Can Newspapers Be Saved?

Over at the Tribune, former radio genius Randy Michaels has a new role, taking the helm as CEO from Sam Zell. Michaels has demonstrated he knows how to run a huge radio company, but it remains to be seen just how he can take the Tribune Company, which is trying to come out of bankruptcy – a rather embarrassing decline for the “World’s Greatest Newspaper.” How will the company make enough to fund the staff-intensive and printing/distribution infrastructure that has been newspapers?

And, related, the largest newspaper publisher in Europe suggests that there should be a payment system for news that we find on the Internet – so that link you follow from Google to a news piece could cost you. Monetizing the news departments of major daily newspapers might save them. If – and it is a BIG “IF” – folks like you and me will pay for that which has to this point been free.

And then I think about Chris Anderson, who argues that “Free is better.” In fact, he pushes for a free-for-all web, where free makes sense – even economic sense. I’m not sure that applies to newspapers, though.  Can Michaels turn around the Tribune with a free model? I rather doubt it. Will you pay for news that someone, somewhere, will offer for nothing? I don’t think so.

I’m not sure newspapers are going to make it. That’s a big deal to me. I’ve been reading papers on a daily basis since I was 10. Confession: I started reading…the Tribune. Every day I’d read it, after my Dad finished, of course. Now I get the Wall Street Journal, and consume as much as possible every day. Sometimes my kids read an article or two. But now the Journal is starting to charge for its web content. And I’m not paying for that, not while it is delivered to my door every day.

Can newspapers be saved? I hope so.

Black Friday “Cheers and Jeers”

I didn’t go shopping on Black Friday. I’ll admit, though, that I did buy some items – online. Maybe you did, too? One of my favorite websites, DealNews, offers their perspectives on stores and sites that served customers well – and some that didn’t – last week. You might be surprised by some of their conclusions!

Bye Bye Cable?

Upfront, I’ll admit I use cable for my internet and telephone services. And I’m generally pretty happy with the service, although I wouldn’t mind trimming the cost a bit. Also of note: I don’t have cable television – just don’t want to watch TV that badly.

Now, I seem to be in the minority for a couple of reasons. First, I just don’t watch television. Alright, sometimes I do – if I am traveling, or at someone’s home. But the only TV shows we watch are Sunday kids programming (before we head to church). Secondly, as mentioned, my experience with the cable company has been positive. From what I can tell, that is unusual.

Here’s an article that caught my interest because it suggests that cable television could be a thing of the past, if Apple has any success at all with a subscription TV concept they’ve been shopping around.

Now, I don’t know if Apple will ever get any traction in this space, but being an Apple fan, I hope the company does have a win in the television space. There could be better service, cheaper prices and, oh, I don’t know, a new piece of Apple hardware?

Net Neutrality?

The on-going debate about the FCC’s proposed institution of formal “net neutrality” rules is becoming more heated, and both sides of the debate are stepping up the rhetoric:

“Network neutrality protects the fundamental rights of Americans in using the Internet and accessing content, applications, and services of their choice. A well-reasoned network neutrality policy also ensures a level playing field for companies large and small…” Senators Byron Dorgan (North Dakota, D) and Olympia Snowe (Maine, R)

I didn’t know Americans were at-risk in using the web, although now that you bring it up, I am concerned that any governmental regulations of the internet will surely threaten our access. And what, exactly, is a “level playing field” in the digital world?

“This is a down payment on creating a digital democracy. Today’s vote to begin the process of requiring nondiscrimination ensures, among other things, that large internet providers will be unable to block or throttle speech from competitors or those who disagree with them. The nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed fostered unprecedented opportunities for political and artistic expression.” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a media reform and digital rights group.

Excuse me, but I thought we already had a “digital democracy.” Aren’t folks able to use the web as they choose? Ask the Iranian protestors if the internet was helpful in their pursuit for freedom. Wouldn’t any attempt to “block” access necessarily be made known and result in a backlash against the offending provider (unless it was illegal to do so, hmmm)?

Also, I’ve got to think that “the nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed” mentioned in the above quote remains in place today, thank you. Although the government could change that with these “hard” neutrality rules.

“I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.” Barbara Eosin, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank.

This seems reasonable to me. What’s the crisis? What pending “crisis” will these rules prevent?

“As the FCC’s Broadband Task Force said recently, it could take $350 billion to build next-generation broadband across America, and most of that money will have to come from the private sector and companies like Comcast. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow.” David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast

Unless I am wrong, it seems that the largest investors in the internet infrastructure, those like Comcast and other major providers, are possibly going to suffer the biggest losses if net neutrality is implemented. After spending billions on pipelines, the government now wants them to take their hands off any controls and offer everyone the same access, regardless of need for capacity or speed? This just seems wrong to me. Talk about stealing incentives.

Also, remember the day you paid more for usage over a certain amount? I’d guess that Comcast and others will resort to such “tiered service levels” if the government persists in this “neutrality” business.

“It is risky business for regulators to mess with a technologically dynamic environment that is working well for American consumers and the economy.” Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank.

Well said, Mr. May.

Alright, I’ve spoken a bit of my mind. Obviously I am a free-market guy on this one, and in favor of letting those with the pipes have some control over their own expenses and income. I am also leery of the government’s idea of “fairness” – sorry, I just don’t trust the Feds to truly do the right thing here (or almost anywhere, frankly).

How about you? Reactions? What’s your take on this debate?

Who’s Going Mobile? You May Be Surprised!

The fastest-growing age group of mobile web users? Surprise – it isn’t teens!

According to Media Post, the Nielsen Company has recently released research findings that show an increase in audience of 34% to 56.9 million users in July 2009.

Overall, year-over-year growth among the 13-17 and 65+ age groups outpaced the growth of the total mobile Web audience, with a youth increase of 45% and seniors surging upwards 67% in July.

I wonder what is driving this trend, especially the growth in seniors who access the web though a mobile device. Is it the popularity and low cost “Net Book?” Or easier-to-use smartphones?  Or…what? Regardless, it is clear you cannot ascribe online and mobile use of the web as only “a young person’s game.” The shift to the web is rapid and touches everyone. How are putting YOUR message out there?

The WiMax Experiment Continues

News suggests Clearwire’s WiMax technology, dubbed 4G by some, is about to undergo some intense testing. A new WiMax footprint included main offices of both Google and Intel, both backers of the effort to bring high speed, wireless service to the masses.

I like the concept, especially as it can really benefit mobile web use, but wonder if the testing and roll-out will take too long. Could it be that a new, faster-and-better service will enter into the marketplace before WiMax grabs hold?

Surviving Information Overload

In an age of extraordinary information overload, tuning out has become a basic means of survival. Interference has become so relentless that it is very difficult to discriminate between the message and the noise.

William P. Robinson, Leading from the Middle

Free or Paid? That Is The Question

I’ve appreciated the stimulating thoughts from Chris Anderson, but have to admit, this review of his newest book is…stimulating in and of itself! What price for your (insert your commodity, service or resource here)? In the end, it seems, even “Free Free Free!” gurus suggest that “Paid Paid Paid” has its merits.

Now, to on to walk that free-or-paid tightrope.

What Is “Long Tail?”

One definition of “long tail” might be this:

“small sites serving the refined interests of niche audiences”

Why is “long tail” important? Because most of us won’t have a mega-site with millions of visitors daily. We still have traffic at our sites, though, and we do touch an audience.

Here’s a video explaining this crucial marketing concept for everyone who has a business and/or is interested in using the web to drive a brand or business.

Not Who You Think

What’s the biggest social networking site? The top three sites have over half the traffic. Stats and story here.