Is the balance of power shifting back to big media?

It may have been a small deal in monetary terms, but the ripples from Re/code’s acquisition by Vox Media earlier this week continue to spread. One recurring theme is shock and/or bemusement that Re/code couldn’t survive on its own: After all, when it comes to individual media brands, Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg are close to the top of the heap. If they couldn’t make it on their own, what hope is there for others?

Sources close to the Re/code deal said the site still had plenty of cash left from the financing round it did with Comcast Ventures and others. So why not continue to run the site as a standalone entity? Because the writing was clearly on the wall: Re/code was likely never going to get to a size where its business model would make sense, or at least not without more money. And Vox was a lot closer to that goal.

One takeaway, as I tried to point out, is that there’s a “barbell effect” taking place in the media business, where you either have to be tiny and focused on a topic or audience niche—the way sites like The Information and Search Engine Land and Techdirt are—or you have to be giant and mass and have huge reach. Tech analyst Ben Thompson (who is himself a good example of a profitable niche media business) has written about a similar concept known as the “smiling curve” for publishing:

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Is the balance of power shifting back to big media?”

Everything you need to know about the future of newspapers in one chart

It’s always fun when Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers analyst Mary Meeker comes out with her annual “State of the Internet” slide deck. There often isn’t all that much that is shocking or surprising about her conclusions, but the slideshow condenses and aggregates information about the state of affairs in tech and media in a very useful way. For example, she has one chart that likely strikes terror (or at least should strike terror) into the heart of print publishers everywhere.

The chart shows the percentage of time that U.S. adults spend on various forms of media—print, radio, television, etc.—compared to the amount of advertising spending that is devoted to that medium. And when it comes to print, the slide shows a yawning gap between the amount of attention devoted to that medium and the amount of advertising money that gets spent on it: a gap of 14 percentage points, in fact.

As Josh Benton points out at the Nieman Journalism Lab, this slide shows up every year in Meeker’s presentation. The latest version is actually somewhat better in terms of the gap between attention and spending: in the 2011 version, print got 25% of the spending and just 7% of the attention, for a gap of 18 percentage points. Now the gap has shrunk, but it continues to be larger than any other media with the exception of mobile, which is a relatively new category (and its gap is in the other direction).

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Everything you need to know about the future of newspapers in one chart”

This rant reads like a parody of a print-media dinosaur, but it’s not

Jim Romenesko got an email from an ex-USA Today newspaper executive who was up in arms about comments made by the current editor-in-chief of the paper, David Callaway, who said that he could see the paper stop publishing daily in “five or six years.” This former ad-sales manager, Jim Gath, wrote a long rant on Facebook — which Romenesko also published on his blog. I’ve read a lot of pro-print and anti-digital invective from newspaper executives over the years, but this one takes the cake.

In a nutshell, Gath says the biggest problem with print newspapers isn’t a secular or systemic decline in print advertising because of the internet and competing platforms like Facebook. It’s the lack of executives with “guts,” he says. Oh, and also too many corporations that are run by “bean counters.” The fact that print media may be on the down-swing business-wise is nothing but an excuse, he says:

“That’s the excuse of losers. The excuse of hand-wringers who have no idea what to do. The excuse of the unimaginative. The excuse of those who don’t have the thrill of challenges & of competition coursing through their bloodstreams. The excuse of people who buy into the notion that ‘it just can’t be done’. The excuse of big corporations run by bean-counters.”

2583886589_01ce541f8a_z

Gath goes on at length about the guts and determination of the early USA Today staff, from the “delivery people who drove through the morning darkness” to the people who slept “4 to a room for 3 hours a night just to get the paper out.” If it wasn’t about a newspaper, it would sound an awful lot like the big speech made in every cheesy war movie. I kept waiting for him to repeat the line from Animal House: “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No!”

USA Today founder Al Neuharth got the “bean counters” in a room and “read them the riot act.” But the great franchise is dying, Gath says — because no one has any guts any more. There’s “No imagination. No competitive spirit. No drive.” Nothing about the way that advertising has changed with digital, nothing about competitive pressure from online platforms, nothing about the loss of a print-based monopoly or the evolution of information distribution. Just no one with guts, and too many bean-counters.

If I hadn’t seen it on Romenesko, I would have thought it was a post on Clickhole, the parody site run by The Onion. Unfortunately, it’s not a parody. At least we can rest easy knowing that Jim Gath doesn’t run a real newspaper any more.

How early newspapers were like the Internet

It was a common practice for 19th-century newspapers to republish poems, fiction excerpts, and even lists of facts that were originally published elsewhere. Editors would subscribe to many newspapers and would cut out things they thought were interesting, relevant, or fit a space on the page that they needed to fill and then republish them in their own papers, Cordell explained.

“Many 19th-century newspapers are comprised primarily of content from other newspapers,” he said. “They were more aggregators than producers of original content. And often they were created by very small staffs, and scholars such as Ellen Gruber Garvey have shown that this aggregation is what allowed newspapers to spread as rapidly as they did in the 19th century, because you didn’t have to produce the whole thing.”

Source: Listicles, aggregation, and content gone viral: How 1800s newspapers prefigured today’s Internet » Nieman Journalism Lab

Young Saudis Find Freedom On Their Phones

This is a fascinating New York Times piece about how Saudi teens use apps to get around the conservative culture in that country:

Life for many young Saudis is an ecosystem of apps. Lacking free speech, they debate on Twitter. Since they cannot flirt at the mall, they do it on WhatsApp and Snapchat. Young women who cannot find jobs sell food or jewelry through Instagram. Since they are banned from driving, they get rides from car services like Uber and Careem. And in a country where shops close for five daily Muslim prayers, there are apps that issue a call to prayer from your pocket and calculate whether you can reach, say, the nearest Dunkin’ Donuts before it shuts.

Source: Young Saudis, Bound by Conservative Strictures, Find Freedom on Their Phones – NYTimes.com

Is Facebook a partner or a competitor for media companies? Yes

As has been rumored for some time, Facebook launched a trial project called “Instant Articles” on Wednesday morning—a partnership with nine news organizations, including The New York Times, The GuardianBuzzFeed, and National Geographic. Under the terms of the deal, entire news stories from those partners will appear inside Facebook’s mobile app and be able to be read there, as opposed to the traditional practice of news publishers posting an excerpt and a link to their website.

At first blush, this sounds like a pretty straightforward exchange of value. Facebook (FB) gets what will hopefully be engaging content for its 1.4 billion or so users, and publishers get the reach that the social network provides—plus keep any revenue from advertising that they sell around that content. (if Facebook sells the ads, then publishers reportedly get to keep 70% of the proceeds.) So everybody wins, right?

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Is Facebook a partner or a competitor for media companies? Yes”