|  | | HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Eric Gertler | | Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. |
|
| | 2011-03-28 | | As a former newspaper executive turned Internet entrepreneur, I always chuckle when I get emailed a humorous list called "The Easy Guide to Keeping Newspapers and Political News in Perspective". | As a former newspaper executive turned Internet entrepreneur, I always chuckle when I get emailed a humorous list called "The Easy Guide to Keeping Newspapers and Political News in Perspective".
Three times in the past week I was sent this guide (which was developed many years ago and is "reprinted" in italics below). Perhaps my friends are increasingly nostalgic about newspapers. Or, maybe I am the only person that my friends know who was ever involved in the newspaper business.
It is an unfortunate reality that newspapers have suffered a consistent decline in circulation for decades. In 1910, over 2,200 newspapers existed in the United States compared to fewer than 1500 newspapers today. Moreover, in the six month period ending September 30, 2010, daily newspaper circulation fell 5 percent compared to the same period a year ago, and this was after an almost 9 percent drop in the previous six month period.
Meanwhile, digital media continues to grow exponentially both in terms of traffic and advertising. According to one study, traffic on the Internet is doubling every two years. The news site huffingtonpost.com, for example, has grown from 8.6 million monthly unique visitors to 14.6 million monthly unique visitors in the past twelve months, according to one report. Last year, for the first time ever, more money was spent on Internet advertising than on newspaper ads.
The Internet is not only changing the way we interact but also reshaping the world as we know it. In the 1970s, the Washington Post's reporting led to the downfall of President Nixon. In recent months, Facebook accelerated the downfall of governments in the Middle East and Twitter helped to ignite the demonstrations in the last Iranian election.
As digital media starts to consume traditional media, the list below (developed by an unknown author) becomes nostalgic:
"The Easy Guide to Keeping Newspapers and Political News in Perspective"
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who are running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
12. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
For a new generation of information consumers, it's time to update this list with one focused on emerging 21st century media. Here is my take on it:
"A 21st Century Guide to Putting Digital Media and Political News in Perspective"
1. Facebook is used by the people - well, over 600 million people - who unite and start revolutions, especially in the Middle East, when they aren't busy cyberstalking their exes or posting photos from their most recent vacation.
2. Wikileaks is used by the people who want to topple governments but certainly prefer to put power in the hands of dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists.
3. Huffington Post is used by a lot of people who support government (when a Democrat is in the White House) and enjoy using this site so they do not have to pay for newspapers.
4. Google is used by people who seek instant gratification for anything they desire - from world peace to Justin Bieber - and believe that the Google ranking system is the closest they get to seeing democracy in action.
5. Wikipedia is used by people who want to learn about the world and governments, but not too much, so they are happy that the information is summarized for them in one place on one page.
6. Twitter is used by people who want to learn about the world in 140 characters or less, except if the tweet is sent by or about Charlie Sheen or Lady Gaga.
7. Craigslist is used by people who just want to change their own world by finding a new apartment or a used car without buying a newspaper for its classifieds.
8. Fandango is used by people who seek an immediate escape from the reality of world crises in the latest blockbuster Hollywood movie and fear their movie may be sold out when they want to see it.
9. Groupon is used by the people who just want to exercise their economic freedom by getting deep discounts ... while watching video clips on YouTube.
10. OpenTable is used by people who care about the state of the world but care more about the financial markets because they eat at restaurants more frequently when we have a bull market.
Each of these web sites has, in some way, either affected journalism today or changed the newspaper's traditional business model. If anything characterizes the newspaper industry, it is change. As this industry evolves, the next serious sources of perspective on political news will hopefully include newspaper web sites.
| |
| | 2010-11-28 | | With a much needed focus on airline security, we must still consider the privacy rights of travelers and be mindful that the measures we implement represent perhaps the most public manifestation of our democratic system at work. | As travelers headed to airports to start their annual Thanksgiving celebrations, they braced themselves for worse than expected airport delays amid recently implemented security measures involving more stringent and invasive airport scanners and body pat-downs.
Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) openly communicated the new measures, the agency nonetheless became the (um, no pun intended) butt of numerous jokes from late night talk show hosts as well as the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit. Privacy advocates vowed to stage a national protest that threatened to further clog the system.
But the heaviest day of the travel year turned out to be more akin to a Shakespearian revival of Much Ado About Nothing.
The muted response and the TSA's success during the holidays should not diminish the inherent tension between individual privacy and security in the United States and the need to appropriately balance the two.
Of course, no one wants a repeat of the 9/11 tragedy. Moreover, subsequent attempts by the likes of Richard Reid or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab reinforce the maniacal obsession of terrorists to use airplanes as weapons or negotiating pawns, a practice dating back to the hijackings in the 1970s. On a practical level, flying is a necessity in our vast country, where no other form of transportation can connect disparate people and families, such as for Thanksgiving.
But even with a much needed focus on airline security, we must still consider the privacy rights of travelers and be mindful that the measures we implement represent perhaps the most public manifestation of our democratic system and civil rights at work. The tension here is analogous to the 1980s debate about embassy security, when our embassies became the targets of car bombs. Congress held hearings to increase funding to upgrade the security of U.S. embassies but worried that barricaded embassies would be at odds with their relatively open layout and architectural design that served as a physical representation of our freedom and open way of life to the world (as opposed to the Russian embassies that looked like fortresses).
The TSA's selection of scanners and pat-down procedures represents an outgrowth of this debate of protecting Americans while still respecting our rights. The agency explicitly rejected other invasive methods, such as profiling or pre-flight review of travelers' personal information. (Indeed, a government attempt after 9/11 to create a massive national database capable of tracking all of our personal information was shut down after a public outcry.)
Even so, in the future, the TSA may need to adopt more intrusive methods to keep Americans safe. To date, our solution seems to be reactive to past terrorist activities as opposed to being proactive toward building a system that focuses on the year 2020 as opposed to the year 2001 in order to thwart terrorists' continuing goal to destroy our way of living.
In the face of such inevitable threats, some officials cite Israel's record for airline security as the model for the U.S. As one who has willingly succumbed to its procedures on past trips to Israel, this system would doubtfully work in the U.S. Israel handles more limited flights (about 50 flights per day from two airports compared to thousands of daily flights departing from hundreds of airports in the U.S.). Moreover, while Israelis enjoy democratic freedoms, they also live under the constant threat of attacks and more fully understand the need for thorough airline inspections and arriving many hours prior to flight departure.
If we believe that our future will require more invasive security techniques, we need to start to develop a working framework for airport security. This framework should start with confirming the effectiveness of the methodology. For example, techniques of racial and religious profiling or the scanning of personal information appeal to many. But others, such as Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, have argued that profiling is not simply ineffective but counter effective and would have failed to detect such diverse terrorists as Jose Padilla, a Hispanic, or Colleen LaRose, a woman, among others, had we focused on a narrow group of male Muslims.
We also need to openly communicate the techniques we use and limit such techniques for the specific purpose of the security precautions, much like the TSA did with the scanners and pat-down procedures. Critics will surely argue that such communications will permit terrorists to react accordingly but if we truly believe that terrorists are not already assuming that we are undertaking such measures, we are fooling ourselves. More importantly, as Mayor Giuliani repeatedly said after 9/11, we cannot allow terrorists to reshape the fundamental principles of our existence and our liberties.
Americans seem willing to accept intrusions into our private lives and additional inconveniences for the sake of security so long as our privacy and civil liberties are taken into consideration. Reconciling this balance is essential, and given our fundamental need to fly, it is beyond a joking matter.
| |
| | 2010-06-21 | | Consumers will consider a company's competitor when their current company does not meet expectations on privacy protections (no wonder Myspace announced greater privacy controls in the wake of Facebook's consumer backlash). | The backlash that Facebook recently confronted from users over changes to policies that restricted the privacy of users' information and that Google faced for unwittingly collecting data over unsecured Wi-Fi networks in Europe has reignited the debate on privacy and the extent to which personal information may be collected, stored, used and shared.
In the face of such criticism, both companies astutely bowed to the pressure and changed course. Facebook announced new privacy controls for its users to better control their personal information; Google agreed to work with authorities to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The change in course made rational business sense on several levels. In the case of Facebook, various government legislators had joined the fracas. A group of United States Senators pressured Facebook to reverse its policies, and the Federal Trade Commission received complaints from privacy advocates, compelling it to consider action.
Beyond the worry of governmental intervention, companies like Facebook and Google need to understand that consumers fundamentally care about their privacy. Indeed, a 1999 Wall Street Journal/NBC survey revealed that privacy was the greatest concern in the minds of Americans at the turn of the 21st century -- more important, ironically, than terrorist attacks on American soil, overpopulation, or global warming. (In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, national security issues trumped concern for individual privacy.)
Still, many dismiss such surveys and argue that consumers willingly part with their information with little thought or concern. Downplaying the importance of privacy, Sun Microsystems' CEO Scott McNealy fueled the debate years ago when he said "you have zero privacy. Get over it." The current privacy debate centers on the beliefs of Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg that "people have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds but more openly and with more people."
These perspectives miss the point. Consumers have little choice today but to share their information. The diminishment of privacy -- or the forfeiting of personal information -- is a necessary evil for the conveniences of modern day technologies. Consider the Internet (including social networking sites and search engines), smart phones and other wireless devices (complete with GPS locaters), credit and ATM cards, EZ toll passes to reduce time on highways, or even access cards required to enter your workplace. All of these advancements in technology and our growing reliance on them mean that our everyday lives can be constantly tracked and monitored given the trail of personal information we reveal with these applications. Such devices both conflict with and open the door into our personal privacy.
The case of Facebook is no different. The popularity of the social network does not reinforce that consumers view privacy differently or that they have made a conscious decision to trade their personal information. Rather, Facebook mirrors the technologically driven world in which we live. Being a member of a network consisting of almost 500 million people, or over 35% of the American population and almost 33% of global Internet users, means you are simply taking part in today's interconnected world as opposed to leading a life detached from others.
Companies would be shortsighted to believe that consumers do not care about their privacy when they release personal information to join a service. One survey conducted by The Privacy Council indicated that a company's commitment to privacy was as important to maintaining product satisfaction, offering customer discounts, or having an 800 number for consumer feedback. Other surveys such as one by Unisys reveal that consumers will consider a company's competitor when their current company does not meet expectations on privacy protections. No wonder competitor Myspace immediately announced greater consumer privacy controls in the wake of Facebook's consumer backlash.
Of course, consumers still have a responsibility to manage their personal information and to take greater control of their privacy. With Facebook's release of new controls, users have little excuse for not managing their personal information on the network.
Other companies, especially banks and marketers, must learn from the public reaction to the policies of Facebook and Google. Before the government takes a stronger regulatory position or a company faces the inevitable backlash of its customers, it would be wise to accept that protecting clients' personal information is not only essential but also good business. Privacy does matter today.
| |
| | 2009-12-24 | | As 2009 comes to a close and the stories about his "infidelities" fade, Tiger Woods is learning the hard way... |
As 2009 comes to a close and the stories about his "infidelities" fade, Tiger Woods is learning the hard way that extramarital affairs may be fleeting but the digital fingerprints they leave are indelible.
Tiger may be the world's greatest golfer and the decade's best athlete, but the digital landscape handicaps the great and the ordinary alike. Had Tiger not provided a plethora of digital clues about his relationships, the damage to his reputation would have been much less severe.
Perhaps Tiger did not fully comprehend the lasting effects of his digital footprints. His recorded voicemail asking one of his mistresses to delete her voicemail greeting to avoid detection from his wife in the event she called seemed hopelessly naïve. His various text messages that were reprinted were ripe for tabloid sensationalism.
Indeed, in this new technology-driven era of digital voicemail, text messages, emails, and all of the social networking sites, one's effort to conceal embarrassing, illicit or even criminal acts becomes somewhat futile.
Tiger may have been guided by a common misconception that text messages, unlike email, leave no digital history. Of course, email communications may be indefinitely stored on both the sender's and recipient's servers in addition to both party's personal email boxes.
Text messages, too, have a digital afterlife. Text messages can, in some cases, reside indefinitely on one's cell phone. Wireless companies also maintain an actual record of the text message from a few days to several weeks, depending on the company, and there have been situations where an actual text has been obtained many months later.
Even if the actual text message is not recovered, an individual billing record lists the phone number of the text message's recipient or sender. In legal cases, a capable attorney can weave a damaging case - even without the actual messages - based on the preponderance of texts to a particular individual.
Yet, inexplicably, in today's digital era, it seems that the text message provides the all too revealing clue to one's dalliances. For example, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's affair with a staffer was exposed as a result of the hundreds of text messages he sent on his government issued phone.
As a previous victim of digital crimes, Woods should have known better. Tiger, whose real name is Eldrick T. Woods, had his identity stolen several years ago. (Identity theft has plagued millions of Americans in the last decade.) This crime only became apparent after the thief attempted to buy a used car, and it was too far fetched to fathom that a person with a multimillion-dollar car endorsement was seeking such a purchase.
Of course, Tiger's actions beg more basic questions that go beyond digital savvy. Why risk his immaculate image? Why no restraint? And why not rely on "handlers" and alternative cell phones like certain other high profile athletes and personalities?
Nonetheless, the digital lessons from Tiger's incident seem clear. Like the instant gratification of the affair that ultimately leads to a disintegration of one's long-term relationship or marriage, the ease and convenience of digital communications (such as email and text messaging) in the short term can haunt you in the long term when certain information is revealed or taken out of context.
No doubt, incidents where one's personal privacy is violated are bound to increase and push the legal frontiers. Coincidentally, the United States Supreme Court recently agreed to hear its first case in this area, involving a police officer's right to privacy stemming from text messages sent and received on a government issued pager. Whether the Supreme Court provides any clear legal guidance for us, we must all be mindful of the consequences that our communications have upon our personal privacy.
Many golfers joked after Tiger's accident that you always get into trouble when you have a short drive and then hit a tree. The same can often be said of text messages.
| |
| | 2009-04-24 | | To survive, newspapers need to do more than dump their print content online (which further cannibalizes the print editions) and charge for it. That is not sufficient. | As a former newspaper boy, editor, and executive at the Daily News and the International Herald Tribune, I shed a tear every time a newspaper folds, goes bankrupt or announces more layoffs. For those still standing, ad revenues are declining and readers are migrating to online information sources. Even Dick Tracy, as portrayed in a recent Saturday Night Live skit, can't save the newspaper industry singlehandedly.
To survive, newspapers need to do more than dump their print content online (which further cannibalizes the print editions) and charge for it. That is not sufficient. Instead, they need to develop new business models and find new ways to appeal to their readers. In the process, I believe that newspapers will no longer be about either "news" or "paper". And, although this may sound nonsensical, nor will they be purely about content. At least not the content they currently deliver to their audiences.
As I discovered when I founded the Daily News online (nydailynews.com), newspapers license a great deal of their content from third parties (think sports scores, cartoons, weather reports, stock quotes, photos, opinion columns, and much more). Today, not only is much of the same content in newspapers found in other sites, these sites often offer better tools and functionality. Think Fandango for movies, or Google Finance for stock quotes. Moreover, most consumers traditionally do not buy newspapers for their content but rather for the classifieds, advertisements, movie listings, coupons, or even Sudoku (which saves the day in the SNL skit). When I worked at the International Herald Tribune in the 1980s, about 10% of subscribers did not even speak English but liked the status of getting the newspaper.
The most valuable asset a newspaper has is not the content, but rather its brand. To be profitable and relevant, newspapers need to do more to leverage their brand and their recognition in the local marketplace. For example, VG Nett, a European newspaper, started a weight loss membership club for its readers that now generates over $1 million annually. No doubt, newspapers can develop many other revenue generating services, including resume services, job banks, retraining services, classes, membership clubs offering discounts to select stores, and more. Or perhaps create contests, such as local version of American Idol where the newspaper discovers and then promotes local talent for singers, artists, athletes, journalists and so on.
The same thinking must extend to the web sites of newspapers, particularly as daily newspapers (with the possible exception of the Sunday paper) face a real threat of disappearing. Online editors should position their newspaper sites as the essential starting point for reader needs in the local community, guiding users in their daily lives in much the same way that newspaper editors traditionally chose the most interesting stories in print to appeal to readers. To serve as the ultimate community portals, newspaper sites need to aggregate all local listings, control the local dialogue, let users create their own community pages, and add user generated content and local reviews. Local information and community still matter even in the 21st century, which is why the brands of city newspapers remain valuable.
To fulfill this mission, newspapers need to act more boldly by aggressively partnering with others to aggregate content and information that appeals to their audience and to monetize the service stream as consumers search and transact from the site.
To do so, newspapers need to hire aggressive business development teams to effectuate the right deals and partner with other local media to offer multimedia such as video, blogs, and radio. They also need to hire graduating journalism students who understand how to work in these various media simultaneously. Lastly, with the larger audience, the newspaper should seek to market other "paid services", as described above, develop fun contests that build mailing lists, develop specialized email newsletters, provide lead generation services for marketing companies, and leverage all of the new technology distribution mechanisms.
Because of their strong brands, newspaper web sites have been able to garner strong web audiences. Even newspapers in mid-sized towns are generating close to 100 million page impressions monthly. If they were to charge for their content, these sites would see dramatic decreases in traffic with little benefit, as users would move to other free non-newspaper sites. Besides, if you take typical direct marketing results, a newspaper would forfeit 95% to 99% of its traffic as it converts to a paying site. That is quite a gamble for content that is duplicated on many other sites.
Instead, newspapers need to continue to experiment and test new concepts to extend their brands. They need to create entrepreneurial cultures, hire lots of young online marketers and reward individuals within the community to experiment. And they need to so quickly, as new web sites that aggregate content such as Huffington Post (which recently launched a local Chicago edition) or others that provide user generated content such as Yelp are already encroaching on a newspaper's traditional territory and have already developed larger web audiences than most newspaper sites.
Of course, a reinvention that focuses on the newspaper's brand may reshape journalism in significant ways. A paper's ability to invest in investigative journalism or serve as a countervailing community force may no longer be feasible for most newspapers. But newspapers may find a larger, more profitable purpose as they fully serve their local communities in new and improved ways. There should be no fear of failure, as newspapers are already failing.
| |
|
| | |
