Journalist Explains Away Information Phase Change
August 4, 2009
I enjoy finding articles that find a way to explain that what young people are doing is not important. Even more delightful is the notion that the kids with parents who are clinging to traditional media for their livelihood fuel the phase change as the parents remain clueless.
An interesting example of this type of write up is “It’s Easy to Forget that Most people Don’t Twitter, Use RSS Feeds or Read 20 Blogs a Day.” I am an old geezer, writing for my personal enjoyment as the addled goose. But I am sufficiently aware of my digital surroundings to recognize that the information environment is quite different from that of my childhood or the mid 1990s when Chris Kitze, my son, and myself created The Point (Top 5% of the Internet).
Etaoin Shrdlu pointed to a post that said:
“Publishers aren’t exactly fools to not throw everything into online. Print is where the eyeballs are; it’s where their best customers are.”
The post attracted some interesting comments as well. One jumped out:
First, you’re using the top five newspapers as the premise for all papers. Secondly, you’re comparing two different products but only using The standards of one. While the Los Angeles Times may be worth thirty minutes of my time, the Sierra Vista Herald or the Reno Gazette-Journal is not. In fact, many if not most of those small newspapers are boring once you get past the front page. This, of course, is completely subjective. Prove me otherwise and I’ll buy you a beer. Blue Moon, too. he other issue with your data is that you ignore the entire utility of the Internet. A newspaper by its physical nature, limits you to only read what was published. The Internet is all about linking, metadata tagging and search engines. People’s reading habits online are vastly different than reading a printed product. Haven’t we known that for years now?
My question is, “If I were going to start a money making information service today, would I include a print component?” I would not for these reasons:
- Too slow
- Too difficult to control costs such as printing and distribution
- The topics which interest me do not lend themselves to big, fat printed documents
- Online marketing can generate consulting work, so the “report” is mostly an advertisement.
The better question is, “What will those who depend on selling hard copies do to generate revenue in a post print world?”
Stephen Arnold, August 4, 2009
Comments
2 Responses to “Journalist Explains Away Information Phase Change”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Too bad you’re doing exactly what the Shrdlu did; you’re using the internet’s strength as your basis, and not worrying about its weaknesses. You’re forgetting that you can take the paper places that you can’t take an iPhone (which by its nature is limited to where you can get a signal). Heck, I can access the information in a paper easier and faster than I can the entire web, and it provides a summary of the information in seconds that would take me minutes to access on even the fastest web connection, and you don’t always need infinite detail. You’re also disallowing that as people get older they tend to the printed source. More to the point, in an age of Kindles, why do we still have printed books if the printed word is in such danger?
The bottom line is that print is merely shrinking a bit, but it’s unlikely to ever die; too many people just like the feel of it. Would you rather touch a woman or look at her picture?
FinbarReilly,
“A bit”. Are you working with publishing companies to address their revenue shortfalls and speaking from experience, or are you hypothesizing?
Stephen Arnold, August 7, 2009