Two years ago I became a journalist blogger . . . and discovered a terrible thing

By Tom Foremski - September 27, 2006

It was about two years ago that I started "blogging." I had left the Financial Times in early June and took the summer off, I spent most of it chatting to people about my plans.

It was a good exercise, to try to explain to others what I was doing. I wasn't sure myself.

It took me most of the summer to boil down a 30 minute explanation to one sentence: I am publishing an online news site reporting on the business of Silicon Valley.

Two years ago I knew in my gut that we were at a crucial point in a rapidly changing media sector; and that taking this risk (two kids and an ex-wife to support) would be worthwhile.

I knew that business would not be getting better for my employer because: technology advertising wasn't coming back due to the dotbomb fallout; M&A taking away large advertisers; and financial services advertising wasn't coming back either because the IPO market was a bust.

In addition, advertising was rapidly moving online...

I didn't realize at the time that I would become the first mainstream journalist to leave to become a professional "journalist blogger."

Other journalist that also blogged, Dan Gillmor, Om Malik had day jobs. It would be another seven months before Dan Gillmor left the San Jose Mercury, and two years before Om Malik left Business 2.0 to become fulltime journalist bloggers.

I also didn't realize the effect this would have on my surroundings. One of my contacts at a large Silicon Valley company told me, "Suddenly, we realized that because you had left the Financial Times to become a blogger, we needed to take blogging seriously." It was a comment I heard at other companies too.

But when I left the Financial Times I had never blogged. And I'm ready to admit, I didn't even read blogs.

However, I knew that the blogging platform was incredibly robust and that I could produce a column of Tom Foremski for a lot less than it cost the Financial Times. And that my journalism wouldn't be shut away behind a subscription barrier.

My posts, if they were good enough, would be distributed by my readers and shared among their peers. This is a far better model than trying to limit distribution of content to paid subscribers.

True, I didn't have a business model at the time, but I knew a business model for online publishers would be inevitable.

I also knew that the costs for a newspaper business are much higher than online business models can support. That means that "you can't get there from here" a wonderful American expression that sums up the huge challenge media businesses have in downsizing/rightsizing for online revenue models.

My costs are very modest compared with any traditional newspaper business, with its large legacy infrastructure, pensions, its legions of editors, layers of administrators, office buildings, distribution systems, printing presses, janitors...

The change in media business models has been created by the simple fact that it is more effective to sell products/services next to a search box than next to journalism.

The reason online companies such as Google, Yahoo, or Craigslist can provide advertising at such low costs is that they don't have to pay for the journalism.

Over the past two years I've taken up this point time and again because it is very important that our society find an alternate way to pay for journalism.

But how will we pay for professional journalism if the bulk of advertising moves to search marketing?

If we don't have high quality trusted media sources we will face a future filled with a confusion of  many mini-media sources of dubious quality and trust. In such an environment misinformation will be common and will be commonly encouraged by third parties serving their needs.

Software engineers have a term for this: garbage in, garbage out. We need high quality trusted media sources so that we can make important decisions.

And we have some very important decisions to make, about global warming, energy sources, bird flu, politics, war.  Yet the financial structure to support our professional media is being taken away by low cost online services.

I've been trying to raise the alarm on this issue since I started being a "journalist blogger."  I do know that we will solve this issue, that we will figure out a business model for professional  media, but we don't have it yet.

In the meantime, our society will face a troublesome period of muddled information that will likely lead to bad decisions.
. . .

I will write more about my adventures in the blogosphere in the two years since I left the Financial Times. I had no idea that something as simple as blogging could be so interesting and lead me to so many insights and discoveries... :-)

                       Share with Bit.ly                    

September 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comment | Category: About SVW | Subscribe to SVW

Comments (5)

will:

Tom,

I venture to guess that you are in the minority to think this way (that there still needs to be a trusted source), but I agree with you whole heartedly. The my-media revolution is not to replace traditional media, but to augment it and keep it honest (and innovating).

I do not believe rates charged by FM publishing (or a catptive Gawker network) will be sustainable in the long rong because its so much higher than regular ad network or portal adveritising (ROI is hard to justify when the hype is over). When those rates drop, search engines will again derive most of the value off the content created by professional bloggers who will make minimal amount off onsite advertising. At which point your question "But how will we pay for professional journalism" will become even more acute. As YOU, OM, and others ARE the trusted source in the my-media world. . .


As Joni Mitchell sang: "You don't know what you've got 'til its gone."

Perhaps, sadly, professional media will have to go through a major trough before media consumers appreciate what they are missing ie a lack of authority and trust.

I agree that the issue of figuring out a business model for professional media will be solved - eventually. However, I suspect it will involve a lot of pain and anguish along the way. If indeed it isn't already.


tom, I'm a daily journalist in canada who started blogging in march, 2004 as a quasi-lark. you're right about how blogging is such an interesting place to be...and you're right about the challenges facing newspapers as more people get more information from the web. while there are no simple strategic answers, they have no choice but to adapt to the new news reality, which means they have to experiment, and they have embrace the web and blogs and podcasts and videoblogs. otherwise, it's game over, lights out.
mark


Blogging is gathering momentum in the UK, although slowly, and particularly in the political area where national news stories are being broken on a couple of high profile sites. In fact, a guide to political bloggers has been published,

http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/25828.htm?ginPtrCode=10410&identifier=084d5dd808e4fbe35268babd6836336b


Tom Foremski [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Thanks for all your comments on this issue of who will pay for professional journalism. I am able to make a living from being a journalist blogger but my costs are far less than a traditional news organization. The transition to a new media business model will be very tough for most media businesses but it could be helped if the big news aggregators started paying for the content they use. Sending traffic to a news site is not enough, especially since those news sites aren't able to effectively monetise that traffic.


Post a comment