ClubPenguinCheats: I was just about to suggest - and blog - that BW should do what we were going to do to GM (not to make any analogies!). Yes, open up the process of inventing hte next BW - and make it more valuable in the process. May. 24, 2010, 12:57am
Sara Miller: Steve, you are no doubt right, and you are in a better postion to know. I only wanted to bring up the tenets, which I believe must be adopted and practiced by the next generation of internet journalists. I think many already are, mid-tumult. Thanks for the exchange. Jul. 27, 2009, 11:02am
steve baker: Sara, I've been thinking and writing about this matter for years. If you google "business blogs" you'll find a cover story I did with Heather Green in 05 in which we talked about this very issue. I think we're in the midst of a transition. We're going to miss some of the journalism that we're not willing to pay for, and eventually we'll figure out how to pay for at least some of it. But in the meantime, the entire profession is going to undergo a very tumultuous period. Jul. 25, 2009, 12:22am
Sara Miller: I scurried over to TechCrunch after reading Marco’s post, and it is very smart indeed, but while it is dressed in journalism’s clothes, and “covers” its industry, it is not journalism proper. Yes, specialists and practicioners and advocates know more about social media than journalists do. But practitioners are interested parties, with business ties of their own. Chemists and doctors and drug manufacturers are also practicioners who report and publish and now blog. But we really trust the Lancet, JAMA, and the professional news sources to tell us what they have disinterestedly discovered about chemical and drug side effects. If TC’s editors want the site to be trusted as journalism, rather than as critique and analysis by people inside the industry or by industry experts, which it now is, they will have to fully incorporate mainstream media standards regarding bias, libel, sourcing, accuracy, newsworthiness, accuracy again, public interest, right to know. But the most important standard of all is disinterest. TC has a watchdog stance, yet many of its staff have entrepreneurial ties, and they have stumbled over professional standards (to wit, hacked Twitter documents episode). Mainstream journalists can and do fail at upholding the industry’s ethics (Wash Post!), and they can fail as reporters, and they grow complacent. But blogging that hopes to replace journalism seems fated to reinvent the wheel, and this is costly. (J school saves this step, by spelling out the standards). I would ask, Do bloggers really want to become disinterested journalists? This distinction still seems crucial to me, as so much of our intellectual and commercial life is now lived on the Internet, and we have not entirely defined the terms of its truths, let alone plumbed its treasure. On that, I continue to believe BW (and others) must charge for magazine content, and perhaps for some of the other fare, customized or not, that the Web site has spawned or may someday spawn. (Apple charges for apps; call these apps.) For the magazine, well, maybe this discussion has the kernel of a story in it. The episode of the hacked Twitter documents deserves more mainstream play, if only to highlight what is still the Wild West of the start-up world….Regarding The Halo Effect, if this book seriously challenges the reigning “science” of business, much as JK Galbraith’s A Short History of Financial Euphoria skewered the notion of financial genius, it is something to reckon with. Maybe BW could tackle it straight on, in a special report. Jul. 24, 2009, 11:53am
kare Anderson: Via Mark Ivey I found this and, as a another former journalist felt compelled to share it on our new social media FB & Twitter... and I hope you do follow up with the project idea + I will tell others about the Numerati Jul. 23, 2009, 10:48am
steve baker: Marco, it's true that blogs like Tech Crunch cover certain sectors with much greater focus than general business magazines like BW. Anyone wanting to follow startups, especially in Silicon Valley, would be a fool not to follow such blogs. They're part of the ecosystem we exist in. It's not an either/or, an us or them. Hopefully we can all figure out business models that work. Jul. 22, 2009, 9:11am
John Arnott: I'm interested in the notion of the 'last 5%'. In product development and engineering it is widely accepted that the first 10-15% of expenditure on design determines 85% of the final cost of the product and the market acceptance. You seem to be saying that it is the final 5% of writing (polishing) that creates the value. Maybe you should try the product development model and get a rough cut out quickly and find out how much refinement the readers want. Maybe the concept would be enough. John A. Toronto. Jul. 20, 2009, 9:21pm
Marco: "-the crisp writing, hard reporting, deep analysis, sharp insights, global coverage" I suggest you read "The Halo Effect" for a more critical review of the business media; from a professor who teaches management ... I'll summarize: a bunch of cheerleaders following the bandwagon (maybe a bit more articulate than the average cheerleader). Hard reporting? Deep analysis? Sharp Insights? Please. There have been several great posts on TechCrunch, regarding the role of vision/ideas vs. execution in the success of startups ... from practitioners ... not journalists (who went to J. School) and don't get what they're writing about. Maybe it's not as polished as BW (they're skipping on the 5%), but it is far more insightful than anything I've read in the business press recently. Jul. 20, 2009, 12:50pm
Norbert Mayer-Wittmann: There's an interesting new post about usability in a "news website" setting (and since I mentioned uability below, I thought I'd add the link here -- will also add it to http://Nor.BIZ tomorrow ;) http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2009/07/how-useful-and-usable-is-your-site.html Jul. 20, 2009, 8:57am
steve baker: Ellen, it reminds me of the car industry in the 70s. They had their idea of quality from the 50s and 60s. It featured lots of metal parts and good design. Then they had to figure out how to take cost out of the process and make the cars lighter. They sacrificed quality and put in lots of plastic. That's equivalent to the danger you're pointing to in slashing the last 5% (or other editorial costs, including reporting). But if the marketplace demands it, the next owner will be intent on figuring out how to deliver the same quality with much lower cost--or perhaps willing to sacrifice quality in the process. That's the danger, and it could be the end of us. To maintain quality, I think we'll need to innovate. Jul. 20, 2009, 6:10am
Robin: The final 5%, huh. In my experience, the "polishing" you speak of can be anywhere from 5% to 95%. Which obviates the need for some kind of process to shape the thinking and analysis of reporters who understandably can find it hard see the big picture. You want dumbed down? Then turn it all over to the bloggers. (Totally get the cooks-spoiling-the-broth thing, however.) Jul. 18, 2009, 5:59pm
Sara Miller: (Apologies: that's "you're" welcome, of course.) Jul. 18, 2009, 3:25pm
Sara Miller: Your welcome, Steve; I will persist in hoping BW's next owner is astute enough to recognize the brand value of that 5 percent. And thank you for setting the highest standards, then meeting them. Jul. 18, 2009, 3:19pm
Ellen Pollock: That last 5% has little to do with whether and how BW will survive. It's about clarity and the kind of polish that should be the hallmark of reasonable writing. It shouldn't be about watering down the material. That said, should you stop your whining about it? Absolutely not. That last 5% is a total pain in the ass. Always has been, always will be. Jul. 18, 2009, 12:34am
Steve Baker: Sara, if we can find a half million people like you, we can make a go of this. I imagine that whoever buys BW will be likely to shoot for a smaller circ with a higher subscription rate. But they'll still have to figure out how to produce it with fewer people and, I'm betting, less attention to that last 5 percent. Thanks for your comment. Jul. 18, 2009, 12:06am
Sara Miller: I pity this new reader who will never be diverted from her own wants and small tributaries of knowledge. No, I will continue to trust editorial expertise and acumen. Give me the best weekly digest in your estimation--the crisp writing, hard reporting, deep analysis, sharp insights, global coverage. This is what you have spent your lives acquiring, testing, refining. It is what you have and I do not. What you are selling and I am buying. That's your job. If you toss the magazine in my lap and say, Here's Business Week, it's anything you want it to be, it will have become nothing, a whim. Today, each subscription, each hit, is a reader saying, "Educate me! Inform me! Tell me what I don't know! Surprise me, take me out of myself! I trust you!" Customization? Five separate versions of each feature? A snarky version? Is this Rashomon? Is it The Motley Fool? Gentlemen, Christina, I think we have all imbibed too much at the mad hatter's tea party. Just make your business journalism exceptional--whatever that takes--and raise your subscription rates. Raise em high. Jul. 17, 2009, 7:52pm
christina: Yes - the editors in the highrise can water down the story, I've seen it happen many times. One more point to make: I worry sometimes about over customization of news. What if like Stephen says, I really should read that geeky paragraph and learn something. If news becomes over-customized, won't I miss out on discovery? My worry won't change things but thought it was worth mentioning. Jul. 17, 2009, 1:43pm
steve baker: Mike, thanks for pointing to that FT site. I'll take a look. Diane, this change could indeed lead to a more vibrant and sustainable BW, but it will include many fewer of us. I have no idea whether I'll be a part of it. One more thing I should mention about the last 5%: there isn't a clear cost-benefit ratio, in which more time and attention necessarily equals higher quality. Sometimes magazines suffer from the too-many-cooks syndrome. Seeking consensus among editors can at times water down the quality and take away the strength of an individual voice. The same thing happens in music. Jul. 17, 2009, 11:56am
Diane: BusinessWeek could emerge as a stronger, more vital brand from this process ... Jul. 16, 2009, 11:56pm
mike green: The Financial Times (London) developed its own news search (http://www.newssift.com/) for those interested in biz news. The NYT is now re-thinking its presumably failed foray into paid online content and preparing to charge consumers again. Rupert is set on incorporating paid content into his empire. The incessant whining over Google, Yahoo and Bing from news media executives reminds me of your illustration of editors holed up in a room in a skyscraper trying to decipher a reader's mind. Likewise, news execs huddle together and speak ill of the search engine world, which directs readers to free content that news execs paid to create. The new biz model is being modeled by the Financial Times. It is on the right track and headed in the right direction. Soon, American news media will find that charging for content may be both a good idea AND a bad one. Without a search tool to compete with Google, Yahoo and Bing, charging for content may work for some ... and devastate others. Wouldn't users be more inclined to use a search engine that resulted in free content than one that brought back limited results and content that cost a fee? What this media world needs is a tool that does, indeed, provide a one-size-fits-all tool or biz model. I've got ideas, but neither Arthur nor Rupert has bothered to ask me. Jul. 16, 2009, 9:56pm
Charlie: Yes, let's get the wiki up. Jul. 16, 2009, 1:02pm
Norbert Mayer-Wittmann: I agree with this - and / but BusinessWeek should definitely work on polishing those last 5% on the BX - there are some quirks that simply make it unappealing (like that it constantly logs me out - a total PITA to have to keep logging in time after time). I also suggest chatting with someone like Jakob Nielsen (useit.com) regarding usability. Contrary to others, I find typographical errors are insignificant. But if there is a FACTUAL error, that is something that needs to be at the very top of the totem pole. A list of errata on the homepage would be very forward-thinking indeed. Just off the top of my head. For BW (McGraw Hill or whatever) to get into profit, they will have to completely rethink media, with ALL STAKEHOLDERS involved. If you like, I can advise on such processes, which have EVERYTHING to do with building information storage + retrieval systems that put the EMPHASIS on the way humans (not algorithms) work (psychology, natural language, cognition, memory, etc.). :) nmw Jul. 16, 2009, 11:27am
SmithWill: It's an interesting challenge. We're a nation of free individuals and yet the vast majority of the citizenry choose NOT to be involved with holding their representatives accountable. The trolls awaken once every two years, emerge from under the stone bride to vote, only to return to their slumber thereafter. If media hopes to wrangle viewers from among these dullard masses, I can only hope they'll minimize any damage inflicted which is a lot more than any of our current drift of prigs can muster. Jul. 16, 2009, 11:00am
B.L. Ochman: Steve - the wiki idea is a great one, and i hope it's at least tried on an experimental basis. Not everyone cares about the 5%, sadly. I do, and that's one of the reasons I read Business Week cover to cover every issue . I think some variation of Keith Dawson's suggestion - giving people the option content customization with different levels of depth would be a great start. The wiki is a great suggestion too. Why not crowdsource the solution. I'd love to participate. Jul. 16, 2009, 10:37am
steve baker: Garry, thanks for pointing out that missing comma. It helps a lot, and those details really matter to me. Alan, didn't know about your project at Nat. Geographic. I'll take a look right away, and link to it. Jul. 16, 2009, 10:35am
Alan Mairson: I love the idea of a wiki to help remake BusinessWeek. I'm biased, though: I just launched a similar attempt to crowdsource a fix for what ails National Geographic: http://tr.im/pbnS ... You have a great advantage, though: Time has run out on BW, so any option with the remotest chance of succeeding is now a good option. Whereas National Geographic, which faces similar pressures & a similar decline in subscriptions (membership), still has cash in the bank. Problem is, they have no discernable business model for the road ahead. Here's my question about BW: Do current or former subscribers have a real affection for the magazine, for the brand? National Geographic does, which is why I still have hope they/we can turn things around. Without that emotional connection, though, I fear the BW wiki won't work. No one will care enough to contribute ideas to save it. That said, I'm rooting for you guys. Please keep us posted. Jul. 16, 2009, 10:30am
Marc Reppin: Media companies are trapped between a print product whose model is eroding and an online product that is a commodity. New modes of consumption such as mobile and Kindle offer hopeful revenue models. Readers seeking a quality read will pay for it, either print or digital reader, but they will be fewer. Online, reputation will supercede the last 5%, and consumption will be more about interactivity and collaboration than swell prose. In the meantime, the shakeout continues. Jul. 16, 2009, 10:07am
Keith Dawson: Imagine several sliding controls at the top of an article. One goes from "Analysis" to "Just the facts"; another from "Geeky" to "Non-technical"; another from "Deep background" to "Summary." Perhaps "Snarky" to "Sober." Let the reader do her own customization. The sliders would vary by article, but would be chosen from a small set of continua. The technology is pretty trivial and all available today. The extra effort in the writing and "last 5%' prep would be large, but the value added even larger, in my opinion. This model doesn't translate so well to paper, but it conceivably could to an enhanced Kindle. Jul. 16, 2009, 9:39am
James Cioban: I suspect it will be hard to "fix" BW until the market/readers "stabilize" their new media consumption habits. Part of the challenge for publishers is that readers are adapting to the new world, and simultaneously espousing the freeconomy by resisting to pay for quality. Until that phenomenon shakes out some and readers define what they want, there is no target to aim at. Letting readers "fix" before they have a clear vision of need could lead to a an extended period of evolution. Of course, maybe that is the point. Jul. 16, 2009, 9:32am
Garry: Speaking of agonizing over a sentence, I stumbled over "Second, readers are seeing in rest of their lives, from TiVo to their double-shot half-skim half-caf latte that one size doesn't have to fit all." Would it read better as: "Second, readers are seeing that in the rest of their lives, from TiVo to their double-shot half-skim latte, that one size doesn't have to fit all. Jul. 16, 2009, 8:51am
Jeff Jarvis: I was just about to suggest - and blog - that BW should do what we were going to do to GM (not to make any analogies!). Yes, open up the process of inventing hte next BW - and make it more valuable in the process. Jul. 16, 2009, 8:00am