense of things, tease out themes and (cue dramatic music) better humanity. Let’s invest in creating data and algorithms that we can program to help us help ourselves.

Blogging and journalism

April 19, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

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

April 19, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

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]

Why didn’t Kodak create Instagram?

April 16, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

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.”

Old media vs. new debate redux

April 14, 2012 Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

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.