 Baekdal.comThe Magazine about the great experience http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Newspapers Going Digital ... or are They? - (by @baekdal)
The past 2 days have been fun. First the The Telegraph published the story that "The publisher of the Guardian and Observer newspapers is close to axing the print editions of the newspapers, despite the hopes of its editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger to keep them running for several years."
The Guardian quickly said, "No!"
But the truth is, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is that The Guardian isn't about to do any such thing.
Then the Guardian wrote that "Newsweek to axe print edition. Eighty-year-old news magazine to go digital-only from the new year and will publish single worldwide edition."
Which is actually true... here is the official announcement.Don't you just love it when the old media companies are fighting over who will go digital or not? :) ...and, more to the point, to observe the public's reaction to it all? Most saying something along the lines of "well, it was bound to happen at some point... wasn't it?"
If this happened 10 years ago, the public would have been in a state of shock. But now it's expected.
There are four reasons why print won't survive:
- Costs: Cost of distribution and cost of production.
- Time to market: In a connected world, it makes no sense to focus on a news product that doesn't deliver news when it happens.
- Convenience: While a printed newspaper is a very simple to use object. With digital you can stay in touch anytime, anywhere, on any device.
- Limitations of format: While text and images will always be a powerful way to communicate, we are not limited to columns of text and static images online.
I'm reminded by HOT ROD Magazine. Back in July, David Freiburger, their Editor-in-chief posted a video about the future for the magazine:
HOT ROD Magazine is a great magazine, and they are embracing the new digital formats in many very exciting ways. They just doing a great job.
But... when it comes to print we see the same problem. In this video he talks about the rich history of the HOT ROD Magazine, and how they have expanded into the digital world.
We are not just a print magazine. We got HOT ROD TV, HOT ROD Radio, huge events, apps, video shows on the MotorTrend channel on YouTube, all this stuff!
And great things are happening with them, so I need to take all those opportunities from those brand extensions and fold them into the magazine to make the print product the best of all those things.
Then he talks about how they captured a video about a drive, and how they will present that as a "rich experience" in the print magazine (where they can only do text and images... and thus no video).
And then about making the first 'interactive print magazine', giving the example that when they do a survey on their website, they will print the result in the magazine. That's not interactive.
There is no question that the print magazine is better than it was, because they can include information gathered from their digital channels. But the fact still remains that you cannot do any of these things in print. You have to do it in the digital world.
So what they are doing is that they are trying to make us believe that the many limitations of print is actually a good thing. When, if they turned to digital only, they could do all of that and bring the videos, surveys and many other things directly with the content ... in an active and connected format.
I understand why HOT ROD Magazine still focuses on print. For their target market, print is a very important format and will likely remain so for longer than most other magazines. But you should never protect the old at the expense of the new.
Digital is not a 'brand extension'. It's the future. Instead of trying to convince people that the limitations of the old print world is actually the "best of all those things" (which it clearly isn't), HOT ROD Magazine should say:
We are going to make our print magazine the best of what it can be. We are going to make it even more relevant by including many of the features we have from our other channels. But if you get our app or use our website, you get the best of both worlds. You get the best content, the most exciting stories, amazing pictures + videos, audio, radio, interactive guides, surveys, and you can follow us where you like, be a part of the experience, discuss topics with our team, see live updates from our road trips, and much more. HOT ROD Magazine is not about the format. It's about giving you the best stories, the best moments, and make you part of the best HOT ROD community.
It's the same for the Guardian and Newsweek. It's not about the format. It's not about print versus digital. Print is going to disappear because it's more expensive, slower, inconvenient, and very limited. But you were never in the business of selling print in the first place. That just happened to be the best package you could use back in the disconnected world.
Now we live in the connected world. So ask yourself:
What is the best product than I can make today?
Head over to Google+ to comment and discuss this article.
Переслать - 86% Thinks Journalists Are Misleading Them - (by @baekdal)
The top question everyone is asking in the newspaper industry is, "Why won't people pay for news?"
The answer, of course, is simple. You are not making a product worth paying for ...in a world of abundance where everyone is doing the same thing.
After of years 'optimization' the news media have forgotten their readers. When newspapers optimize for page views, atomizes content, take popular clips from YouTube and present it as their own, writing deceptive headline to get one more click, focusing on finding scandals, and always finding the twist that gets more views... what's left is an angry reader.
None of those tactics is in the interest of the reader. Instead, they are all designed to deceive the reader.
Here in Denmark, Epinion, conducted a study looking at who people trust. Not surprisingly doctors, nurses, police and teachers scored the highest. While spin doctors, politicians, and journalists were the least trustworthy groups of all.
More to the point:
- 80% thinks journalists are too focused on sensational stories.
- 70% thinks journalists are focusing too much on the negatives.
- 86% thinks journalists are misleading them.
(Via DR - in Danish)
See the problem here?
Why would anyone pay for this? It's not exactly the kind of product that is worth paying for.
Worse is how most newspapers have reported this story. The journalists looked at this study and wrote articles focusing on how bad the spin doctors and politicians are... trying to divert the problem to somewhere else.
Several journalists even put the blame on the politicians, saying that the reason journalist have a low trust score is because they are writing about the politicians. Others saying that it's because newspaper focus on change... and people don't trust change.
In other words, instead of looking at their own industry, journalists are putting a spin on the story by saying that it's someone else's fault.
When 86% thinks the journalists are misleading them, you don't try to fix this by using the tactics of spin doctors to point fingers at others.
There is no reason why journalists should be dragged down by the politicians and their spin doctors. That makes no sense. It should be exactly the opposite. The worse the politicians get, the better people should see you... because your role is to protect the reader.
You know, the reader? The one who doesn't want to pay for misleading stories, like when you are pointing fingers at others when it's really your own fault?
As the GPS says: "You are heading in the wrong direction. Please turn around."
There is a thing about trust. Trust has to be earned, and you earn it by proving that you can be trusted. It can never be someone else's fault, because you are still the one who has to prove it.
---
Head over to my Google+ post to comment and discuss this article.
Переслать - Brands Versus Facebook Versus EdgeRank - (by @baekdal)
Several readers have asked me to write about the drop in 'reach' on Facebook. What has happened is that Facebook has turned the dials on EdgeRank to force brands to spend even more on promoted posts for anyone not directly valuable to Facebook.
Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus
Переслать - Why do you deceive people about privacy? - (by @baekdal)
Lately, privacy has come under increased pressure, and we are now faced with a situation where people fear the internet because of the many ways people's privacy can be violated.
What most people don't realize is that tracking is also what makes the internet so much better for us. Tracking is what allows you to read my post over at Google+, because without tracking Google would have no idea that you wanted to follow me.
Same with advertising. If you are a single guy, would you want to be constantly bombarded with ads for diapers? No, of course not. Ads are annoying enough already... at least they should be relevant, right?
But the advertising industry is shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of being honest about the advantages of positive tracking, they are still deeply focus on deception and trickery.
How can you trust someone who are deliberately trying to deceive you every day?
The latest story comes from Business Insider, "Apple Has Quietly Started Tracking iPhone Users Again, And It's Tricky To Opt Out"
Apple has enabled IFA and IDFA tracking (which not a bad thing at all)... but in so doing, they have deliberately implemented it in a way that creates an untrustworthy relationship.
For instance, in order to turn it off (if people so chooses), this is what you are faced with:
1: iOS 6 comes in a default tracking on position. You have to affirmatively switch it off if you do not want advertisers to see what you're up to.
2: The tracking control in iPhone's settings is NOT contained where you might expect it, under the 'Privacy' menu. Instead, it's found under 'General,' then 'About,' and then the 'Advertising' section of the Settings menu.
3: The tracking control is titled 'Limit Ad Tracking,' and must be turned to ON, not OFF, in order to work. That's slightly confusing ... 'ON' means ads are off! ... so a large number of people will likely get this wrong.
Every single step is designed to deceive. It's presence is not made known. The setting in deliberately placed in the least likely place people would ever look, and it's labeled to confuse people.
Is this how we want to build trust? Is this how we want to let people know that we want to help them?
Please stop deceiving our customers. IFA and IDFA is actually a pretty good thing. It's anonymous, but it still allows people to track for instance call to actions. Why the deception? Why not turn it into the positive thing that it is. A tool that we can use to create more relevance. And an honest choice.
What do you think happens when ordinary people read Business Insiders article? All they see is the deception, which means that the next step is that they take out their iPhone, go into Settings => General => About => Advertising (which is listed at the very bottom of a long list), where they will turn it ON to turn it off.
I just did it myself. Why? Because how can I trust this when then tried to deceive me?
Let's focus on building trust. Let's be honest about what we do and why do it.
Head over to my Google+ post to comment and discuss this article.
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario