Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Friday, March 2, 2012

Bad Business: 10 Outrageous Company Image Busters

By Diane Bullock and Kathleen Culliton Feb 29, 2012 1:30 pm

Twitter gives a thumb's up to censorship, and a Pinkberry co-founder is charged with assault -- what happens when reality clashes with a company's projected persona?


As all CEOs know, today's companies operate in glass houses. Given the free flow of information across both official and unofficial (read: social media) channels, there is no unjust policy change or illegal act that will fly under the radar. Customers will discover the truth, and most will speak up.

What's surprising, then, is to discover just how many public incidents still happen that badly damage a company's image, or how often a business will choose to follow a new practice that clashes with the public's idea of the corporation. Here, 10 accounts of unusual image-busting events.



1. Starbucks
Coffee shop or battlefield? In accordance with state laws,Starbucks (SBUX) currently permits the carrying of weapons in its stores in 43 states, and the carrying of concealed weapons in its stores in 49 states. Protest organizations the National Gun Victims Action Council(or NGAC) and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and their political opposition Open Carry and the National Rifle Association (or NRA), have consequently chosen Starbucks as their battlefield of choice.

The Starbucks gun controversy began in January 2010 in the California Bay Area when marchers carrying weapons entered local stores to test the application of new “open carry” legislation. Of the various businesses approached by the gun owners, only Starbucks admitted entrance. When news of Starbucks' surprising move reached the media, it spurred an online debate and physical protest that continues today.

Starbucks insists that while it will continue to welcome openly armed customers where state law permits, it would prefer it not to be publicized. “We woke up one day and all the sudden Starbucks was in the middle of this political crossfire between the people who want to bring a gun into Starbucks and the people who want to prevent it," Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told Nightline. "It is a very difficult, fragile situation. We're trying to abide by the law."

The sanity of that law has been put into question by violent events that have taken place in American coffee shops. Four police officers were shot and killedin a Washington state coffeehouse in 2009. An underage girl accidentally fired a gun in her purse at a Starbucks in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and another woman accidentally shot herself in a Sacramento Starbucks parking lot in 2011.

Today Starbucks remains under scrutiny from liberals who oppose “open carry” and from conservatives against the company’s support for gay marriage legislation.



2. PinkberryA frozen yogurt store usually doesn't have to work hard to exude a cheerful, pleasant persona -- feeding people frozen yogurt tends to do the trick. Pinkberry goes even further, carefully crafting a pink-tinted, lighthearted, and "fun" atmosphere in every one of its modern stores.

That almost Disneyesque image couldn't be more out of keeping with the allegations that currently stand against one of Pinkberry's founders: Young Lee, the franchise's co-creator was arrestedby the Los Angeles International Airport Fugitive Task Force last month. His alleged crime? Assaulting a homeless man.

The incident allegedly happened June 15, 2011, when the homeless man approached Lee in his automobile on LA's Vermont Avenue, near a freeway ramp. When the man showed Lee a sexually explicit tattoo, Lee and another man left the vehicle, chased the homeless man, and beat him, police claim.

Lee pleaded not guilty to several counts of assault for allegedly striking the man numerous times with a tire iron, breaking his arm, and lacerating his head, according to LA Police Department Lt. Andy Neiman. Lee will face several years in prison if convicted.

According to reports, the defense will argue that the homeless man threatened Lee as if he were armed and that Lee acted in self-defense. But prosecutors intend to produce witnesses who will testify Lee demanded the homeless man kneel and apologize for disrespecting him. When the man consented, Lee is said to have continued to beat him.

Lee opened the first outpost of the frozen yogurt chain in West Hollywood in 2006. The franchise counts among its investors venture fund Maveron, founded by Starbucks CEO Schultz. It also recently partnered with M.H. Alshaya Co., a Kuwaiti retail conglomerate, to open stores in the Middle East. Currently there are more than 100 Pinkberry locations worldwide.

Fortunately for the company, the founder is no longer attached to the franchise. Pinkberry Senior Vice President of Marketing and Design Laura Jakobson made a statement on January 17 to explain that Lee had severed ties with the corporation formally on May 1, 2010, and has had no involvement with Pinkberry since.


3. Twitter
If coolness is the ultimate goal of a social media platform, then Twitter just invited the world over to playDungeons and Dragons.

Twitter announced new censorship technology last month that has caused an international backlash. The popular micro-blogging site reports that any tweet breaking a law in one country will be removed by the company, but only in that particular country. The need to expand its market is the primary reason that Twitter gives for the technology change. CEO Dick Costolo justifies this new approach, claiming it will encourage freedom of speech by making tweets more widely available.

Critics now accuse the privately owned San Francisco company of putting profits before freedom of speech. Reporters Without Borders has appealed to Twitter Chairman Jack Dorsey to repeal the new technology. One year ago, the same organization championed Twitter’s role in Arab Spring, a role the reporters claim the new censorship policy will eliminate.

Twitter helped spur a nationwide protest in India against government corruption last summer. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports 16 Indian journalists have been killed since 1992 -- two-thirds of them while attempting to uncover corruption. Activists fear that in losing their uncensored social media platform, they have lost their primary resource for open communication.

Thailand was the first nation to endorse Twitter censorship. The Thai government would soon be contacting Twitter to "discuss ways in which they can collaborate," Communication Technology Minister Jeerawan Boonperm reported to the Bangkok Post. In Thailand, it is a crime to insult the royal family and can be punished by 15 years in prison.

The change also has critics speculating whether Twitter will now attempt to run in China, a nation whose censorship laws Twitter has openly criticized.


4. Whole Foods Market
Whole Foods just wants you to be healthy, right? In 2009, CEO John Mackey famously argued in the Wall Street Journal against nationalized health care, writing, “our health-care problems are self-inflicted: Two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese.” He claimed that most lethal diseases “are mostly preventable through proper diet ... and other healthy lifestyle choices.”

Mackey's real problem was with a proposed health-care system that resembled socialism, however. For many of his loyal customers, his stand came as a surprise; most green-living Americans lean toward a liberal universal health-care program as a more compassionate answer to America's health insurance problem.

In reality, Mackey's pro-business stance is not that surprising considering he runs the largest health-food retail store in the US. But Whole Foods Market(WFM) may not be as healthful as its CEO would have us believe.

Whole Foods claims to promote a healthier national economy by supporting small farms and businesses, but do their charitable acts balance their aggressive pursuit of the competition? Not only has the conglomerate purchased most of its significant competitors, but it has also encouraged monopolization in organic food production. In 2002, the University of California-Davis reported that 27 growers accounted for more than half of the state’s organic sales. Outspending smaller businesses to “crush the competition” is one of Whole Foods' primary growth tactics, according to a report from the Federal Trade Commission.

For the promise of healthier foods, Whole Foods shoppers willingly pay inflated prices that translate to a 3% profit margin for the company, compared to more typical retail profit margin of 1%, seen at stores such as Wal-Mart (WMT). But as much as two-thirds of Whole Foods' products are laden with genetically modified organisms and misleadingly labeled as “natural,” according to the I-Team at ABC News.

Whole Foods has also ignored requests from shareholders for information on products, such as baby bottles, that might contain toxic chemicals, according toGreenAmerica.org. There have also been reports of E. coli breakouts caused from meat purchased at Whole Foods.

While Whole Foods continues to expand, the majority of its employees never see the profit. Mackey is famously anti-union, and his tactics for insuring Whole Foods remains union-free include “Union Awareness Training” for staff, where leaders accuse unions of coercion. When workers attempted to unionize in Madison, Wisconsin, the company stalled negotiations for a year until it could legally vote to decertify the union, as reported by Mother Jones. Salaries have remained in the $8 to $13 range for two decades, and the turnover rate of 25% insures “team members” rarely earn seniority or significant pay raises, reportsCounterPunch.org.

But Mackey sees himself as a father figure rather than a profiteer. In "Whole Foods Market’s Consumer-Driven Health Plan," a speech Mackey gave at the State Policy Network 12th Annual Meeting, Mackey told fellow executives, “Everybody’s pulling at me saying, 'Daddy, daddy can we have this, can we have that, can we have this, can we have that?' And I’m either like the kind, generous daddy or the mean, scrooge daddy who says 'No'."


5. Lululemon

Lululemon (LULU) markets itself as more than an athletic clothing store for women. Through flattering and practical yoga pants, CEO Chip Wilson hopes to inspire excellence and change the world. His ambition to change lives has resulted in some encouraging, some tragic, and some baffling manifestations.

Health experts bemoaning the state of American well-being can look to Lululemon profits for a boost. In its third quarter 2011 earnings report, the company announced sales a little shy of $1 billion, with a market cap of about $10 billion, which translates to the purchase of a lot of workout clothes. If Americans are actually working out in the clothes they buy from Lululemon, there surely must be signs of hope.

But many yoga enthusiasts have been confused and turned off by the capitalistic streak that drives Lululemon's famously cultish corporate culture. Most recently, the store's new shopping bags, featuring the slogan “Who is John Galt?”, have raised many the yogi eyebrow. According to Wilson, Galt, the fictional protagonist of Ayn Rand’s capitalist manifesto Atlas Shrugged, is a major source of inspiration. Some might think that the pursuit of yoga and its ideals exists as an alternative to consumerism, but for Wilson, it’s all great.

Shockingly, a Lululemon store was the site of a horrific crime last year. In the spring of 2011, former Lululemon employee Brittany Norwood, 29, attacked coworker Jayna Murray in a Bethesda, Maryland, mall outlet where both women worked, inflicting 330 stab wounds. Last month Norwood was sentenced to lifewithout parole for the murder.

She later claimed to the police that both she and Murray had been attacked by masked intruders following the store's closing. Norwood was arrested when evidence suggested a cover-up, and in November 2011 she was charged with first-degree murder. The motivation? Norwood had shoplifted a pair of yoga pants and was concerned that Murray was about to report the theft, according to prosecutors.

Following Norwood's verdict, Lululemon issued a statement that began:

We are pleased to see justice done, and hope that this verdict brings a small measure of peace and closure to the tragic events that occurred last March. We have all been deeply affected by the loss of Jayna Murray and the violation of our safe and loving store environment. The actions of Brittany Norwood that night are the antithesis of the values of our company and are not reflective of the outstanding people who work for Lululemon.

6. Goldman Sachs
Here's an example of reverse image-busting, when the facts about a company make it look better than expected.

Goldman Sachs (GS), the big bad bank that huffed and puffed and blew our house down (or at least bet against it), actually has a few philanthropic tricks up its sleeve. Though CEO Lloyd Blankfein has been called everything from the Dr. Evil of Wall Street to a glorified bookie, he has also been known to give back some of what he gets.

Sure, charitable contributions are often made for tax-deduction purposes rather than out of the kindness of a corporation’s heart. Or to ebb the tide of public outrage for bloated executive bonuses. Regardless of motivation, Goldman has positioned itself at the top of the giving heap and has even mulled over policies requiring top workers to pay a percentage of their salaries to charity.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy ranked Goldman as the second-highest corporate donor with $315.4 million in cash gifts, beat out only by Wal-Mart, which gave $319.5 million in 2010. However, last year Goldman was three-quarters less generous -- with donations not even reaching the $80 million mark -- while its compensation bill dropped by only 21%.

Blankfein may be trying to personally compensate with his free and very publicendorsement of gay rights. Though he doesn’t personally seem to have a dog in the fight, Blankfein has become the Wall Street face of marriage equality. The “unlikely messenger” is the Human Rights Campaign’s first national corporate spokesman on the issue.

Reaction to the news has been mixed. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi writes:

This is an extremely unfortunate error by the HRC, which in making Blankfein a spokesman for this important political campaign has allowed one of the most relentless enemies of the poor and the disadvantaged to use the gay and lesbian community to buy moral credibility.

7. Apple
The long-standing public perception of Apple (APPL) was perhaps best epitomized by a 2008 Duke University study that found even the briefest exposure to the company logo makes people behave more creatively. But after the lid was blown off the atrocious labor violations in its Foxconn plant in China, this gold standard of corporate innovation is now making many of us “Think Dickensian.”

For a country whose work force is certainly no stranger to militant factory conditions, it takes a special kind of abuse by an employer to inspire the saying, “they use women as men and men as machines.” Just when we thought it wasn’t possible to slide farther down the pecking order from “1 million animals.” Likewise, the use of suicide nets to catch jumping workers is so outside the realm of understanding that our outrage had to be expressed in late-night parody.

In response to the backlash, Apple recently became the first tech company to join the Washington, DC-based Fair Labor Association, which is now auditing Foxconn. Foxconn also announced a pay hike for its China employees, the third increase since 2010. Still, Apple can't escape the ongoing controversies; for the latest, see Apple Under Fire for Poisoning iPhone Makers.

The uproar over Foxconn hasn’t affected Apple’s bottom line by a single stock point. The world’s most valuable company, sitting on $100 billion in cash, is still enjoying an amazing run. Apple continues to shatter its own all-time high records, and its market cap is now at a mind-blowing $437 billion.


8. JetBlue
JetBlue (JBLU), the customer-centric airline founded on a mission to “bring humanity back to air travel,” elicited quite a different quote about humanity from its passengers during a monster snow and ice storm in February 2007. While bad weather is certainly no Hindenburg disaster (about which the phrase was first uttered by a radio reporter), being trapped on a tarmac for eight hours isn’t exactly a picnic, either. In all, the operational meltdown resulted in nearly 1,100 canceled flights and stranded thousands of passengers and crew members.

Then, in 2010, JetBlue had another kind of meltdown when an employee -- one whose very job it is to ensure passenger comfort and satisfaction -- unleashed his air rage in flight. Though overworked flight attendant Steven Slater was considered a folk hero by some, his unprofessional and aggressive behavior called into question the hospitality standards of his airline. He cursed out a passenger over the PA system, grabbed a couple of bottles of Blue Moon, and very ceremoniously ended his 20-year career in the industry with a slide down the emergency chute onto the tarmac.

While the stunt earned Slater a year of court-mandated counseling and substance abuse treatment and even a Halloween costume, it got JetBlue a $10,000 restitution reward and little to no PR damage. The airline received its seventh consecutive J.D. Power and Associates’ Highest in Customer Satisfaction Among Low Cost Carriers in North America designation in July 2011 and boasts a four-star rating from Skytrax.

Recently, JetBlue's quarterly net income beat analysts’ expectations, climbing from $8 million the same time last year to $23 million, and its revenue has risen by 22% to $1.14 billion.

9. Google
The de facto search engine. The propagator of a mobile army marching across the entire globe. The conduit to virtually all recorded human knowledge.

Google (GOOG) is the technology superpower that amassed its success while operating under the self-subscribed ethical code “don’t be evil.” Morality would trump money, and doing the right thing would simply have to come at the expense of a higher profit margin.

It’s been years since Google threw its arms around these ideals. In fact, if we accept George Orwell’s definition of evil, Google may very well be a case study in corporate cognitive dissonance. Once its new privacy policy goes into effect, the Ministry of Truth won’t have anything on Mountain View.

By streamlining the privacy settings of all 60 properties under its umbrella, Google will aggregate a giant database of users’ most personal information (including all searches and websites visited) and share it with advertisers. And there’s no way to opt out. That is, unless the FTC buys the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s argument to stop it.

While Google remains one of the highest-priced stocks on the market, closing at 609.85 in Tuesday’s trading, its average price has decreased by 8% from a year ago.


10. David's Bridal
Spray painting and trashing a $6,000 Vera Wang wedding gown sounds like the impulsive act of a jilted bride. But destroying brand-new designer dresses was a practice actually mandated by America’s largest bridal retailer.

When a downturn in the wedding market forced David’s Bridal to shutter the doors of its pricier Priscilla of Boston boutiques, the chain instituted an "everything must go... into the garbage" policy. Under contractual obligation to designers, all of the stores’ unsold inventory -- including stockpiles of high-end gowns -- were tagged with the scarlet letter “X” and pitched into dumpsters.

Short of willfully scratching a Tiffany’s diamond, nothing offends the sensibilities of the matrimonially minded like wasted taffeta and tulle. So after bearing witness to the carnage outside a Priscilla of Boston Minnesota location, the trauma-stricken bystanders made sure to make their protest known.

David’s Bridal responded to the uproar with an apologetic statement that promised to end the policy and ensure unsold dresses will go unharmed and be donated to charity.

Twitter: @Minyanville


Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/trading-and-investing/stocks/articles/company-image-busters-starbucks-guns-pinkberry/2/29/2012/id/39312#ixzz1nzsr5ve1

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Future of Magazines: Digital Gains, Offsetting Decline of Traditional Medium

Milestone: Digital Gains Offset Magazines’ Decline At Future
By Robert Andrews@robertandrews
Feb 8, 2012 2:04 AM

Magazine and web publisher Future has hit a key milestone in the media industry’s great transition - UK digital revenues made up for print revenue falls between October and December.

Digital circulation and advertising revenue growth of 51 percent from the previous year came thanks to Future having pushed 65 of its titles to iTunes Store upon Newsstand’s launch early in October.

The result is finally an encouraging sign of light at the end of the tunnel for legacy media businesses which have spent years attempting to transition their efforts from analogue to digital.


Future CEO Mark Wood: “We are starting to see a significant change in the shape of the business as our digital innovation enables us to reach entirely new consumers in global digital markets.”

Future’s UK revenue for the quarter still fell by two percent, but that was mostly from the loss of a separate customer publishing contract, Future reported in Wednesday’s interim earnings disclosure.

Now, for some, the reality may be dawning that, despite many digital products reaping owners dimes rather than dollars when compared with print equivalents, publishing them at scale can nevertheless return a company to pre-digital revenue growth rates.

As paidContent reported in January, Future’s free container apps for its tablet editions have been downloaded nearly 10 million times since Newsstand’s October launch, generating individual sales of over 430,000 magazines during the period.

Forty percent of tablet edition sales are subscriptions, but some of them may be short-term renewals.

“Print sales will be challenging, but we expect digital revenue to maintain a vigorous growth rate,” the company added in its market disclosure on Wednesday.

In the U.S., Future has been more challenged by the more rapid evaporation of print magazine circulations. But, after the board jettisoned CEO Stevie Spring and its finance director in October, replacement Wood has tackled the problem by selling Future’s U.S.-facing music magazines for up to $3 million and by committing to launch U.S. versions of its Radar web portals, starting with TechRadar. Cost cuts have now offset U.S. revenue falls, Wood reports.

The company did not specify print circulation trends.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Media Use and Girl Happiness

January 27, 2012, 3:05 PM
Does Heavy Media Use Make Girls Less Happy?
By KJ DELL'ANTONIA


Researchers at Stanford University examined an online survey taken by more than 3,400 8- to 12-year-old girls and found that “those who say they spend considerable amounts of time using multimedia describe themselves in ways that suggest they are less happy and less socially comfortable than peers who say they spend less time on screens.”

As Matt Richtel describes in more detail on The Times’s Bits blog, it’s a survey that has problems: media time is self-reported, and the girls who would choose to take such a survey may not be representative of the general population. It’s also an interesting age group to lump together: the differences in media use between 8-year-olds and 12-year-olds are likely to be dramatic. The survey was offered through Discovery Girls magazine online, which markets itself to girls from 8 to 12, but has a decidedly pre-teen feel. (Today’s survey asks, “Have you ever gotten a not-so-great hairstyle from your BFF?”).

But what the Stanford researchers gathered from the collected data does suggest that most parents’ instinct to limit both social media and passive media for tweens and young teenagers is sound. Online communication and video use were both associated with “negative social well-being indicators.”

The researchers suggest that girls (boys were not included in the survey) “need to experience the full pantheon of communication that comes from face-to-face contact, such as learning to read body language, and subtle facial and verbal cues.” The more media use of any kind, the less time for real-world interaction — and face-to-face contact was strongly associated with feeling good about social connections.

Boiled down to its simplest result, this survey reveals that the more time 8- to 12-year-old girls say they spend online, the less happy they are — and that is surely not what those girls wanted or expected when they begged for custody of Mom’s old laptop.

Parents understand why our kids want to be online. When you keenly remember being the last girl in class to get a pair of high-top Reeboks, it must be tempting to let your daughter be among the first on Facebook. But when we give in to our children’s requests, it’s usually in the hopes of making them happier. If more time online has the opposite effect, it’s a strong argument for insisting that the middle grade years be conducted IRL (in real life).

My oldest daughter is just 7, so I haven’t navigated these waters yet — although she just asked me for an e-mail address. I fully admit that my good intentions have not yet met the force of her desires (my son, who’s 10, has no interest in social media). I intend to take this survey as a reminder that my daughter, like most children her age, probably doesn’t know what’s good for her. That’s still my job. Researchers say the question of how social media affects younger children and adolescents needs more study. As a parent, I think I need to make sure I give my daughter’s media diet more thought.

SOURCE: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/does-heavy-media-use-make-girls-less-happy/


ARTICLE #2
Cassidy: Stanford study of tween girls' technology habits is a lesson to us all
By Mike Cassidy

Mercury News Columnist
Posted: 02/04/2012 03:00:00 PM PST
Updated: 02/06/2012 10:21:52 AM PST




Maybe we didn't need another study to remind us that the explosion of digital devices and the content that they put at our fingertips have changed the way we relate to each other.

And in fairness, the Stanford researchers who recently published work on the way multitasking and media immersion affects tween girls weren't trying to reach conclusions about the way we should live our lives. That's the role of philosophers and preachers, not academics and statisticians.

But the study by communication professor Clifford Nass and education and learning science professor Roy Pea has me thinking that we might all learn something from their work.

Their big conclusions? Eight- to 12-year-old girls who spend
Read the report

Stanford study on girls' social well-beinga lot of time multitasking and using media, including television and social networking, tend to report that they feel socially inferior and out of the ordinary. The researchers could not go so far as to say heavy media use and multitasking caused girls to feel bad about their social lives. In fact, it could be that socially awkward tweens turn to technology and media for comfort.



But the good news here? The research also found that the more time girls spend in face-to-face conversations, the more likely they are to feel happy with themselves and their social standing. In fact, it appears, face-to-face conversations can inoculate heavy media users from feeling like social flops.

Nass and Pea acknowledge that the study is short on

Advertisement

cause-and-effect answers, but they say, the work raises red flags and suggests comprehensive studies of media use, face-to-face conversations and social development would be worthwhile.



"When you do find these robust correlations," Pea says, "it certainly suggests, 'Boy, this is a hot place to look.' And it also raises some alarms."

It raises alarms about tweens, sure. But what about the rest of us? Think about it: How often are you emailing the boss with your smartphone while sharing dinner with your family, and, oh, keeping an eye on Google (GOOG) alerts for that piece of news that could change your life, or the life of your company?

And you wonder where the kids get it?

"I think there is something profound about this press for speed and responsiveness over engagement," Nass says.

For tween girls, the danger could be that a heavy technology diet is preventing them from learning how to meaningfully interact with other people, a deficiency that could last a lifetime. Nass says kids learn how to pay attention by talking face-to-face. There are cues in our faces, our posture, our tone, that can be easily missed online or while talking and texting at the same time.

"Our bodies and faces, our voices, are exquisitely tuned to manifesting emotion," he says. "And our brains are exquisitely tuned to detecting those emotions."

For adults, the danger is that a heavy technology diet will cause us to forget how to meaningfully interact with other people.

Being an optimist, I like to think that we'll realize that even when we can hold everything in the palm of our hands, something can still be missing. One day, we just might wake up and say: Remember when we used to talk to one another?

Which gets us back to the good news -- face-to-face conversations. We should have them -- lots of them. And make sure the kids in our lives to do, too. Not that many haven't figured that out for themselves.

"Face-to-face is better," Renata Mancilla, 11, says as she talks with me (yes, face-to-face) at San Jose's Herman Intermediate School during an open house at which the sixth grade is showing off its mad digital skills. "When you're doing texting and G-Chat," she says, "you can't really tell if they agree with you."

In short, the digital devices that bring us constant content are wonderous inventions and marvelous tools. But tools are designed to be put down from time to time. And that's the best way to go, whether you're a tween girl or a time-pressed adult. "We're really designed, as social beings, to be looking into one another's eyes," Nass says.

No doubt. Maybe you didn't need a study to tell you that. But maybe it's helped to get you thinking.

Contact Mike Cassidy at mcassidy@mercurynews.com or 408-920-5536. Follow him at Twitter.com/mikecassidy.
SOURCE:http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_19880969?source=rss

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Future of Media: Lots of Questions, But No Easy Answers

Future of Media: Lots of Questions, But No Easy Answers

The Columbia School of Journalism released a massive report on Tuesday that looks at the current landscape of digital media — the small and the large, the mainstream and the alternative — and finds what will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the industry:disruption and confusion, and a notable lack of any obvious solutions. Although there are hints of some possible new business models, the bottom line is that journalists and media companies simply don’t understand enough about what is happening to their traditional business. And until they do, the chaos is likely to continue.
The study (which is available as a PDF document here) is broken down into nine sections, which give an overview of some of the major trends that have been impacting the media business — including the rise of aggregators such as The Huffington Post, the fact that online advertising produces a lot less revenue per user than traditional media does, the various experiments with news paywalls (“many efforts to get readers to pay for content have been fitful, poorly executed and motivated more by ideology than economics”) and the rise of low-cost competitors such as Examiner.com. And all of this in the context of an explosion of information, as described by journalism professor Vin Crosbie:
Within the span of a single human generation, people’s access to information has shifted from relative scarcity to surplus.
The report also looks at some of the alternative models that media organizations are trying both on the hyper-local level — via community sites such as The Batavian in upstate New York, which is virtually a one-man operation run by Howard Owens — and at national publications such as Forbes, which has been blurring the line between editorial and marketing content in a way that some traditional journalists may find troubling. But while some publishers are having some success with new ventures such as Groupon-style “daily deals” platforms and other experiments, there are few signs of a silver bullet solution that will make it easy for existing media companies to transition from their old way of doing business to a new one.
As Clay Shirky has said, the problem we suffer from now isn’t information overload, it’s “filter failure.” That should leave plenty of room for media companies and journalists to act as filters and curators for this information onslaught — and many are doing this, including Andy Carvin at NPR. But how do media companies monetize this? And can it ever produce enough revenue to make up for the loss of the old business model? Those are the questions that media entities everywhere are struggling with.
The report notes that despite its massive online readership, the old print business still produces 80 percent of the revenue for The New York Times — and one reason why those large reader numbers don’t produce much revenue is that the majority of those readers are “flybys” who rarely spend much time on the site and don’t return very often.
As Felix Salmon of Reuters notes in his analysis of the study, the fundamental issue for all media companies is that the traditional connection between their content and the advertising that pays for the infrastructure needed to produce that content — the buildings and staff and trucks and satellite time — has been disrupted. In the past, media companies controlled the platform, whether it was the newspaper or the magazine or the TV network, and advertisers paid to have their messages inserted into that platform. The study notes:
Digital disrupts the aggregation model that was so profitable for so long. Almost no one used to read the entire newspaper every morning, and audiences frequently tuned in and out of the network news at night. Yet, news organizations sold their advertising as if every page was turned and every moment was viewed.
This is all part of the broader trend of media disintermediation, or what Om calls “the democracy of distribution.” The web — and social-media tools such as Twitter and Facebook and YouTube — allow information to flow freely and to be published instantly by non-traditional journalists in non-traditional ways. But so far media companies have yet to figure out how to deal with this in any concrete way. Even though these trends have become obvious by now, and individual journalists such as Andy Carvin and Nick Kristof at The New York Times are exploring how to use these tools to create and distribute powerful journalism, few media outlets have made these new processes a part of their business.
So far, the most ambitious attempts to reinvent the business of media on a large scale have come from companies like the Journal-Register Co., where CEO John Paton is pushing an ambitious “digital first” approach and has cut costs dramatically. But in a way, the company is more equipped to make these kinds of aggressive moves because it went bankrupt before Paton took over.That gave the company a lot of leeway to reinvent and try new things.
Other media entities have to figure out how to reinvent their businesses without effectively starting with a clean slate, and that is much more difficult. The only thing the Columbia report makes clear is that they have to do it somehow and quickly; if anything, the disruption in the industry is accelerating. Which is why experimentation is so important — unfortunately, experimentation is not something the traditional media business is known for.
Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Zert Sonstige and Zarko Drincic

Sulzberger on the future of print


Sulzberger on the future of print

by Dariya Golubkova ON 9 NOV 2011 IN NEWS

As part of its initiative to bring together journalists and the public to discuss issues surrounding the media and its impact on society, the POLIS Media Agenda Talks series welcomed Arthur Sulzberger Jr., current publisher of the New York Times and chairman of the New York Times Company.
Mr. Sulzeberger addressed the future of print journalism and its current transition into the digital age at an event titled “The Digital Transformation of the New York Times,” which was well attended by students, faculty and guests, including John F. Burns, current London Bureau Chief of the New York Times.
Quality in the world of journalism carries many meanings. To Sulzberger, quality is rooted in reporting accurately and honestly, while being able to engage communities in a variety of ways, many of which were not possible ten years ago but have since become the norm.
At the beginning of his talk, Sulzberger referenced a comprehensive report compiled by the research group Netprospex. Their study aimed to report the “use of social media by businesses across the United States,” and ranked the New York Times Times as the most social company based on (online) social presence. These findings put the New York Times ahead of global conglomerates such as Adobe, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple. They also showcase what Sulzberger refers to as the New York Times priority of the “utilization of social media,” which in turn allows the company to find “great success building upon our readership.”
The story of the reach of the New York Times within the social media atmosphere can be told both empirically and normatively. Empirically speaking, the main Facebook page of the New York Times is home to 1.7 million fans and their main Twitter account has 3.8 million followers. But that, as Sulzberger puts it, “doesn’t even begin to tell the story.” The numbers increase to 15.8 million followers on Twitter when the pages of all the New York Times’ journalists are added in as well. But perhaps the most telling empirical clue as to the influence of the New York Times within the social media field is the fact that a story from the New York Times is tweeted every four seconds.
Normatively, the reach of the New York Times is best exhibited by journalists like Nicolas Kristof, Chris Chivers and Lydia Polgreen. Kristof’s reporting from some of the world’s most war-torn locations has created real-time communities, while Chivers’ use of Tumblr and Twitter to “draw back the veil on his reporting, posting stories and snippets before they appear in print“ allows for real-time updates and journalist-reader interaction. Polgreen’s work on India during her time as a New Delhi correspondent is now currently being expanded into a blog element under the title “India Inc.”
The commitment of the New York Times is influenced first and foremost by their audience: “We have an incredibly enlightened, sophisticated and intelligent group of users who are highly engaged with our products. Our efforts with social media are meant to tap into that knowledge.” It is the focus on what they, the users, can share with the New York Times and what the New York Times can share with other users that Sulzberger believes to be at the root of the company’s success with digitalising their content.

The altering culture of news content and its readership has pushed for the following changes within the New York Times company—expansion of their online discussion and community features, the redesigning of their comment section and the currently under-development “trusted commenter” program, which will allow a select group of readers with a history of high-quality comments to have their responses published in opinion pages at their will. This is in addition to digital enhancements, such as videos and live photo footage, as well as the award-wining graphics and aesthetic beauty of the New York Times’ iPad application.

All such efforts have led to an “increasing level of engagement in our site,” said Sulzberger, “includes more time spent, more stories read and more videos viewed.”

The New York Times underwent considerable criticism when it instilled its policy of paying for unlimited content online. Regardless, it still holds its position of a top newspaper website, with about “45 million unique viewers a day,” not to mention its ongoing reputation of quality journalism.
Responding to a question from the audience about the realistic longevity of print journalism, Sulzberger made it a point to state that the carbon copy of the newspaper will be around longer than most people expect.
Sulzberger ended the event with a promise to not compromise the standards of quality of writing due to financial pressures and increased news pace, and to continue utilizing media through all its platforms. “We see great value in social media; it’s critical in keeping us part of a global conversation.”