Australian Publisher in Bid to Get His Own Chapter in Bartlett’s Quotations
September 13, 2009
What outstanding phraseology. Amazing quotes. You can read a summary in “Publisher: Time to pay up, Google”. Let me give you two examples, but, please, buy a hard copy of the Daily Telegraph Australia. I cannot do justice to this wonderful material.
Quote 1 allegedly crafted by APN News & Media chief executive Brendan Hopkins:
“We don’t need to be reborn, we just need to be paid properly for what we do,” Mr Hopkins told the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers’ Association (PANPA) conference.
And quote 2, same fellow:
To use an analogy, I see search engines as breaking into our homes, itemizing the contents, walking out and listing everything for everyone to see. And they get money out of that process,” he said.
Great word smithing. I should have remained in publishing. I need to perfect my analytical skills and my writing. Maybe I can nab an internship.
Stephen Arnold, September 13, 2009
Google Fact Extraction Pokes Out Its Nose
September 13, 2009
The Google fact extraction patents have been ignored. One Microsoftie told me last year that Google patents did not mean anything. Okay, click here and scan the fact extraction patents. The go to the Internet Stats site and review the samples. Not only did the patent documents explain the invention, some of the documents include examples. I assume the Microsoftie does not see the connection between the patent documents and the demo site. That’s one reason why Microsoft’s Bing is trying to be what Google was, not what Google is. Sort of a problem in my opinion. Denial is a useful tool for mental health, but it does not do much to narrow the gap between Microsoft’s Web search market share and Google’s market share in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, September 13, 2009
Open Source Metadata Tool
September 12, 2009
I received an interesting question yesterday (September 11, 2009). The writer wanted to know if there was a repository of open source software which served the intelligence community. I have heard of an informal list maintained by some specialized outfits, but I could not locate my information about these sources. I suggested running a Google query. Then I received a link to a Network World story with the title “Powerful Tool to Scour Document Metadata Updated.” Although not exactly the type of software my correspondent was seeking, I found the tool interesting. The idea is that some word processing and desktop software embed user information in documents. The article asserted:
The application, called FOCA (Fingerprinting Organizations with Collected Archives), will download all documents that have been posted on a Web site and extract the metadata, or the information generated about the document itself. It often reveals who created the document, e-mail address, internal IP (Internet Protocol) addresses and much more….FOCA can also identify OS versions and application versions, making it possible to see if a particular computer or user has up-to-date patches. That information is of particular use to hackers, who could then do a spear phishing attack, where a specific user is targeted over e-mail with an attachment that contains malicious software.
Some of the information that is “code behind” what the document shows in the Word edit menu is exciting.
Stephen Arnold, September 12, 2009
Bing 2.0 Means Goodbye Google?
September 12, 2009
I read a post about how wonderful SharePoint 10 will be for * everyone *. Sounded like Tiny Tim because there were zero facts. Mary Jo Foley’s write up had some but I was not convinced. With Google and Facebook and Twitter snagging wizards, Microsoft has to pay a lot for semi-wizards. When semi-wizards tell me that Bing 2.0 means “goodbye Google”, I don’t assign that a high probability. You may, of course, and you may love SharePoint. Good for you. You can read Ms. Foley’s backhand praise volley in “Microsoft’s Bing 2.0: Coming this Fall (Maybe Even Next Week)” and judge for yourself. Don’t let the addled goose’s reality medicine dissuade you. The hopeful comment in my opinion was this statement with a Twitter source:
“BING 2.0 terrific !! watch out guys ! Bing + Silverlight in maps = amazing !! goodbye Google”.
As I documented in my CENDI talk about next generation data management, duplicating what Google has will not close the gap between Microsoft and Google. Just my opinion because doing what Google has done is not good enough. Just as recycling Fast ESP will not be good enough for the type of information access that users require in the aftermath of the financial bloodbath.
Stephen Arnold, September 12, 2009
Arnold at CENDI
September 11, 2009
Stephen E. Arnold, managing partner of Arnold Information Technology (ArnoldIT.com) and our Beyond Search guru, gave the keynote address at an invitation-only conference organized by the CENDI, interagency working group of senior scientific and technical information (STI) managers from 13 U.S. federal agencies Wednesday at the headquarters of the National Technical Information Service in Alexandria, Virginia. You can read a version of his two hour lecture here. CENDI representatives received a briefing on the challenges of changing information technology, particularly as related to the Internet and Google, and how those challenges may affect the federal government. Feedback from the attendees was, according to the email sent today (September 10, 2009), “We received overwhelmingly positive feedback on your section of the day.”
Our own Mr. Arnold summarized the current climate of online information access, covering how data is organized and how users access it. “Google has building blocks. What is important for the U.S. government is that some firms have already begun to use Google tools to deliver dataspace functions today,” Arnold said. He asserted what users generally want when they search online, what they usually find, and what questions the “new wave” of search systems will raise, including implications for personal privacy, commercial information companies and government agencies generating content.
Jessica Bratcher, September 11, 2009
NStein Added to Overflight
September 10, 2009
Short honk: Nstein, a content processing company that has morphed into a more complex beastie, is now part of Overflight. You can see the most recent news by navigating to the Overflight home page and clicking on Nstein.
Stephen Arnold, September 10, 2009
The Pogue Problem, Maybe the Future Opportunity?
September 8, 2009
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< was a monopoly and Mr. Bingham had a letter from some higher legal authority that said it was okay for the CJ< 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< 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< 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
Google and Spicy Italian Sausage
September 7, 2009
Short honk: Google has indigestion. I think it is caused by gobbling some Italian data sausage. You can read “Google News Italia Probe Expands” and draw your own conclusions. The Web Pro News story provides an Italian legal document. Short story: Google is allegedly going to be investigated by Italian antitrust authorities. Is Google bigger than Italy? We will find out. Italy is a data outpost for Google. Will Italians find their data diet trimmed? Will Google indigestion go away?
Stephen Arnold, September 7, 2009
Google, Triage, and Support Requests from End Users
September 7, 2009
On September 2, 2009, Google’s Code Blog published a short list of the top ten most used features of Google Project Hosting. (If you are not familiar with Project Hosting, you can get started on the Google Code page for the service. The Google blog post to which I refer is “Heavy Duty: What Project Hosting Users Are Doing”. What I found interesting is that writing documentation and supporting requests from end users ranked ninth and 10th respectively. I was surprised both issues made the list in the first place. The programming goslings here at Beyond Search ignore my requests for new features and are deaf to the bleats from end users. Perhaps Google will push that customer support function up the list. One can hope.
Stephen Arnold, September 7, 2009
Mudoch’s Vision Gets a Poke in the Eye
September 6, 2009
The International Business Times ran a story that poked Rupert Murdoch’s plan to charge for news square in the eye. The story you may want to read is “Charging for Web Content No Panacea for Newspapers” suggests that charging for content may not solve the woes of the traditional newspaper industry. The IBT writer marshals some interesting information. For me the most important comment was from a small consulting firm:
Ken Doctor, who leads Outsell’s news publishing research, says publishers need to be more imaginative about how to make money out of news. “The news industry has this myth … that there’s no money online,” he says. Doctor says online ads targeted at particular audiences, which offer better value to advertisers than traditional display ads, still have a long way to go in generating revenue. Better intelligence about consumers’ habits on the Web — while it can be controversial to gather — can lead to far more relevant and powerful advertising campaigns. And rather than asking readers to pay for content, publishers should consider extra-value services like membership schemes, something the Guardian is looking at, he says. “The smart play here is to go with human psychology and not against it, and that is convenience, access, sharing, better social networking connections,” he says. “And you’re forging a deeper relationship with your readers.” Doctor cites as examples of companies that learned early how to make money online Elsevier scientific publishing and Google – the bogeyman of the news industry.
Let’s think about several of these points.
First, the money online requires competencies that the newspaper has not evidenced recently; namely, technical capabilities and financial wizardry. Google’s magical recipe for online revenue leaves other online vendors in the dust. Newspapers have a different definition of technology than an outfit like Google. And Google’s money making method is based on traffic, math, and timing. The consulting firm’s expert is saying words that sound okay, but the gap between what a newspaper can do and making sufficient revenue to return the newspaper industry to its hay days is wide indeed.
Second, the idea of using information about readers is an interesting one. First, the newspaper has to collect useful, high value information. Circulation databases are described as “crown jewels” and the ones with which I am familiar are more like the cubic Zirconias for sale on Fisherman’s Wharf from a street vendor. The high value data requires the core competencies referenced in the preceding paragraph. Without these competencies, the likelihood of doing much beyond the status quo with subscribed data is going to be tough.
Finally, monetizing “convenience, access, sharing and better social networking” sounds great, almost like the silly McKinsey report I wrote about a few days ago. Here’s the problem. “Convenience, access, sharing and better social networking” are already available and becoming more convenient and better by the day. Companies with these types of systems – Murdoch’s own MySpace.com, Facebook.com, and Twitter.com to name three – have to find ways to generate big time revenue. No one has cracked revenue from certain types of online services that is demonstrably sustainable. Instead, social systems seem to wax and wane. Maybe the solution is a giant Microsoft of Google system. But if that takes place, will the newspapers be much more than marginal players? I don’t think they will be much of a player at all. In the area of local information, it sure looks to me as if Craigslist.org and Yelp.com have stomped the traditional newspaper into the dirt.
What I find amazing is that the baloney from blue chip and azure chip consultants never ends. The cherry on top the cupcake of baloney in the consultant’s comments was the reference to Elsevier. Perhaps Elsevier looks healthy because it is a private company and not required to disclose its financial details. A better example would have made this addled goose quack happily. As the consultant’s analysis stands, the addled goose says, “Honk.”
Stephen Arnold, September 5, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
