“Old” Media Not Yet Ready for the Nursing Home

The New York Post reported yesterday the latest comScore Networks figures, which show that several of the traditional media companies also are ranking high on the web.

According to U.S. audience data compiled by comScore Networks, four so-called “traditional” media companies – Fox Interactive Media, Time Warner Network, Viacom, and Comcast – ranked among the top 10 sites in terms of page views in November.

For the same period, Fox, Time Warner and the New York Times Co. placed in the top 10 for unique visitors.

This is not surprising, especially since Fox Interactive Media’s top spot in November (39.5 billion page views) includes its purchase of MySpace.

The world is moving on-line; traditional media have a strong advantage in the world of new media because they have infrastructure established to produce content, and because they have their old media vehicles to promote the new. Their disadvantage is their means of content production are expensive for the online world; higher quality and professional, but expensive.

The late Milton Friedman used to talk about licensing of cab drivers and barbers as ways to artificially raise the prices people in those lines of work could charge more than if anyone could do it and just charge a nominal fee. In other words, my wife Lisa can cut my hair (and has since we met 25 years ago), but couldn’t offer $5 haircuts to everyone in the neighborhood, because she lacks the license.

Bad haircut

Those in the barber or beautician business may cloak the license requirement in consumer protection garb, but the reality is it’s about reducing competition and enabling them to make a comfortable living cutting hair. No one ever died from a bad haircut; it’ll grow out again (at least until you reach a certain age, which I’m fast approaching.)

Traditional media had a similar oligopoly position, either from FCC licenses, cable system channel limitations or the sheer expense of buying a printing press and hiring swarms of kids to deliver the newspaper to the doorstep. Now the means of production have been radically democratized, beginning with Apple and Aldus Pagemaker making self-publishing for print possible in the 1980s. It still isn’t completely free speech, but our country’s founders would, I think, heartily approve what we have today in terms of free self-expression (though they would no doubt cringe that pornography is considered “speech.”)

But I digress. The point is now amateurs (literally, people who do things “for the love of it”) can produce not just what the pamphleteers used to distribute on the street corner — but also audio, video and pictures. Instead of paying for printing, duplication is free. So is distribution; no need for paperboys – YouTube, Blip.tv, Flickr and similar services do the trick. Theoretically, the lone pamphleteer can be heard not only in his or her community, but worldwide. The price of admission is a computer and internet access, and even that can be had at the public library.

Traditional media companies have a huge built-in advantages that make them more likely than others to attract a large percentage of viewers/listeners in the new media world, but the percentages will continue to decline as options proliferate. Interactivity will be important, as Jeff Jarvis says, because the group formerly known as “the audience” isn’t a passive group waiting to be fed. They (we) are actively searching and engaged, and want to participate.

Traditional media will continue to be hugely important for communications. The viral video is extraordinary that gets anything close to the viewership of any of the national networks. The traditional media companies need to find ways to make it financially sustainable, mainly by reducing their costs. Thus what we have seen in networks like NBC downsizing, and newspapers like the St. Paul Pioneer Press offering buyouts to newsroom staff. As Shel Holtz says, “new media do not replace old media.”

But they definitely change the landscape and the environment within which old media must compete.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , , , , ,

Blip.TV vs. YouTube

I’ve been experimenting a bit with Blip.TV over the weekend. At first blush it seems to have some significant benefits as compared to YouTube.

Unlike YouTube, Blip.TV doesn’t have its own graphic identity or “bug” inserted into your video when you link to it from your blog. For example, here’s how the video I produced from the Austin, Minn. girls basketball team’s win over Rochester Mayo Friday night appears in YouTube:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiN2dTq_EB4]

For organizations that may not want to be tied with the YouTube brand, that little “bug” in the lower right corner may be less than desirable.

I do want to stress, as I have earlier, that YouTube is ridiculously easy to use and has a great interface. For individuals who want to just share their fun and quirky video, it’s a great place for self-expression. And CBS has found it a worthwhile place to post clips, and that it has increased broadcast viewership for featured programs.

Clearly the potential traffic that can come to clips from being on YouTube, with its huge daily traffic, also is an advantage, although a file I recently uploaded to both services has gotten more views on Blip.TV. Maybe the larger volume of available clips on YouTube means those on Blip.TV get more exposure because the field isn’t as crowded.

Blip.TV, on the other hand, lets clip owners maintain all of their ownership rights, and share 50/50 in any advertising revenue. It also seems to have lots of options for posting video in different formats. The progress bar on uploads also is more helpful than what you see in YouTube. YouTube never lets you know how much longer the upload will take, until it suddenly is completed.

Blip.TV seems a lot more complicated than YouTube. That’s probably as it should be. If your main goal is to quickly and easily get your video to the web to share it, YouTube is easier (although uploading through Blip.TV is just a one-screen simple entry.) For people who want to clearly and unambiguously retain rights in their video creations, the added complexity of more options will likely be worth it.

As I said, I need to explore some more with Blip.TV to better understand its power and how it works. One good place for more info is the company’s blog.

For example, I haven’t yet figured out how to incorporate Blip.TV videos directly within this WordPress.com blog. The best I can do right now is link to it. You need to click to see it instead of it being an in-line graphic. I do like the higher quality of the QuickTime, though.

I just remembered that Jeff Jarvis did a post a while ago comparing various on-line video services. It seems his observations are similar to mine, that Blip.TV has respectable traffic and better quality, but YouTube is really easy. He also reviewed some other services that I haven’t yet tried.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,

Book Review: The Tipping Point

Yesterday I finished reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.

I enthusiastically recommend this interesting look at how epidemics reach epidemic proportions, and how it sometimes just takes a little nudge at the right point to immensely change the results. The book is full of real-life case studies that illustrate what Gladwell calls the three rules of epidemics: the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor and the Power of Context.

The Tipping Point

The Law of the Few: Certain kinds of people — Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen — play an immensely disproportionate role in spreading a social “virus.” Mavens identify what’s hot or cool, and are the ones who are “in the know.” As Gladwell puts it, they’re not just the kind of people read Consumer Reports; they’re the ones who write to Consumer Reports to correct what they see as errors in product evaluation. Connectors just know more people than the rest of us, often several times more than average, and so when they adopt an idea they will communicate it much more rapidly than others. Salesmen “persuade us when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing, and they are as critical to the tipping of word-of-mouth epidemics as the other two groups.”

The Stickiness Factor: Is the message memorable? Does it engage people? The classic example is the Gold Box in Columbia Record Club’s print advertising, which enabled new members to get any record of their choice free. This simple addition to the membership form in Parade and TV Guide increased sales by four times as much as a simultaneous test that used traditional prime time “awareness” advertising. The Gold Box team won in a rout, even though they spent a quarter of the amount on broadcast ad time as the team using traditional methods.

The Power of Context: The classic example of this is the precipitous decline in crime rates in New York City, which was far more rapid than could be attributed to demographics, crime rates or any other trends that would have pointed to a gradual decline. The key that “tipped” the positive epidemic, and ended the negative one, was zero-tolerance of fare beating or graffiti in the subway system.

The Tipping Point is, in essence, an epidemic that has already tipped; it’s been a #1 national bestseller. I know I’m not an early adopter, but if this post helps to play a Salesman role for you, encouraging you to check it out, I will consider it “mission accomplished.” You also may want to check out and subscribe to his blog.

The book gives a thought-provoking framework for people interested in starting word-of-mouth epidemics or attacking harmful epidemics. It’s interesting, though, that Gladwell doesn’t seem to think the context creation approach used in making subways safe is applicable to drug abuse or teen smoking. For instance, he notes a Baltimore needle exchange program for heroin addicts and apparently doesn’t see that as creating a more permissive/lawless environment similar to the fare-beating or graffiti. Likewise, smoking bans in restaurants and bars create contexts in which smoking is not socially acceptable, and the research on that seems to indicate it significantly reduces smoking. But maybe Gladwell sees drug addictions as just too “sticky” for context to matter as much.

For more on this book, you can check out Gladwell’s overview. I know that because of The Tipping Point, I’m going to be checking out his other book, Blink.

Blink

Blog Marketing Tips

Sean Johnson has an interesting post on how to get a successful blog up and running in six weeks. I don’t know whether the six-week timeframe is realistic; Technorati’s most recent state-of-the-blogosphere report outlined some differences between what it classifies as blogs with low, middle and high authority:

The Low Authority Group (3-9 blogs linking in the last 6 months)

The average blog age (the number of days that the blog has been in existence) is about 228 days, which shows a real commitment to blogging. However, bloggers of this type average only 12 posts per month, meaning that their posting habits are generally dedicated but infrequent.

The Middle Authority Group (10-99 blogs linking in the last 6 months)

This contrasts somewhat with the second group, which enjoys an average age not much older than the first at 260 days and which posts 50% more frequently than the first. There is a clear correlation between posting volume and Technorati authority ranking.

The High Authority Group (100-499 blogs linking in the last 6 months)

The third group represents a decided shift in blog age while not blogging much more frequently than the last. In keeping with the theme of the maturation of the blogosphere, it seems evident that many of these bloggers were previously in category two and have grown in authority organically over time. In other words, sheer dedication pays off over time.

Beyond that is the elite group with the highest authority. Interestingly 42 days, or six weeks, doesn’t seem to be a long enough time to even get to the “middle authority” group. I agree you can get a good start at six weeks, but as the Technorati report says, sheer dedication over time is what makes the difference between the middle and high authority blogs.

I’m not sure what Sean would define as “successful” but he does have a good list of potential blogging benefits. I guess you could be successful in achieving some of those goals without reaching a higher authority level, and within a relatively short time, but I see the six-week figure as helpful mainly because it’s long enough to create a blogging habit which, if continued, can lead to longer-term success. Steve Rubel’s list of tips says much the same; keep at it and bank on the Long Tail to get results over time.

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , ,

Dr. Brent Bauer on Complementary Medicine

Brent Bauer, M.D. is Director of the Complementary and Integrative Medicine progam at Mayo Clinic, and is an expert at sorting out what has been scientifically established about various herbal supplements, vitamins and other complementary medicine alternatives.

Dr. Bauer is the medical editor for a new Mayo Clinic book on this topic, which will be coming out soon. Below is a sample news story we did for our content task force earlier this year, to show what kind of stories we might be able to produce on a quick turnaround with a miniDV camera. Dr. Bauer is an excellent resource for news stories about complementary medicine, and the book will be a good resource for consumers who want to know which supplements have scientifically proven benefits, and which ones may have interactions with medications.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDvp_-3zJo]

TechnoratiTechnorati: , , , ,