Entrepreneur Watch

New Ideas For Online Journalism: Social Media

One of the things that online journalism lacks these days is a good component of social media. As journalism makes the difficult transition to a largely online model, this should be a strong component of anything we do.

Most online publications stick to the old print model: People can write letters to comment on an article.

What's needed is a way to get the audience more engaged in the process.

Editorial

First, there should essentially be two publications on the site: One written by professional journalists and experts, another written by readers who have a topic that interests them. 

Readers can also apply to the editors to have their articles posted in the "professional" publication. If approved by an editor, they can become regular, paid contributors and join the moderated discussion.

Discussions and commentary

We should create online discussions between journalists writing the articles, experts in the field, and readers. This needs to be give-and-take, not just random postings and back-and-forth rants from readers.

I've long felt that there should be a combination of moderated and unmoderated discussions. 

The editor(s) should invite qualified people to write commentaries and carry on debates. Some of them may be related to articles that were published on the site. Once someone is invited in, they will have the ability to comment on any article, or any other commentary in the stream.

Others may apply for authorization to comment on the moderated discussions.

Alongside the moderated discussions should be unmoderated discussions to which anyone can contribute. Yes, those are often rants. But to encourage thoughtful discussions and add to the talent pool of good commentators, anyone who shows an ability to make a positive contribution to the discussions can be invited to become an authorized contributor and join the moderated groups.

The two commentary streams could run side-by-side, so readers can compare and choose which discussions most interest them. Commentators in both streams can also incorporate ideas from the other in their own discussions.

Perhaps this requires a three-column approach: The original article on the left, the moderated discussion in center, and the unmoderated discussion to the right.

How can all this be funded? By the only effective revenue source for publications online and off: Advertising. You can read my views on this topic in my previous posting.

When this is done, online publications will take advantage of the capabilities available online, rather than just being old media published in a new place.

And isn't that what "new media" is all about?

Journalism's Near-Death Experience. Can Google help?

Journalism isn't dead, but it's about as robust as an octogenarian with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

People like to place blame on their favorite scapegoat: Google News stealing their stories, Craigslist stealing their classified ads, bloggers stealing their audience.

I don't buy it. The real culprit is unstoppable. It's the Internet itself, Stupid! News and a lot of feature stories are going online, and from there, they're shared everywhere. What we're seeing now is the chasm journalists have to cross as the trade moves to a new online model.

Journalism won't die. There is a critical need for good reporters doing the legwork to dig out the stories and writing about them with healthy skepticism and insight. Blogs--including my own--just can't do that. You have to get paid a decent wage to do the legwork.

The new model to make online journalism work is really quite simple. It's just that no one is doing it. 

Google understands what the new model is. Late last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal, "How Google Can Help Newspapers." He describes a compact device for the year 2015. If you want to know what type of tablet computer/e-reader Google and Verizon are likely to unveil to compete with the Kindle and the iPad, read this description from Schmidt:

Even better, the device knows who I am, what I like, and what I have already read. So while I get all the news and comment, I also see stories tailored for my interests. I zip through a health story in The Wall Street Journal and a piece about Iraq from Egypt's Al Gomhuria, translated automatically from Arabic to English. I tap my finger on the screen, telling the computer brains underneath it got this suggestion right.

Some of these stories are part of a monthly subscription package. Some, where the free preview sucks me in, cost a few pennies billed to my account. Others are available at no charge, paid for by advertising. But these ads are not static pitches for products I'd never use. Like the news I am reading, the ads are tailored just for me. Advertisers are willing to shell out a lot of money for this targeting.

That's how it will be done. But Schmidt doesn't go quite far enough. Aside from providing these services on the reading device, across a nearly infinite number of news sources, these services need to be provided by online publications themselves.

Today's online pubs don't recognize their audience beyond their sign-in ID. They don't recommend stories that we may be interested in. Worst of all, their ads are completely irrelevant to our interests.

That's an artifact of the way the old-dog publishers traditionally dealt with print. They haven't yet learned new tricks.

If an online pub is well-tailored to a reader, she will be willing to pay a subscription. If the ads are properly targeted, they will actually bring in decent revenues.

But it's important that the news/features sites have these capabilities themselves, not just through a new tablet from Google. It's critical to maintaining loyalty to a particular publication. It's critical to bringing in loyal advertisers and revenues without paying a percentage to Google.

I would be willing to license the appropriate technology from Google to get this capability on a news/features site of my own.

Anybody want to provide some funding to try it?

Google violates Kansas copyrights

Once again, Google has shown its blatant disregard for international copyright standards.

Earlier today, Google CEO Eric "Oh aren't I smart with my Ph.D©" Schmidt announced that the Mountain View, California company was changing its name to Topeka. 

Why? Because the city of Topeka, Kansas had supposedly given up the rights to that name when it announced it was changing its name to Google.

This argument doesn't wash any better than my uncle Ernie after a night drinking with the hoboes in U.N Plaza in San Francisco.©  

Google, sorry, Topeka, knew that the people of Topeka, sorry, Google, were only planning on making the change temporary.

The Topekans, sorry, Googlans, simply wanted to call attention to the fact that children in that city of 122,000 have never had the luxury of Web-surfing faster than 122K baud, 1,000 times slower than that enjoyed by children in more developed parts of the world like Singapore. The good people of Topeka, sorry, Google, Kansas want to convince Google, sorry, Topeka, to install a Singapore-speed© broadband network in its fair city. 

Google, sorry, Topeka, has promised to do that for any U.S. city willing to change its name to Google, sorry, Topeka, wait, I'm confused now. So that city-that-must-not-be-renamed in Kansas obliged, but only for a month.

I know that Google knew this change was temporary because, in another blatant copyright violation in its attempt to destroy mainstream media, Google CEO Eric "Oh, aren't I smart with my Ph.D" Schmidt's announcement actually linked to a CNN article that described Topeka's, sorry, Google's sad attempt to gain Schmidt's attention so that the children of Kansas might catch up to the technology of the "Singapore Age"©. In that article, mayor Bill "No, I don't have a PH.D."© Bunten said it was only for a month.

CNN, of course, is owned by Rupert Murdoch©, who has complained about Google, sorry, oh to hell with it, Google stealing his intellectual property by linking to his news articles. Dr. so-smart Schmidt is just trying to goad Murdoch© into doing something stupid, like blocking his news articles from Google searches. 

When is Google going to learn that EVERY WORD any American ever writes down or steals from a native American tribe is automatically copyrighted and nobody else has ANY rights to it? Just because Topeka is temporarily relinquishing the name, Schmidt cannot violate the city's copyright©. The city has exclusive rights to that name for 123 years past the death of the city's last living resident.

Please, write to your Congressman and ask the Justice Department to crack down on Google before it becomes any more powerful. Before long, it will have a monopoly on every city name in America©.

Let's face it, if this doesn't prove that Google is evil, nothing will. ©

Vote: Is Google Evil?

I'm running a survey/poll. Do you think Google has become evil? Please vote and give your opinion at my site, http://RichardLBrandt.com. 

First 10 people to offer their comments get a free copy of Inside Larry & Sergey's Brain.

Best comment gets a free copy of Googled: The End of the World as We Know It.

Check out the summary explanation on my blog here.

Read my full commentary, vote in the free poll, comment on the article here. 

Thought-provoking Web sites

I just started following @tomhalle on twitter, an executive I've known for some years. He came up with a few great, thought-provoking web sites. I thought I'd repeat them here in additino to my retweets on twitter.

Daily Beast: 25 Ways to Get Smarter in 2010 http://bit.ly/5LQFkt

PHOTOS: The Most Innovative Web Site Designs Of All Time http://bit.ly/5DGpzC

Scientists discovery antibody that kills prostate cancerhttp://bit.ly/5Wh6vy (RT @RawStory)

The 50 most interesting articles on Wikipedia http://bit.ly/2ktaib

Inside Larry and Sergey's Brain

This blog will soon be transferred to my website, http://RichardLBrandt.com

Please visit to see more information and to post your own comments. 

My new book about the founders of Google is out. It's written for entrepreneurs curious about how to achieve Google-like success themselves, and for anyone wondering what these two guys are like and how they think. More information at my website.

Secrets to Google's success: Avoid "lock-in"

A couple years ago, I heard Eric Schmidt say something that really bothered me. He was giving a speech at the Stanford Entrepreneurship conference, advising would-be entrepreneurs on how to create a sustainable company. One piece of advice was to create a "network effect," or a huge network of people using your system in a way that makes the network ever-more valuable as more people join it.

The concept of network effect was conceived by Bob Metcalf.

What bothered me was that this is dangerously close to the idea of locking in your customers. Microsoft is used to locking in customers, a big key to its success. As more people used Windows, applications developers had to write programs for that OS, which made it more useful for end users to stick with that OS. It's called a "virtuous cycle."

The thing is, as it's usually applied, it's not very virtuous. When people become locked in to a product, the company making that product doesn't have to work hard to keep them happy. They can't leave anyway, so the supplier doesn't have the motivation of being paranoid that customers might leave. It made Microsoft a huge company, but it lost touch with its customers. Ease of use was sacrificed to the gods of lock-in.

But I was pleased to talk to someone close to Google recently who says that lock-in is forbidden at the company. The right kind of network effect is that seen at YouTube. It has the most videos, so it's the first place you go to find videos.

The internet smacks the concept of lock-in out of contention. If Google gets lazy with YouTube and others come up with a better system, people will migrate. It's too easy to pack up and more to a new site.

I think Yahoo is still dedicated to the idea of lock-in. It wants its "community" of users to become so dependent on its services that they never leave. Email (whether from Google or Yahoo or Microsoft) has a natural lock-in effect. It's too hard to inform everyone of your new email address.

But Yahoo is trying to create something of a gated community, with original content and other services, the way HBO made the transition from just airing movies made by others to creating its own films and programs.

That's great on the limited medium of television, where there are still only so many channels you can get. But it doesn't work on the internet, with virtually infinite bandwidth.

Google was the first search engine that didn't try to be a portal and lock people in. It happily sends people to other sites, if they have the best content or services.

But I still worry that it will lose this dedication as it offers more and more services of its own. Google used to happily send people to Yahoo Finance before it came out with a competing service. Does it still do so? I just don't know. But I'd like to find out.

Other secrets from Google:

Everything is free

Avoid evil