Clark Gilbert, Utah papers, and the circulation game

We were just talking about how circulation numbers are a mess yesterday. Here is a real story FYI:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/reading-between-the-lines/Content?oid=2519741

Two market experiences

Readings about the information surplus and the competition for audience’s attention on the Web bring me some memories from media companies:

1.

 When I was working for Univision as an online editor –basically ensuring synergy between the online platforms and local television networks—one of the most difficult tasks was to convince TV news reporters and news directors to use their website to promote their own content.

 “By promoting on-air any other product different to television news we could take away our TV viewers’ attention,” they said,  "so even our own website would become an open competition/distraction that might lead to a reduction of our audience.”

I was amazed by that logic and always wondered whether it was possible to understand the web not as a substitute but as a complement of traditional media.

If traditional TV news decided not to be on the Web, could that lack of presence facilitate competitors to take over potential markets and cannibalize the same audience they ignore from the bottom?

Some trending users’ activities such as second screening could open the way towards that direction. The relationship between social networks and television would provide new ways to engage audiences during braking news, political debates and live coverage.

2.

Terra Networks, an online branch of the Spanish company Telefonica, launched its online video product Terra TV on February 2006. I was selected as the director of the project for Colombia and Venezuela. The headquarters of the operation were located in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

The idea was to implement little teams of producers in each Latin American country and provide generic content to feed the local websites from Brazil. Terra bought Grey's Anatomy, Lost, iCarly’s old seasons, among other TV shows. All episodes were in HD.

The massive audience of these TV programs and people who didn’t have access to cable in Latin America were expected to visit Terra TV to consume those old episodes of famous series. They never did.

As a reaction to that costly failure, we started to produce short local videos (1’:30”) with our small team in Colombia (culture, news and sports). Soon we reached more audience than those foreign shows. As Hoskins, McFadyen and Finn have stated, the demand is greater for TV domestic products than for foreign programs. Therefore, the dream of Terra Tv to maintain a low profile local operation in Latin America and substitute local content with foreign high quality episodes published from Brazil did not come true.

Experience the information!

Today, Apple just held a showcase to promote I-Phone 6 and wearable devices. This is meaningful for the ‘information surplus’ because the development of technology let the supply curve move into the right in a drastic manner. What I feel significant about Apple products is that they not only lead consumers to pay attention to information, but also lead them to ‘experience’ the information vividly in their lives. Cutting-edge technologies can widen the information surplus because their roles as transmitting information is becoming faster and easier for consumers. At first, consumers might feel fascinating about the convenience provided by technologies, which allow them to pay attention to more stuff in comparison with the past. Later, consumers will be absorbed into the massive information that is directly related to their own lives. For example, individuals can check their health status easily, by using I-Phone 6 (Of course, they might pay attention to such health service before ‘the assimilation.’)

Some services on smartphone applications are free, which were not free in the past. Now, consumers might take it for granted that information should be free. I totally agree with the idea that individual’s attention is limited. But, due to the development of technology, the chance to be exposed to information for individuals is growing exponentially. Apple or Samsung products are successfully for consumers to pay more attention to the information. We are facing the world where mere attention to the information would not be enough; we are experiencing the information and bring such experiences into real lives. As a platform, communication technologies are accelerating the information surplus gap.

            Information itself can allow consumers to not only pay attention to, but also experience that. ‘Snowfall,’ created by New York Times at 2012 is a perfect example to ‘experience the information.’ Snowfall is an interactive news service and quite different from traditional news content. Audiences can understand and even experience what happened at Tunnel Creek. After consuming interactive news contents like Snowfall, audiences might feel banal toward existing news services. Sometimes, they might feel dismissed after paying attention to the news content, which would not lead them to experience that service.
           In the information surplus area, consumers might not so much different from the past. But the supply determinants are drastically evolving. Information surplus will continue and even increase and technology is playing prominent role in moving the supply curve into far right.

Isn't it about time? (Week 3)

Time is a very finite resource and inside that limited amount of time we have to decide how to balance the two different sides of attention. (1. The attention of others place on our work and the things we provide, and 2. the things we choose to place out attention in) That is the thing we have control over as individuals. Regardless of what we do, time will continue to pass by and will be used for an infinite number of things. There is nothing we can do to stop it. However, the amount of attention that we use isn't constant. We can use all of the time we have to pay attention to one thing or another, or we can choose to limit our attention to allow ourselves time to relax and recover (I personally like to sleep).

Like Davenport & Beck said, "attention is the real currency of businesses and individuals."  Every decision that is made starts with the attention of a person or group of people, so the point that they are trying to make is extremely valid. Business are trying to capture attention so they can convince you to purchase their services and/or goods. But they also have to decide which things available to them they are going to use their attention to focus on. This limited resource of attention is an extremely interesting topic and is why we have study things like selective exposure, news overload, participation etc. It all stems from someones attention. If we don't have attention, nothing matters and the work that we do is for not, regardless of the results. 

Understanding the principles of markets in association with attention is an interesting concept. The supply of information and other things that people can spend their attention on is infinite, especially in comparison to years past. Each person has a different demand curve related to the amount of information they want and the attention that they're willing to pay for it. So what is the equilibrium? What information are people demanding and how much of their attention are they willing to pay to consume it? Are they spending their attention on the right things, or are they filling their bellies with froth that does nothing to nourish the body? What are the priorities that we have for the attention we spend?

The competition between new media and traditional media

It is a topic that never grows old. Many research focuses on the influence of new media on traditional media, such as “Will television replace radio”, “Will DVD kill movies.” Nowadays, we are concerned about information surplus. Will the Internet replace traditional media? It is interesting to think about this topic in an economic perspective.  

Audience’s attention and time are limited. New media and traditional media compete for limited attention.  My question is that does new media compete for limited attention or does it increase audience’s demand?

If new media and traditional media are substitute goods, then when a reader reads print newspaper, he or she would not read online newspaper. What if new media and traditional media are complement goods, new media will increase the old media consumption or vise versa. 

The other assumption is new media increase media consumption. New media serve a different function with traditional media. For example, before TV, people only   read newspapers.  When we have TV, people watch TV but still read newspapers because people watch TV news and read newspapers under different circumstances. Now we have online news, mobile news, people can check news whenever they want. It means people spend more time on news consumption.

When television was introduced, there was a concerned that radio may be replaced. Radio is not a main media in a household, TV replace it. However, the fact is radio became an important media when people driving.

In my opinion, traditional media would never die. It will find its own way to get along with new media, as it usually does. New media will increase the demand of media use.

Information Supply, Demand and Overload

I think the insights offered in both readings hit one of the fundamental problems facing any kind of information-based enterprise. On the supply side, it requires a lot of effort to ensure one’s message reaches the widest possible audience. Since search engines essentially act as portals to the Internet, rules are imposed on content to guarantee its visibility. (Ironically, one of the rules of visibility is to churn out content on a regular basis, contributing to information overload). As a result, Search Engine Optimization firms thrive in this new attention economy and serve as marketing departments for web-based enterprises.

On the demand side, finding pertinent information has become challenging. In the era of big data, or simply information in this context, it is difficult for consumers to separate the signal and the noise. Information aggregators, indexers and organizers have proliferated to help us sort, prioritize and find content. It seems unsurprising that the Internet is so well-suited for lists.

Maybe the issue needs to be re-framed like this: there is more content which can now be accessed by more people. The trick is connecting the right content with the right consumer. This is the philosophy that guides Netflix’s recommendation system, Google’s personalized search engine results, and other efforts aimed at increasingly individualized information consumption. What loses here is content that does not find a niche or a large enough audience to sustain itself. 

Week 2 Reflections

Last month Variety published a report stating that YouTube celebrities were more popular than traditional celebrities in a study of 13-18 year olds. This clip from Shane Dawson ranked #8 of 20 on the list has garnered over 12 million views.

Reflecting on our supplemental readings, I think it is fascinating to think media companies may have to increasingly compete with a substitute such as YouTube star Shane Dawson (though I don't know close a substitute) that offers a cheaper (free w/ internet connection) alternative,  is more agile/adaptive, and doesn't have to follow many of the same rules of media companies. Additionally Dawson can continue collecting ad revenue for the foreseeable future on several videos simultaneously with virtually no distribution cost.

I'm also curious about how remix culture impacts the supply and demand relationship of media. From personal Twitter accounts to established, large-traffic blogs there are media entities that thrive off the remix, repurposing and reposting of another source's media. These consumer-producers are aggregators, memes, YouTube channels dedicated to producing show recaps. I'd like to spend a few minutes in class discussing this if there is some time available.

Finally, reflecting on the attention issue presented in the readings, I'm curious to know if there is evidence media consumers feel obligated/pressured to having knowledge and a voice about larger/macro issues rather than local issues? Are there certain types of knowledge that are considered more important than others?

Get Specific Would Ya (Week 2)

As I was reading the article by Picard I couldn't help but agree with the point that he was trying to make. If I'm being honest with myself I have always been surprised that, as a journalist, I was getting paid to visit with people and then tell their stories for them. I know if they had the opportunity, and believed that people were genuinely interested, they would tell those stories on their own and with much more colorful detail and emotion. 

The concept of providing people with a voice is unnecessary these days. Everyone who wants to speak has a voice. The difference now is that there are so many voices that no one is listening. It's a question of supply and demand. There are so many suppliers of shallow and broad information, that, as Picard alludes, it is up to journalists to become experts in a specific area, or at least experts of a specific event or problem, and provide information that is in high demand with minimal suppliers. KXAN has decided that their expertise is investigative journalism. (see image)

Based on the writing of Patterson and the statistics that he presents in the introduction to his book, it is important that we provide more in-depth information for people to use in their daily decision making. Journalists are charged with highlighting the important information and providing context around it. 

Journalism, and the journalists that produce it, need to be less concerned with covering everything and demonstrate a better understanding of the information that is actually important and impactful to their audiences. People can get news anywhere, but they can only get journalism from journalists.

Journalists' wage is not low enough

The title is sad but true.  I want to talk about it in two ways. One is value, the other is supply and demand in labor market.

 

Let’s talk about value first. As Picard mentioned, the key to journalists’ wage is to see how much value they create. Picard listed the value journalists create, which is near zero.  “Accessing sources, determining significance of information, and conveying it effectively.”

 

Picard indicated that journalists deserved low pay due to the technology. Technology provides people the access of information which was exclusive before.  In a sense, the wage of journalists should be lower as a new information technology came out. Furthermore, citizen journalist should make journalists lower pay because citizen journalists substitute journalists. We can compare journalist’s wage in the past and now.  In Taiwan, journalists indeed got lower pay than before.

The reason to explain is that journalists are very easy to be substituted. The one who can get higher pay not only depends on the value one create but how irreplaceable the one is.

 

Picard mentioned it in the article.  Journalistic labor is commoditized. Every journalist repeats the same thing. It is not easy to have unique angle or story based on fact. There is only one truth about fact. The value of their labor is to have unique comments or insight other than just facts. That's why columnist or journalists with special expertise get higher pay.  Therefore, to be unique, or to be irreplaceable is the key to survive in media. To be a journalist is easy, anyone who can speak or anyone who can write can be a journalist but to be a good journalist or an irreplaceable journalist is very difficult.

 

In terms of uniqueness, Picard pointed out that “Every paper will have to be the undisputed leader in terms of their quality and quantity of local news”” The Des Moines Register could become the leader in agricultural news; and the Chicago Tribune in airline and aircraft coverage.” In my opinion, it is not easy to do. For readers, they still want to read a newspaper with general news, they wont purchase Chicago Tribune if there is no news from airline or air craft. So for newspapers, specialized coverage is probably not very helpful in selling daily news. The other value of labor is to speak out for some specific people, especially for those who have strong purchase power.

       When it comes to value, my question is how to judge the value of information, and the value of social impact?

 

 

Supply and demand explains journalists wage. Some factors influence labor supply: The quantity of workers, the amount of time each labor works, nonmonetary income and psychic income—prestige, power or the feeling of serving society (Picard, 1989). Demand for labor is to see that the value of the additional output achieved by adding a unit of labor. That is to say, the introduction of technology decreases the demand of labor.

     Journalists deserve low pay due to over supply of labor force and the introduction of new technology, which results in lower demand for labor force. The way to increase wage is to reduce supply of labor. Journalists are unlike lawyers or doctors who needs license. That means lower entry barrier of this job leads to over supply of the labor force. The other way to reduce over supply of labor is to give lower wage than it is now. When the wage is too low for people to be a journalist. The supply of labor force decreases, then there is a chance for more waged.  The conclusion is that journalists’ wage is not low enough. 

 

 

Reference:

Picard, R. (1989) Media Economics: Concept and Issues. CA: Sage

Why journalists don’t deserve low pay

One of the must disruptive characteristics of the new media environment is the presence of the "former audience" in the media space. Traditional journalism seems to have lost professional ground and authority as digital technology continues to give common people the ability to edit and publish their own content. Picard (2010) has insisted that these activities, which previously required money and professional skills, are now supported by open software, networks and new platforms, which revitalize the dissemination of digital content.

However, abundance does not necessarily mean that the economic value of information has decreased. Abundance sometimes makes it more difficult for costumers to obtain a refine product and take decisions. Users are willing to pay for convenience and quality. With partial success, traditional media companies are trying to innovate, adapt and survive in the new environment, adding value to their digital content and exploring new possibilities to reach unexplored markets and new distribution channels. Some media companies are even generating decent revenue from digital outlets. Those gains make us think twice about the future value of digital information(1).

It is true though that most news has been subsidized through history. Advertising offered that support for a while, but the pact between advertisers and publishers to convey information and ads at the same to large audiences has been broken (Anderson, 2010). Yet citizens continue to need accurate information in order to take right decisions in their daily life. Scholars have strongly warned about the quality of online information produced by amateurs. Despite its abundance, the amount of online in-depth reporting for example seems to be limited (Starr, 2009). It appears that the public itself is not going to provide with the high-quality-information societies need. So the big question here is not about journalists’ payment, but how to obtain more revenue for quality information.


P.D. I agree with Picard when he says that the democratization of content production is one of the main reasons why knowledge is not enough for increasing journalists’ market value. Yet the ability to gather, evaluate, organize, synthesize and convey valuable information remains to be skills that very few people -- without proper training-- could have.

(1) Some media companies of course make good use of the current difficult media environment as an excuse to maintain low pay.