With Friends Like These…

Here’s more on the coming effort, particularly by magazine publishers, to make use of the soon-to-be useful and affordable for all e-readers (if we’re lucky).  I’ve been on record for being all for this effort as it, to me, makes far more sense for packaging and potentially getting people to pay for material formerly done best in print.  Adobe, the makers of the ever-popular Photoshop, Acrobat and InDesign graphic software that publishers rely on to produce their print products, is currently working on software to design products for these readers, as it appears that the locked down, device-specific controls like the Amazon Kindle’s days are numbered, thankfully.  Freedom, flexibility, and inexpensive are three words that the industry would do well to heed with this effort, lest they fall into the same trap that virtually destroyed the music industry, not just in sales but in reputation.

Which makes this guy’s comments appropriately interesting.   Steve Haber is the president of Sony’s Digital Reader Division, and came up with these gems in trying to explain why it is that his company, despite beating Amazon to the punch with its own digital reader years earlier, has been unable to capitalize like the online retailer has, even with their exorbitant revenue grab from publishers:  On the cost of e-books:  “The $9.99 price point is not a money maker.”  And, more interestingly, beating on the drum that broke the music industry’s back, copy protection software:  “You need an orderly process for selling books and DRM makes that possible.”

Okay, one at a time.  First, the price.  Yes, I think a one-size-fits-every-e-book pricing structure is pretty short-sighted.  But you can’t make money at $10 a copy?  For something that costs you virtually nothing to replicate?  Really?  Apparently, no one’s bothered to mention to this guy that there are bunches and bunches of publishers out there selling physical printed copies of books for less than $10 per copy, and they’re making money just fine.  And those copies actually involve putting out some greenbacks to print.  An e-book is an electronic copy that costs nothing more than the time it takes to duplicate to generate additional copies.  So, to review, with real books, a publisher pays for creating the original and then pays more for each additional copy, and they can make money at $10 or less per copy.  For an e-book, the publisher pays to create the original and then absolutely nothing for each additional copy up to infinity, but they can’t make money at $10?  Let’s remember, these are the same people who are still selling new CDs for up to $16 when its apparent to everyone on the planet that they’re worth nowhere near that.  Could be why sales are down, maybe?

Which brings me to DRM.     Seeing an exec from Sony touting the value of DRM threw me into a little time warp.  Do you all remember this debacle, you know, quite possibly the one event that did more to wreck the recording industry than all of the supposedly illegal downloading in the world?  If you’ve forgotten, back in 2005, Sony spearheaded an effort to covertly place DRM programs on new CD releases that would install software on any Windows machines the CD was placed in without the user’s knowledge.  This software not only affected how the machine played CDs, but it also opened the computer up to malicious attacks from outside entities.  This was so bad that Sony ended up being sued by numerous parties and wound up recalling all of the CDs with that software on it.  Needless to say, when Sony starts talking about DRM being a good thing, be very afraid.  Before this, the music industry actually had some credibility when discussing copy protection, but this scheme unmasked their priorities completely.  There were no longer any illusions that these companies cared at all about their customers’ rights, private property or anything other than keeping a stranglehold on their falling profits.  In the end, in an ironic twist, this DRM software turned out to have been developed using code that violated someone else’s licensing rights.  There may have never been a clearer case of “do as I say, not as I do.”

The publishing industry today is heading toward a situation like the music industry was in 5 or 10 years ago.  We need to be certain not to make the same mistakes they did.  Publisher’s need this guy and Sony’s help like they need a hole in the head.

Publishing Link For Today: Still Bullies After All These Years

If you thought the publishing industry’s unwillingness to directly challenge Google’s linking would stop them from chasing down other aggregators (specifically those without the vast financial ability to actually fight a court battle), well, read this. The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited (NLA), representing publishers in the UK, has created a license scheme of questionable legality that they’ve been trying to ram down everyone’s throat.  Many of the UK news aggregators have given in and signed on, but not NewsNow.  So the NLA has engaged in a time-tested maneuver; they threatened a much smaller and financially incapable company standing in its way with a long, bankrupting law suit.  Not a law suit they would necessarily win (or even have the desire of ever reaching an actual judgment) just one that would force the company in question to exhaust its resources defending.  American Civil Law never did it so well.

And just for context, check out this page on the NLA’s website. I may be violating their perverted view of copyright in providing that link, but, seriously, read that.  Is this organization actually hunting down companies that send out photocopies of press clippings for licensing fees?  Really?  I knew the industry was notoriously cheap.  And , in this financial environment, desperate, but my lord!  How do you even begin to justify this obvious extortionist tactic?  This is a business plan the mob would be proud of.  A protection racket; pay us our monthly “licensing” fee and we won’t file expensive frivolous lawsuits for copyright infringement against you.

In these trying times, it’s somewhat comforting to know that the publishing industry reeling from massive financial setbacks, still takes some time out of their busy schedule to do some old-school bullying.  They’d better enjoy it now, though, because as quickly as their business models are sinking, they won’t have the money to pay all those pricey lawyers to make threats for them much longer.

Publishing Link For Today: The Rise of the Little Guy

Many in the mainstream press have been dismissive, if not down-right mocking, of so-called “citizen journalists.”  They see this trend as little more than a group of wannabes pretending to be professionals.  Well, read this. It’s the story of one of these citizen journalists who wrote his way into becoming a valued source of news and information on the radio industry in Toronto.  Throw in some very optimistic thoughts from a professor of Journalism at the University of British Columbia, and you have a much different picture of the citizen journalism movement than the mainstream press would like anyone to see.

It’s awfully easy for the long-time established press to characterize this threat to its superiority as little more than basement bloggers shooting their mouths off, but, as with their industry-wide blinders toward the value and importance of the internet in its early stages, that is a very risky assumption to make.  To me, the emergence of this alternative, hyper-independent press is far more dangerous to the industry than the struggling economy, advertisers wholesale abandonment or anything Google could happen to imagine.  This is, in its essence, a direct challenge to the role of the press in our society.  And it’s a good one.

Make no mistake, it will be a while before this movement fully takes shape, but we’re no longer talking about random people ranting endlessly on this and that.  We’re talking about legions of out-of-work journalists finding niches and areas of information to make their own, delving into issues with the same or greater professionalism of the established media.  And there are more coming every day.  It used to be that the newspaper was “the” source for information.  Now it’s become “a” source, one among an increasing crowd.  The superiority and dominance with which the established press has thrived all these years is fading faster than the circulation figures or the advertising revenue combined.

As the professor in the above-linked article said, people will judge this new era of evolution based on the value they find there.  The credibility will come from the content, not the brand.  In other words, the name on the cover has no meaning any longer, only the work within its pages (paper or digitized).  That perhaps, may be a battle the established industry is not only incapable of winning, but unable or unwilling to even recognize.

Coming Soon To A Computer Near You: Content Generated By Algorithms and Written By Machines in India

Ever since Free Trade became something that we’ve engaged in, corporations have been shipping highly paid work to some sweat shop in Central America for pennies on the dollar.  How any politician ever thought allowing Americans companies to do this kind of obviously self-serving and profiteering garbage was a good idea in the first place is lost on me, but here we are.  Now the publishing industry, stinging greatly from massive revenue losses, is about to get on board in a big way. I, personally, can’t wait to see the first American newspaper totally produced by outsourced journalists, editors and graphic designers in India.  I’m sure that will be a delight.  This is extremely telling about the way the industry, at least some of the larger players in it, see and value their content.  They don’t.  Otherwise, how can you explain decision making this completely absurd.  It’s nothing more than a strict money-saving play that doesn’t even consider the value of the content, only its volume.

But it gets worse. Increasingly, media companies relying on advertising for revenue (which is virtually all media companies) are shifting their areas of coverage based not upon human reporters and editors, but based on computer algorithms that profess to tell us what people want to read.  Right now, those algorithms are dictating to real, live writers what their articles should be about in increasingly disturbing ways.  This stems largely from advertisers’ growing reliance on such algorithms to dictate how they place their ad dollars.  Now, I’ve been vocally against relying on targeted online ad efficiency claims, and judging the value of an advertising program based on click rates, etc. It simply ignores one of the great strengths of advertising, the ability to remain in someone’s consciousness far past the immediate point where they see an actual ad.  If I’m reading a magazine today, and I see an ad for a brake shop, it might mean nothing to me because I have no real need for it.  But two weeks from now, when my brakes start squealing, I’ll remember that ad.  And to find that company, I’ll likely do a Google search that takes me right to their website, completely skipping over any quantifiable, direct response from the ad itself.  This is, by far, the most common results from display advertising, and if you’re counting hits and click-throughs, you are totally ignoring this type of behavior.  In other words, the algorithm has no clothes.

And for readers, how does it feel to know that the media companies you rely on for information think so little of your intelligence and diversity that they believe a computer program based on little more than web-surfing habits can and will tell you what you want to read?  Personally, I’m a bit offended by that, and it takes a whole lot to offend me.  Yet, it gets still worse.  Have you ever heard of article writing software? Do an internet search for it.  It’ll turn up literally hundreds of applications promising to generate unique and original content in minutes without typing a single word.  And all of it will be researched, specially phrased for search engine optimization, and complete with titles, guaranteeing you much online traffic.  The one I linked to above actually says, and I quote, “Why spend precious time planning and writing articles everyday when Article Writer Pro can do it for you?”

At the moment, these things are pretty benign, although their use is increasing, but it’s not going to be long before technology advances to the point that these things will be in wide-spread use, even among professional media companies.  Just imagine, the newsroom of tomorrow is an empty office in Bangladesh populated by a bank of computers that crawl the internet using an array of algorithms to determine what we want to read, research and write the actual articles, edit them, post them to your local news website and all-the-while, the corporate overloads sit in their cushy office in New York watching the money roll in.

You think I’m exaggerating?  If the publisher of your local paper is willing to ship reporter and editor work half-way around the world to save a buck, don’t you think that an automated computer system that will generate exactly the kind of simplistic, inoffensive, internet optimized content they desire will gain any popularity amongst them?  Especially considering there’s no salaries, no benefits and no pesky arguments about integrity?  The day is most definitely coming.   Besides, computer chips haven’t figured out how to unionize.  Yet.

A Eulogy For Ira Black’s Nor’easter Magazine

So I stopped on my way home from work the other day to pick up a copy of Nor’easter.  I was looking forward to a couple of things.  First, I was hoping to see an interesting remembrance of Bob Liddell, my friend who helped found Nor’easter with me and a group of others and just passed away recently.  I also wanted to see if they chose to honor him by placing his name in the masthead next to our other forming founding memory who had passed away, Donna Kaehn.  In addition, I wanted to read Ira Black’s farewell article, as he is leaving the boating biz for greener pastures, most notably the new Cecil County newspaper, The Cecil Guardian.  Well, I was more than a little disappointed.  Not only was there no remembrance to Bob in the masthead, Donna’s name had been removed for the first time in Nor’easter’s history, encompassing nine years and some 222 issues, counting the one year we did a special New Jersey edition.  There was a nicely presented obituary to Bob, but it was little more than a rehash of  obits I had seen previously in other publications.  I was expecting more out of a magazine he was instrumental in founding than only a brief mention of his time there in what was otherwise a pretty standard obit.  Ira’s column was good, though.

It’s interesting to me that these three elements corresponded in one issue, coincidentally, the final issue of 2009.  In my mind, it serves as a final farewell to Ira Black’s Nor’easter Magazine (which was the original name of the publication).   Those in charge are clearly trying to find an new identity away from what was originally established.  I can’t fault them for that; times change and those who don’t change with them are often left behind.  But still, the masthead thing bugged me.  I just thought it would have been nice to remember those who came before in a more permanent way.  Oh well.

But sitting down to read the now- smaller publication  (in size, page count and name–the word “Magazine” has apparently been dropped, as well) seeing clearly the lack of Donna’s presence for the first time, the obit to Bob, and Ira’s good-bye feels a lot like closure.  There were many ideals we worked under when we founded the magazine, and they have been getting less and less evident over the years as  new minds and new ideals took their place.  Now, they are hardly recognizable.  New people, new ideas, new priorities have taken over.  I’m not saying if that’s a good thing or a bad one, just different.  The market will ultimately bear out how well the new direction plays.  There will still be a Nor’easter, it just bears little resmblence to the one we founded, for better or for worse.

Ira’s final “In The Wind” column was a fitting eulogy, to me.  A great thank you to everyone who supported us, and everyone who helped us along the way.  A very nice way to say good bye.  I no longer feel any real connection to Nor’easter, despite my efforts in its origins and formative years.  It must be a little like a parent letting their children out into the world to make their own way.  We don’t always agree with their choices, and it can be too easy to rebuke their missteps from the sideline, but ultimately, it’s their life and their decisions to make.   This will be my final words on the subject.  It was a helluva lot of fun while it lasted.  Ira Black’s Nor’easter Magazine, Rest In Peace.

Publishing Links For Today: E-Tablets and Maybe Rupert Has A Point

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the direction I felt that publishing would ultimately head for the future. To me, it’s always been about packaging.  Dumping raw information on a website isn’t really very effective packaging, as the industry has discovered with its overall inability to get anyone to pay for their material that way.  The problem I see is that the technology and devices that are needed to properly package information electronically haven’t quite been invented yet.  Sure, there are options out there, but none of them serve the purpose very well.  Here is an interesting take on the progress toward what we need to rejuvenate the industry and make an actual migration from print to digital economically feasible.  And, no, paying Amazon 75% of your revenue isn’t a model that works or one that I would even consider.

In fact, it appears as though some major publishers agree. A big part of this united front is to challenge the Kindle and its locked-down mode of distribution, not to mention its extortionist-level charges to publishers for making content available.  In addition, in a rare bout of good sense for an industry that’s been fighting reality for quite a while now, this new collection of publishers is seeking to make the content available to these devices essentially platform-neutral, meaning they can be read and accessed on just about any device, and sold through an iTunes-like storefront for digital publications.  Now, if only the devices can get down under the $100 barrier, we may be on to something.

This next part may come as a surprise to you, but after I read this piece by Rupert Murdoch in the Wall Street Journal the other day, I didn’t find myself in total disagreement with the media mogul.  Many people have, however, and here is one such piece that accuses Murdoch of being purposefully disingenuous. I still disagree with his take on the paywall issue, or its potential success, but he did seem to have a little different approach, one I can actually respect.  People will pay, he said, if we give them something worth paying for.  That’s a step in the right direction for an industry that, largely, has been somewhat oblivious to the fact that their material simply isn’t valuable enough to attract a significant number of buyers.

I also was in complete agreement with his statements about government bailouts, and the point that we shouldn’t be propping up businesses that make products no one wants.  Here, here Rupert.  He went on to state that government bailouts for the media shouldn’t come to be, and that government interference should be kept very far from a free press.  I couldn’t agree more.  Now, if he would just lay off the aggregators are thieves spiel, or the self-righteous dismissals of fair use, we might actually get somewhere.

I even somewhat agreed with his take on the FCC’s cross-ownership rules.  Now, I am no fan of corporate consolidation, but in this increasingly altered atmosphere, it really does make little sense from preventing an entity from owning a newspaper and a television station in the same market.  The real concern should be preventing those who own the broadcast stations, newspapers and web portals from owning the cable companies or internet service providers.  That is one reason why I think the recent Comcast-NBC deal should be shot down before it is ever allowed to happen.  And net neutrality needs to be enshrined in the law as quickly as we can.  If the government wants to help content industries, and the economy as a whole, it should be limited to a modern-day version of FDR’s Rural Electrification Administration during the Great Depression that brought electricity to many in rural areas where market forces weren’t strong enough to reach, only with broadband internet access.  Government action like that I can get behind.  Bailouts for a failing industry in flux, absolutely not.

Something’s Piling Up Pretty Deep Here And It’s Not Snow

For those of you concerned about the increasing role of advertising in editorial decisions, especially in the wake of the Dallas Morning News placing content production under the direct control of advertising managers, comes this supposedly chilling little tale.  Apparently, a writer, Bob Berwyn, for the Summit Daily News in Colorado had the audacity to suggest that the ski industry would exagerate snowfall amounts to benefit their business.  Well, duh.  That gets the “stating the obvious” award for the week.  It’s like saying politicians lie; not exactly ground-breaking news and something that everyone already knows.  Well, not surprisingly, some major ski resorts took issue with that and, predictably, threatened to pull a sizable amount of advertising from the paper. To the point, shortly thereafter, the writer was canned.  That’s where things get interesting.

A writer for the Denver Post, Susan Greene, yesterday posted a story about the firing, characterizing it in pretty blunt terms that Berwyn was fired simply because he had criticized a major advertiser.  It goes on to state that Summit Daily News publisher Jim Morgan told Berwyn that he had “a lot of groveling to do.”  Then things erupted online.  In numerous places, I saw vicious condemnations of the paper, and many more cries about the overboard control that advertising interests have over content within the industry.  I’m in complete agreement with that, if that is indeed what happened here.  But, as with most things, what seems obvious isn’t necessarily so.

Today, Morgan shot back with his own article in the Summit Daily News, responding to the criticism from Greene. In it, Morgan refutes the claim that Berwyn was fired for the article or the resulting flap, insisting that the dismissal was for a more ominous-sounding (and conveniently secret) pattern of activities documented over time in personnel reviews.  Morgan’s point was essentially that Greene and Berwyn are full of it but he’s not allowed to tell you why.  As unsatisfying as that is (and it is pretty unsatisfying) if, in fact, there are a pattern of issues that came to head, it’s also likely true that he can’t talk about it.

So what is the truth here?  Who amongst these people are playing straight and who isn’t?  I suspect no one involved is completely above reproach.  There likely was a documented history of unnamed issues.  But that can also be a cop out.  Documented bad reviews is often the last refuge for paper pushers to get back at people they don’t like, for whatever reason.  Over a number of years, it’s frighteningly easy for a manager to compile a list of “offenses” that can make virtually any employee appear a problem, and justify any firing or other discipline.  And because of secrecy laws in HR issues, they are required by law to keep those issues private.  There’s a lot of abuse in those procedures.  But there’s also many cases where it’s completely justified.  In this case, no one really knows but the principles involved within the company and none of them can talk specifics.  To me, however, the fact that the article in question still appears on the Summit Daily News website supports Morgan’s claim that it wasn’t the reason for the firing.

I also suspect that a likely disgruntled Berwyn (and who wouldn’t be disgruntled after getting fired?) used Greene to take a parting shot at Morgan and his former employer.  After all, he would know that the company couldn’t legally reveal any personnel issues, if any, that actually led to the firing.  It’s very easy to make the claim that he was fired for the article, true or not, knowing that Morgan can’t legally set the record straight.  I think it’s probably unlikely that the article itself was the grounds for dismissal.  More likely, it was Berwyn’s unwillingness to “grovel” to the advertiser after the fact that was a contributor to his demise.  The timing of this is simply too close for the issue to have not been a factor at all, as Morgan claims.  But it could very well have been the proverbial last straw.  That doesn’t make it right, just understandable.

Greene, on the other hand, may have been used by Berwyn, but she was more than willing to portray the issue in the best possible light to make a point about advertising intrusion on editorial autonomy.  Why should the facts get in the way of a good story, after all?  I’ve always taken the frustration of former employees with a grain of salt.  They’re almost always slanted to make the fire-ee look like a victim and fire-er look like the villain, and frequently overlook issues that reflect poorly on their point of view.  Greene has to know this, and , at the very least should have double- and triple checked Berwyn’s allegations before making the broad pronouncement that advertisers are setting the tone for the Summit Daily News.

It may be that Berwyn is completely upfront, and advertising pressure led directly to his getting the axe.  It may also be that Morgan is completely correct that the issue played no role in the firing and that a previous pattern of conduct was responsible.  We’ll never really know for certain.  But I can say this; if the press can’t even cover itself with more professionalism than this, why is it that we should expect journalism to be beyond reproach when dealing with more serious issues?

Anybody Want A Cat? They make great holiday gifts!

During the days, I work in a vet’s office.  As such, we see a lot of animals come and go.  Now, we are not a rescue.  We don’t accept animals or make a habit of finding homes for strays.  But, every now and then, things happen.  Kittens show up on people’s front porch out of nowhere, or a mother cat leaves a litter of several under someone’s shed.  Well, it’s kind of difficult to turn away a poor, homeless kitten just starting out in life.

Which brings me to my point.  Currently, we are harboring three such young cats in the clinic, just looking for good homes.  They’re friendly, playful and, most importantly, free to a good home.  The white and black cat is male and he has been neutered.  They’ve each had some vaccines, as well.  This holiday season, what better gift could there be than a free cat?  It’s a lot cheaper than a Plasma TV, and more fun, too.  Give us a call at The Pet Wellness Center in Port Deposit at 410-658-4269 to pick up your free cat today!

Please.  Seriously, we’ve had the gray one and the white one for over a month now.  The white one’s getting restless.  I was slow feeding him yesterday morning, and he gave me an open paw slap as I passed his spot in the kennel.  You’d really be helping me out.  Come on, it’s Christmas.  They can keep the kids occupied.  They don’t eat much.  They’re litter trained.  Please.  410-658-4269.  Call now while supplies last!  And for a limited time, if you adopt one cat, you can get an extra one free!  That’s two cats for the price of none.  You won’t get a holiday deal that good anywhere else.

And who wants a Wii anyway?  Ten years from now, it’ll be an out-of-date piece of junk sitting in the back of your closet while the kitten would still be snuggling up next to you on the couch and purring away.  Give the gift of love this Christmas.  It’s priceless.  And let me emphasize one more time, they’re free!  410-658-4269.  What’re you waiting for?  You know you want one.  Get one for your brother or sister, too.  Maybe Grandma would like one.  They’re free!  Everybody loves freebies.  410-658-4269.  Please.  Don’t let these poor, defenseless little kittens be forced to spend Christmas alone in a cold, stainless steel cage.  Is the guilt getting to you yet?  410-658-4269.  One more time, that’s 410-658-4269.  Get your’s today! Don’t miss your opportunity to make this an unforgettable Christmas!  Pretty please?

Swinging For The Fences: Who should get into baseball’s Hall of Fame?

The Baseball Writers Association of America are currently debating who, if anyone, will make up the Hall of Fame class for 2010.  If you don’t now how this works, players are eligible for induction, having played at least 10 seasons in the majors, after they have been retired for five full years. Voters list 10 of the eligible players on their ballots that they believe deserve induction.  To remain on the ballot, anyone not elected must get mentioned on at least 5% of the ballots.  A player can stay on the ballot for 15 years without earning induction.  To get into the Hall, they must get votes on 75%  of the ballots.  It is possible that no one will get the requisite votes, and there would be no inductees for that year.

There are 27 currently eligible players, but a dozen of those hardly merit serious consideration.  This leaves 15 players who could make a case for inclusion in the Hall.  This year, there are no sure-fire locks for induction, leaving a vast and varied field, that could conceivably leave no one heading for the Hall.  I’m going to break down the fifteen players that I think could argue for a spot and list the 10 players I would put on my ballot, if I had a vote.

All in All, It’s Just Another Brick in the Wall

A couple days ago, I wrote about the Dallas Morning News placing a significant portion of their content creation business under the direct authority of sales managers (and renaming them as general managers, perhaps to soften the inevitable cries of sellout).  While there has been some outcry to the extent that this move seems to be crumbling the wall between editorial autonomy and sales efforts, there has been a pretty significant (more than I expected) let’s-wait-and-see attitude.  Here and here are two such opinions.  While my initial reaction was of the “here comes the advertorials” variety, I thought I’d expound my opinions on this a little more thoroughly.

First off, let me say that I’ve never found the hard wall between content and sales to be all that useful of a concept to begin with.  For editorial people to exist in complete denial of the actual money-making business aspects of the industry, and vice versa, is a pretty backward and short-sighted notion.