CES Diary: Media Woes... When Foresight Is No Better Than Hindsight

By Tom Foremski - January 8, 2010

I've been meeting a lot of media people, and having the same conversation, how difficult it is to make a living. Even if you work for a 'new media' publisher, it's tough to make a living as a media professional.

I shouldn't be surprised about all the disruption going on in the media sector because I was one of the first to draw attention to the gathering disruptive forces that will affect media way back in 2004.

That was the year I left my job as a reporter at the Financial Times to make a living as a 'blogger' journalist. By being the first reporter to do that, it has given me a valuable insight into the media sector as a whole.

My business reporting background gave me the analytical tools I needed to figure out what was happening in the media industry.

I understood how the old media business worked because that's where I came from. And in my new job as an online publisher, I saw the economics of the new world.

I quickly saw that the old media world would face a huge problem transitioning to the economics of the online world.

Althoug it was five years ago I started warning people about this massive issue, few understood there would be a problem. The difficulties in the media industry were seen as part of a business cycle rather than the fact that a fundamental change had happened.

I could see that there was no way that a current media business could make the transition to economics of the online world without a tremendous amount of pain. Even a large regional newspaper such as The San Francisco Chronicle would be in trouble. In trouble because of its many costs: more than 400 editorial salaries, its admins, its pension plans, office buildings, expense accounts, its vans, its printing press etc.

There was no way online revenues would support that cost structure.

I could see that "you can't get there from here." It's a wonderful American expression that makes perfect sense in the context of the media industry.

Back in 2005 I was writing articles about this issue and asking "What will happen if the old media dies before the new media learns to walk?" What will happen if this coming disruption is so devastating that we lose the best practices of journalism that have taken hundreds of years to develop?

What happens if we lose most of our journalists, editors, and all the rest of our media professionals?

Five years ago I thought that by now we would have figured out a viable business model for most types of online media businesses.

Five years ago I thought that we would go through a tough disruptive period that would shake up the media industry but that by now we would have figured out the new media business model.

I was right about the disruption, I was wrong about how long it would take.

So I shouldn't be surprised that media is a tough place to be in right now. I shouldn't be surprised that many of my conversations at CES have been about how tough it is to be in the media business.

It's frustrating that my foresight into the media sectors future challenges has been no more valuable than hindsight. Seeing the future doesn't mean you can change the future.

I, too, am caught in the middle of the disruption, I, too, am trying to figure out how to make a living as a media professional...

I love my beat: reporting from Silicon Valley at the intersection of technology and media. Silicon Valley is now a Media Valley, driving much of the disruption of the media industry. And I love the irony that media is the worst place to be as media professional, but it's the most fascinating story around. And I love that I'm in the story too.

And it is great to be in the middle of one of the most important questions facing society: How do we figure out the new business models for professional journalism?

The software engineers have a saying: Garbage in, garbage out. We need professional journalism because we need high quality information so that we can make good decisions as a society.

We need high quality information so that we can improve our chances of making the right decisions about many important things: environment, economy, the middle east, education, energy . . . and that's just those that begin with the letter 'e' -- there's plenty more.

As the media industry transitions to a new business model and as we figure out what that business model will be, we will face a very tough period for our society. We will have a free-for-all media world that will be exploited by various self-interest groups, nefarious organizations, and criminal groups.

I'm optimistic that this coming Wild West world will be short-lived and its effects transitory but that's just a guess.

In the meantime, it would be great if we could speed things along, speed the disruption in the media industry but not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to make sure that enough of the old media world transitions into the new, so that it can teach the new media world how to walk.

A common discussion I've been having at CES with other journalists, bloggers, and publishers of new media sites, is about how difficult it is to make a living. It's not just the traditional media companies that are struggling.

You need a huge amount of traffic to make a living as an online journalist, news site or blog site. I keep hearing from other online publishers a similar story: 'I can't do this for much longer.'

One publisher asked: "Why aren't large advertisers such as Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, supporting our work?"

I can sympaphize because I'm in the same boat. Intel, Tibco Software, Infineon, Edelman, were early sponsors of SVW and I'm very grateful for that support. But I haven't had any sponsorship in close to a year and I know many online news sites run by veteran journalists, unable to win any support from large companies.

But this is the precise time that companies such as Cisco, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Adobe, Dell, and others, should be stepping in and investing in the new media publications, choosing those that are run by experienced veteran journalists, ensuring that what emerges from the disruption of the media industry is quality media.

Otherwise it will take years to rebuild the integrity of the media sector because we will have lost our best people, they will close down their sites, they will get other jobs.

This is the best time for large companies to spread some sponsorship monies around and help birth the next media industry.

If they don't, they will have huge problems dealing with a future media sector that has to relearn, rediscover its best practices, its ethics, and its integrity.

Dell, for example, did a lot to help online news sites such as CNET, when they first began to publish in the 1990s by providing generous advertising deals.

Of course, I have an enormous self-interest in all of this because I want to continue to doing what I love to do, publishing SVW. But I'm having to branch out into consulting and other work, so that I can support my journalism. I'd rather spend my time working full-time on SVW.

I have a self- interest but I am not self-centered. There are many others in the same position as myself. There are many journalists trying to build great news sites, create unique content, and striving to maintain the best practices of their profession.

Now's the time for large businesses to step up and to support those ventures through sponsorships and other deals. Now's the time because those opportunities won't be there for long. Those nascent media ventures will be gone. The opportunities to promote the best media organizations will be lost.

Five years ago I pointed out that every company is now a media company. That means every company has to develop the skills and expertise of a media company. Without a vibrant independent media sector there will be few models, few professionals, to help companies with one of their most important business transformations.

The dirty little secret about all of this is that it's not just the media industry that is being disrupted, that's just the visible part of a much larger issue.

If every company is now a media company, then every company is now vulnerable to the disruptive forces affecting media companies.

We're all in it together but we don't all yet realize it.



« CES Diary: Intel's Spectacular Mystery Event Fizzles... Spamuri... Chas Edwards... Technology And Porn... | Main | The Killer Pitch? - When PR Agencies Can Do This - Look Out . . . »


                   

Posted to Disruptive

January 8, 2010 | Permalink | Comment | Subscribe to SVW

Comments (3)

"This is the best time for large companies to spread some sponsorship monies around and help birth the next media industry.

If they don't, they will have huge problems dealing with a future media sector that has to relearn, rediscover its best practices, its ethics, and its integrity."

-I couldn't disagree with this statement more. I understand that the changes for media professionals have been rough, but the last thing we need are large companies propping up a dying business model. As someone who has lived through this transition, I can understand why this would be so tough, but at the same time, the opportunities that are available to non-journalists have never been more fertile. Instead of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, it's time to rethink what "quality journalism" means. It may mean that we see more PR type journalism or that we sacrifice accuracy for speed, but at the end of the day I'd rather have very minimal barriers to entry to get into the news business, then ivory tower intellectuals "protecting" us against bad (unethical) journalism. As far as every company being vulnerable, I think that may be a stretch. New innovative start-ups aren't having any trouble getting funding or even making a profit, it's the legacy businesses that have bloated themselves with 100's of unneccesary editors, union employees, rich pension plans and company perks (all at the expense of their readers) which are vulnerable. Seeing this species go extinct may be hard to watch from the inside, but it's a necessary evil, so that "journalism" can evolve beyond the gatekeepers.


Davis, the problem is that the new opportunities in media are *not* fertile, at least not yet. The new business models are still in development. We would still have a low barrier to entry. The problem is that lean-and-mean new media organizations are hurting along with the bloated old media. We have an opportunity to speed the destruction of the old media and nurture the shoots of the new media.


I think it might help to look at this beyond just the field of journalism. In any industry, people compete for business. This competition shows up in different ways, but getting in front of a large audience is extremely valuable. This is why companies spend so much money cozying up to "ethical" journalists. Over the last ten years, the barriers to the field of journalism have dropped like a rock, but these other industries still feel the same competitive pressure.

The most visible example of this are the industry insiders who are blogging about their experience. They may not be classically trained in journalism, but they're building an audience whether it's developers around a technical project they are trying to solve or mass audiences to try and influence public opinion. In every single industry though, someone is figuring out a better way to monetize the traffic that used to be an exclusive for the papers. If you're a real estate agent, it makes a ton of sense to waste time writing a local paper because your reputation will attract hard to find business.

If you can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra real estate commissions by "writing" and "owning" the classifieds for a small town, it justifies the expense of the media even when ad revenue can't pay the bills.

What's causing journalism to fail is the insistence upon sticking to traditional business models instead of finding more synergistic ways to take advantage of your mindshare. You could pick any industry and I bet I could find good examples of how people are leveraging new media to expand their horizons.

You should understand this better than anyone with your consulting work. Your ability to create and own your own audience is what creates those opportunities. I understand if you care more for your true labor of love, but you clearly understand better than anyone that the industry is changing and there's nothing wrong with making a living, if it allows you to pursue that love.

I think what really bothers me about this particular reoccuring meme though, is the assertion that criminals and self-serving people will be the ones to create this new form of journalism. That somehow society will break down because the amateurs won't break important stories or provide eye witness footagle of newsworthy events. Yet this is exactly what they are doing. The biggest story in Oakland last year wasn't something written about in the Tribune, it was a video of a shooting that was uploaded to YouTube.

Undoubtably, a business that needs subsidization is going to be biased and those who have a bone to pick won't always be fair, but the evolution of media won't mean the end of the world and it won't mean that yellow journalism still won't be recognized. There will be all kinds or participants because without barriers to entry, every single industry will and is trying to capitalize on traditional media's misfortunes. You may see that as a shame, but I love living in a world where anyone can build an audience and make a living off of it. Where you can take control of your own future instead of having to rely on a big company to pay those salaries. Where anyone can be successful irregardless of their age sex or race. Where the only thing that matters is your ability to capture people attention long enough for them to be able to support you. You may not recognize all of the ways to subsidize your own paper, but if you want to solve the future of journalism, then start up a company in an unrelated industry and use what you've built here to complement it. Not only do I think that your readers would support you, but in many ways it would make you even more independent because you wouldn't need handouts from the large corporations that you write about.


Post a comment