API's $2 million investment
We agree with comments from Jeff Jarvis (Buzz Machine) and Rafat Ali (paidcontent.org) when they write about API's $2 million investment in a year-long research project.
First, while both Jeff Jarvis and Rafat Ali acknowledge that the 25 members of the task force are "smart and experienced" and "impressive" (and we agree), new blood is definitely needed on the team. At least identify and appoint some more innovators and entrepreneurs who are outside the traditional news world to help "think outside the box".
Second, Andrew B. Davis, API’s president and executive director says, "At stake is no less than the viability of newsgathering and dissemination today and into the next decade". Rafat writes that the viability of news gathering will have nothing to do with the future of newspapers. And Jeff writes that it’s not about new models for newspapers; it’s about new models for news. Once again, we are stuck in the same paradigm - newspapers and newspaper industry executives.
We add some thoughts...
Third, news industry executives are spread thin enough as they are trying to stem the decline of circulation and readership at their own newspapers, launch Internet initiatives to appear cross-platform and continue to entice and convince advertisers that this medium is not dying... will they have the time, effort and energy to devote to this seemingly "important initiative"?
Fourth, where is the audience in the goals for this project? They talk about new technology, new products and services and detailed implementation guides. But not once was the audience, the customer, the consumer mentioned. It is about being audience-centric and fulfilling the needs of your audiences.
Fifth, the project goals also entail an "assessment of the threat to newspapers, including emerging competition". Call it semantics, but this line of thinking continues to be insular. Instead of thinking about threats to newspapers, they should be thinking about learning (maybe even partnering) with the emerging competition that seems to be taking away their audiences.
Last, but not least, this year-long project is probably six months too long. To spend a year on coming up with the following: "Final task force recommendations are expected in late 2006 and will be tested in an operating daily newspaper beginning in late 2006 or early 2007"...is just too long and misses the mark on other areas that newspapers can be doing to retain and attract their audiences.
First, while both Jeff Jarvis and Rafat Ali acknowledge that the 25 members of the task force are "smart and experienced" and "impressive" (and we agree), new blood is definitely needed on the team. At least identify and appoint some more innovators and entrepreneurs who are outside the traditional news world to help "think outside the box".
Second, Andrew B. Davis, API’s president and executive director says, "At stake is no less than the viability of newsgathering and dissemination today and into the next decade". Rafat writes that the viability of news gathering will have nothing to do with the future of newspapers. And Jeff writes that it’s not about new models for newspapers; it’s about new models for news. Once again, we are stuck in the same paradigm - newspapers and newspaper industry executives.
We add some thoughts...
Third, news industry executives are spread thin enough as they are trying to stem the decline of circulation and readership at their own newspapers, launch Internet initiatives to appear cross-platform and continue to entice and convince advertisers that this medium is not dying... will they have the time, effort and energy to devote to this seemingly "important initiative"?
Fourth, where is the audience in the goals for this project? They talk about new technology, new products and services and detailed implementation guides. But not once was the audience, the customer, the consumer mentioned. It is about being audience-centric and fulfilling the needs of your audiences.
Fifth, the project goals also entail an "assessment of the threat to newspapers, including emerging competition". Call it semantics, but this line of thinking continues to be insular. Instead of thinking about threats to newspapers, they should be thinking about learning (maybe even partnering) with the emerging competition that seems to be taking away their audiences.
Last, but not least, this year-long project is probably six months too long. To spend a year on coming up with the following: "Final task force recommendations are expected in late 2006 and will be tested in an operating daily newspaper beginning in late 2006 or early 2007"...is just too long and misses the mark on other areas that newspapers can be doing to retain and attract their audiences.
1 Comments:
Hey, Nancy!
The Media Center presented the We Media conference at the AP last month, with Al Gore as keynoter. I'm the communications director. I'd love to get to know you and your organization better. Could you contact me? Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home