• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

The Pogue Problem, Maybe the Future Opportunity?

I am not a journalist. I don’t have the first clue about what goes on in journalism classes. I don’t think the university I attended had a journalism department. True, I worked at a newspaper and at a magazine publishing company, but I was more of a manager / nerd type, more concerned with cutting costs and generating revenue than writing about the hoe down at the local courthouse or the school board meeting. Now I write a Web log that is nearly 100 percent marketing beef. I do commercial work, but that is a very different way to monetize my knowledge, as modest as it may be.

As a result, I look at publishing in a way that is different from and often incomprehensible to those who are trained journalists. Here’s an example. TechCrunch published a very good story “Losing Its Religion: the New York Times Compromises”. I understand the point of view that a reputable, traditional newspaper should make the distinction between news and advertising. I think Mr. Arrington’s write up puts a nice cap on the “Pogue problem”. Mr. Pogue is an author, a lecturer, and a columnist. He gets very excited about Apple products. Mr. Arrington writes:

The NY Times ethics policy also says “When we first use facts originally reported by another news organization, we attribute them.” But in our experience that isn’t always the case. The one thing the NY Times has is its brand and its people. They aren’t first to stories but they generally get things right. Trying to hide conflicts of interest hurts that brand, particularly when they hide, hypocritically, behind an ethics statement that prohibits the behavior they’re hiding. It’s far better to keep everything in the open. Transparency is what’s important, not appearances.

I don’t disagree with Mr. Arrington’s viewpoint. I want to stretch and idea in a different direction.

What I see in the “Pogue problem” is an opportunity. In my view, the “ethics” that were spelled out when the New York Times was rolling in money have been marginalized. The New York Times does not have the money or the staff to ride herd on the people who generate content. My recollection is that the New York Times and I believe the Washington Post ran stories that were, in effect, mostly made up. In the good old days of the newspaper wars, the moguls would create news. The “ethics” that major papers enforced were largely a reaction to the some of the more creative ways newspaper moguls handled the news in the good, old days. For many years, newspapering was lucrative. People read newspapers at the breakfast table and then on the subway or tram ride home from the mills outside Chicago and Philadelphia. Advertisers wanted to reach these people and the newspaper was the only game in town for a while. Eventually radio and TV came along and newspapers jumped into these channels. Some were successful like the Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co. where I worked for many years. The CJ&LT was a monopoly and Mr. Bingham had a letter from some higher legal authority that said it was okay for the CJ&LT to own TV, radio, commercial databases, direct mail ham outfits, door knob handing distribution companies, and printing plants that handled the New York Times Magazine when it was done via rotogravure. Life was indeed good.

But those days are gone.

Newspapers have not been able to make the leap into the channel broadly described as “new media” or “the Internet”. Sure, there are some marginal successes like the Wall Street Journal Online, but I take the hard copy of the paper and I get spam every day to urge me to subscribe again. The New York Times had a sweetheart deal with LexisNexis. Then the NYT pulled the plug, blew a million in royalties, and sank another dump truck of millions in its largely ineffective money making online efforts. The CJ&LT made money in online as early as 1981, yet when I talk with publishing executives, I get the “what do you know” treatment. Well, I know that the CK&LT knew how to make money online because I was there and contributed to that effort. I have a tough time taking the feedback I get from publishers about online seriously. Clueless is the word I use to describe most of the meetings I attend.

Now back to the Pogue Problem. I think the idea that troubles some people is that Mr. Pogue is close to Apple, so his objectivity is skewed. Let’s think about the upside of this model. In fact, forget Mr. Pogue, let’s talk money.

First, if the newspaper or any other publishing company has a way to get money from people who have money, the company—if it is publicly traded—has an obligation to figure out how to take this money without running afoul of the law. This means that if it is necessary to create a new type of editorial product, then that product should be created. If the person who writes the auto column stuck behind sports in the Sunday New York Times gets a request to write about a particular car, why not figure out how to sell that “content hole”? Make the deal a transaction and take the money. This happens with consulting firms who sell slots in industry charts. It happens at trade shows where those who buy booth space get to be speakers. One trade show organizer told me, “I don’t know how I can get all the exhibitors a speaking slot on our program.” Google is predicated on selling messages to people. This model deserves greater consideration among traditional publishing business thinkers. Yep, sell advertising messages in the form of “news” and “opinion”.

Second, the problem is that publishing companies have reinvented themselves and their business model. The only problem is that the revenue part and the cost control part have slipped through their fingers. What’s left is a business method that does not match with today’s fast changing world. What were the ethics of the newspaper companies at the turn of the century in New York? What were the ethics of a Barry Bingham in the 1980s? Those times and their “ethics” don’t match up with today’s opportunities. Therefore, change the definition for “ethics” and explore and possibly seize certain opportunities.

Finally, the journalists who follow the rules often find themselves under great pressure. When costs get chopped, some journalists have to turn to new types of research or information collection methods. These folks write pretty good stories, but they user different tools and methods. I can’t get too excited when a journalist uses blogs instead of telephone interviews. When was the last time you were able to get someone on the phone straightaway. Even my wife’s phone rings to voicemail. For my kids, it is SMS or nothing. When these new methods collide with a journalist who is trying to do the best job possible given the constraints, I cannot get worked up when a story is off base or a personal view gets into the article. My thought is to find a way to accept these changes and charge for them.

In summary, the Pogue Problem should be explored as the Pogue Opportunity. How can these situations be monetized. If the demand it there, my thought is that information companies have to consider how to deal with the opportunities, not react reflexively. If new sources of revenue are not found, the problem takes care of itself. Change is needed; new classes of information products and services are needed; and fresh thinking has to be brought to this new opportunity space.

Just my opinion.

Stephen Arnold, September 8, 2009

Comments

Copyright © 2008 Beyond Search · ArnoldIT.com · Disclaimer · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in