According to Joe DeLuca, publisher of tampabay.com and Tampa publisher of the Times;

“The publishing industry is going through a period of profound change. We understand that to continue to lead in the digital age, we need to deliver news and information to the public in a helpful, innovative and engaging manner. Autonomy will play a central role in our process of re-imagining the entire look and feel of our web presence, and the technology provides the ideal platform to help us evolve and expand.”

CEO of Autonomy Promote, Rafiq Mohammadi proudly announced;

“The Tampa Bay Times continues to extend its lead as Florida’s largest newspaper and one of the most well-known media brands in the Southeast U.S. by pioneering new ways to lead in the digital age.”

The Tampa Bay Times has been counted among the top 10 newspapers in the U.S. with good reason. Choosing to integrate Autonomy’s web technology into their existing system should guarantee their position stays firmly in place. Tampa Bay made a wise decision by tying it up with Autonomy.

Jennifer Shockley, May 23, 2012

Sponsored by Pandia.com

The story “Can a New Analyst Firm Take Down Gartner?” Wow. Quite an amazing write up. Sprawled across three pages, the story is written by a person about whom I know quite a lot after reading the “real” news in Computerworld; for example:

• The author of the story is Rob Enderle who is a big wheel and apparently the brains behind the Enderle Group.
• Mr. Enderle worked at Forrester (an azure chip outfit explaining what’s what in all things related to anything that compute), Giga Information Group (ditto the Forrester services), and a profession who has “worked for” IBM. He worked on audits, competitive analysis, marketing, finance, and security.
• Mr. Enderle is a TV talent type for CNBC, Fox (a Murdoch “real” journalism outfit), Bloomberg, and NPR.
• Mr. Enderle “knows” Gideon Gartner, the brains behind the Gartner we know and love today as a publicly traded azure chip consulting firm.
• Mr. Enderle “helped found” the Giga Information Group.
• Mr. Enderle knows that “line management…doesn’t listen to Gartner and, for that matter, often doesn’t listen to IT either.”

There are other biographical nuggets in the write up too. Mr. Enderle “knows” Gideon Gartner. Be still my heart!

The main point is that an outfit involved in social CRM could—hypothetically and mostly without factual basis—just might be able to “take down Gartner.”

Yowza.

What does the kitty see when it looks in the mirror? A house pet or a wild lion?

The super hero in this story is a company called Ombud, which I assume is shorthand for ombudsman, a full time equivalent who is supposed to be a pair of ears with moist eyes and a warm nature able to solve a customer’s problem. I don’t know any ombudsmen, however. Those characteristics often match up with social workers in my experience.

There were several overt main points in the story about Ombud which I found more like search engine optimization and ego marketing. For instance:

I learned:

Gartner Group was conceived well before social networking, at a time when there not only was no Internet but no PCs. It seemed that it wouldn’t be long before someone would figure out how to blend experts, practitioners and vendors into a service that would be cheaper, more current and more focused on the unique needs of an individual company, thus providing more real value (regardless of price) than the older model.

Er, so what? Ombud is a Web site for a company which offers the same pay to play information which comes from most azure chip and blue chip consulting firms. Check ‘em out yourself at www.ombud.com.

Second, unlike Gartner and I assume any other consulting outfit, Ombud sells “access to RFPs which users create and vendors bid on.” I think the idea is that one can eliminate intermediaries, post a request for work, get bids, and pick a vendor. The organization just goes direct. I know how poorly the traditional procurement process works, but I am sure that a Fortune 50 company will experiment with Ombud. Anything that cuts the burdensome fees imposed by azure chip consultants is a good thing for most chief financial officers.

Third, the senior management of Ombud comes from IBM, which Mr. Enderle helpfully points out he was working on Big Blue’s audits, competitive analysis, marketing, finance, and security projects.

Fourth, Gartner, according to Mr. Enderle, talks to customers. But Gartner—azure chip outfit that it is—not Johnny on the spot. He asserts about Gartner:

Gartner talks to lots of customers. The issue is that this communication seldom happens in a timely manner and does not involve line management, which is often driving a firm’s buying decision. In short, Gartner is often talking to the wrong person in the customer account. A service leveraging LinkedIn could get to the critical decision makers that Gartner is missing and get them more timely feedback.

Hmm. A consulting firm which doesn’t listen? Interesting. Well, that inability to hop to has opened the door to Ombud. Mr. Enderle says:

I do think Ombud is on to something really interesting. If you are looking to find out more about a particular product or service, then you may find an actual user to be more knowledgeable than any analyst. In any case, this is a resource to consider and, at least for now, the only cost is your time-and, while you won’t need to get budget approval to use it, finding the spare time could be almost as daunting a task.

What’s this story “about”?

I think this story strikes me this way (your mileage may vary but I hope not too much):

1. Computerworld wanted a write up about digital Gerson Lehrman Group, a consulting services which is putting the hurt on quite a few low level, azure chip (mid tier), and blue chip firms. GLG is not perfect, but it offers a different business model and a combination of C+ online services and direct access to humans who are supposed to be experts. Computerworld’s running this story shows a drop off in the editorial screening process. Perhaps this was due to vacations, headcount reductions, or “we’re so darned busy” type explanations from poobahs who are “real” journalists. Who knows?
2. The article seems to be hell bent on planting some poison ivy in the Gartner garden. This type of “take down Gartner” approach is silly. Publicly traded firms don’t get taken down by a start up. Publicly traded companies get taken down by missteps and then start ups exploit those opportunities, thrive and grow. The GLG operations and similar types of “cafeteria style access to experts” are the real threat to traditional consulting. Something else is at work, and I think there must have been some interesting interactions between Mr. Enderle and certain consulting firms. Otherwise, why suggest a start up can take down a reasonably successful azure chip outfit. Left on its own Gartner is its own worst enemy, not Ombud.
3. The articles is autobiographical. In fact, the information about Ombud, how it performs its magic, the details about its funding are essentially ignored. The meat is the information about Mr. Enderle’s work experience, his interaction with several azure chip outfits, and his Swiss Army knife value to IBM.

Net net. Sure, check out Ombud. Ignore the crazy buzzwords. Then check out cafeteria style consulting firms. By the time you finish, maybe Gartner Group will acquire Ombud or do the “real” innovator’s trick. Pull a me-too. In the meantime, clip and save this Computerworld write up. It marks a turning point in “real” technology journalism. The story as marketing collateral.

Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

I recall meeting Barry Bingham Jr. He asked me what I did in my spare time. I was thunderstruck. My former employers—Halliburton Nuclear Utility Services and Booz, Allen & Hamilton—never asked me those questions. Those high powered, hard charging outfits wanted to know how much revenue I had generated and how much money I had saved the company, when the next meeting with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was, and how the Cleveland Design & Development man trip vehicle was rolling along. The personal stuff floored me.

I did not have an answer. As a Type A, Midwestern, over-achieving, no-brothers-and-no sisters worker bee, fun was not a big part of my personal repertoire.

I asked him, “Why?”

I recall to this day his answer, “I want our officers and employees to have time with their families, get involved in the community, and do great work without getting into that New York City thing.”

Interesting. The Courier Journal had a very good reputation. The newspaper was profitable, operated a wide range of businesses, printed the New York Times’s magazine for the Gray Lady, and operated a commercial database company. In fact, in 1980 the Courier Journal was one of the leaders in commercial online information, competing with a handful of other companies in the delivery of information via digital channels, not the dead-tree, ruin-the-environment, and dump-chemicals approach of most publishing companies.

In 1986, Gannet bought the Courier Journal. The commercial database unit was of zero interest to Gannet, so it and I were sold to Bell+Howell. After a short stint at a company entrenched in 16 mm motion film projectors, I headed back to New York City.

I retained my residence in Louisville, and I have watched the trajectory of the Courier Journal as it moved forward.

I have to be blunt. The Courier Journal is not the newspaper, the company, or the community force it was when I joined Mr. Bingham and a surprisingly diverse, bright, forward-looking team 31 years ago. The 1981 management approach of the Courier Journal was a culture shock to me. Think of the difference between Dick Cheney and Mr. Rogers. The 2012 approach saddens me.

This morning I read “Answering Your Questions on CJ Changes,” written by a person whom I do not know. The author of the article is Wesley Jackson, publisher of the Courier Journal. (I never liked the acronym CJ and still do not.)

The main point of the article is that the Courier Journal has to raise its prices. Last week, Mr. Jackson wrote a short article in the Courier Journal informing subscribers a letter would arrive explaining the new services that would be available. We received our letter on Wednesday, May 9, 2012. We called on Thursday, May 10, 2012, and cancelled our subscription. I am not sure how many other subscribers took this action, but a sufficient number of Courier Journal readers called to kill the phone system at the newspaper.

Mr. Jackson wrote this morning:

Unfortunately our Customer Service Center’s phone system had technical problems, and many of you  had long wait times or could not get through to get your questions answered. That I know was frustrating.

I bet. I would love to see the data about the number of calls and the number of cancellations that the paper received when it announced the rate hike, a free iPad application for subscribers, and an email copy of the newspaper sent each day to paying customers.

The write up troubled me for several other reasons:

1. Some of the word choices were of the touchy-feely school of communication. There are 19 “we’s”. The word “value” appears twice, there are seven categoricals: six all’s and one never; and the word “conversation” appears twice.
2. There is at least one split infinitive “to personally apologize”
3. An absolutely amazing promise expressed in this statement: “For those of you who would like to ask questions directly, please email me at publisher@courier-journal.com or send a letter to Publisher, Courier-Journal Media, 525 W. Broadway, Louisville, KY 40202. I promise you will each receive a response.”

“Promise,” “all,” and “never”—yep, I believe those assertions.

I would have included an image of Wesley Jackson but I had to pay for it. Not today, sorry.

My view is that I hear a death rattle from the Courier Journal. The reality of the newspaper is that it runs more and more syndicated content. The type of local coverage for which the paper was known when I joined in 1981 has decreased over the years. When I want news, I look at online services. What I have noticed is that what appears in the Courier Journal has been mentioned on Facebook, Twitter, or headline aggregation services two or three days before the information appears in either the Courier Journal’s hard copy edition or its online site, www.courier-journal.com.

Dave Kellogg, the former president of MarkLogic, used to chide me that I should not refer to major publishing operations and “dead tree publishers.” My view was and is that I am entitled to my opinion. Traditional publishing companies have failed to respond to new opportunities to disseminate and profit from information opportunities.

The list of mistakes include:

1. Belief that an app will generate new revenue. Unfortunately apps are not automatic money machines. (Print-centric apps are not the go-to medium for many digital device users.)
2. Assumptions about a person’s appetite for paying for “nice to have content.” (One pays for “must have” content, not “nice to have” content.)
3. Failure to control costs. (Print margins continue to narrow as traditio0nal publishers try to regain the glory of the pre digital business models.)
4. Firing staff who then go on to compete by generating content funded by a different business model. (This blog is an example. We do online advertising and inclusions and sell technical services. For some reason, this works for me thanks to my team which includes some former “real” journalists.)
5. Assuming that new technology for printing color on newsprint equips an information technology department that it can handle other information technologies in an effective manner. (Skill in one technical area does not automatically transfer to another technical field.)

I can hear the labored breathing of a local newspaper struggling to stay alive. What do you hear?

Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2012

Sponsored by HighGainBlog, which is ArnoldIT

I noted a short news item from the technical institute in Munich known as TUM or Technische Universität München. Without a University of Kentucky grade basketball team, most of my neighbors in Harrod’s Creek ignore this outfit. If you are into math, you pay attention to what the institution does.

Navigate to this news item and you will read:

Because of unsustainable subscription prices and conditions, the board of directors of the mathematics department has voted to cancel all of its subscriptions to Elsevier journals by 2013.

Negotiations are underway to work out a deal. The Elsevier organization is meeting to figure out how to prevent an “occupy Wall Street” type of activity among other German universities. If Elsevier does not come up with a solution and quickly, the company would have to cope with push back from authors who are annoyed with the Elsevier publishing policies and fees and cancellation of subscriptions from its best and most prestigious customers.

In short, we may have the first blinking of a yellow caution light for the professional publishing sector. Most consumers don’t know how much it costs to get four or more issues of a technical publication for one year. Some of the articles have been in the editorial and peer review oven for months. Online content is getting better and may be “good enough” for most researchers and students. In the case of math, online delivers more timely results and broad access to a technical write up can yield quicker, higher value commentary.

Will the loss of a single math department’s subscriptions have a significant impact on Elsevier’s financials this month? No. If the cancellation fever spreads and hybridizes with push back from authors, Elsevier could be in trouble, probably within a quarter or two.

Don’t agree? That’s okay. Just post your views in the comments section of this blog.

Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2012

Sponsored by Ikanow

Naval gazing is a calming activity for some. It worked on the Titanic for some passengers a century ago.

The article traces the history of newspapers, with the twin but at times conflicting goals of making money and serving the public good. While it used to be that someone interested in one or two sections of a paper bought the whole thing, now users are picking and choosing their content. Such an audience is no longer willing to pay for content they won’t read. Ingram concludes:

“Maybe the days of mass-market newspapers with a broad readership are simply coming to a close, and what we are seeing is some of those newspapers evolve into controlled-circulation subscription newsletters, who serve the interests of their small readership and nothing else. And perhaps that isn’t such a bad thing — other solutions could theoretically take their place, or at least help share the load when it comes to the public interest. But the long-term effects of that remain unknown.”

Um, isn’t a newsletter a type of newspaper? We think so. All is not lost, my friends, just evolving. No one knows what the picture will look like when (if) the pieces finally coalesce, and it can be difficult to work in a shifting landscape, but that’s life. Change can just as well lead to opportunity as to disaster; much depends on your perspective.

Cynthia Murrell, May 9, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

Enterprise Technology Management, IMI Publishing, London, UK. ETM publishes my Google column which originally appeared in KMWorld.

• January 2012, “Google Enterprise: The Berkeley Analysis.” The article discusses why a noted university chose Google’s apps, not Microsoft’s. The point is that price cutting is playing a major role in information technology decisions.
• February 2012, “Google Enterprise: Is There a Poison Apple in Paradise?” The column reviews the new version of the Google Search Appliance. The question becomes, “Could Apple pose an alternative to Google, an alternative Google is not anticipating?”
• March 2012, “Google Privacy and Enterprise Licensing.” This write up explores how recent revelations about Google’s approach to privacy may put barriers in place which could slow or block some Google enterprise license deals.
• April 2012, ”Google’s Cloud: Building and Threatening.” The essay considers that Google has been left in the starting blocks by Amazon’s cloud services. Google may catch up, but the pricing of cloud services, regardless of vendor, can be slippery to estimate.
• May 2012, “The Google Myth: Poetics and Glass.” The story considers Mr. Page’s role with Wall Street and Mr. Brin’s assignment to promote Google’s virtual reality “glasses.” Will these modern day Romulus and Remus billionaires continue to coexist in a positive relationship?

Information Today, Information Today, Inc. The Information Today column covers search-related topics for the an information specialist, competitive intelligence  researcher or database publishing professionals.

• January 2012, “Augmented Reality: I’ll Be Back”. Autonomy, best known for enterprise search and content processing, has emerged as a leader in augmented reality or AR. The column discusses Aurasma, the company’s AR solution.
• February 2012, “By Jingo: Search Catchphrases 2012.” This article considers the role and implications of marketing phrases used by enterprise search vendors. The majority of the buzzwords have more to do with competitive jockeying than communication to an organization looking for a findability solution.
• March 2012, “Health and Medical Research: Drying Up the Bones.” Web-accessible, public medical information is tough to use. The essay looks at several services, including Quertle.
• April 2012, “Are Analytics the New Way to Search?” Most users don’t search particularly well. Some do not want to formulate search queries. The write up considers the question, “Can analytics deliver search results without asking the user to formulate a query?”
• May 2012, “Google and Microsoft: Interface Flipperoos.” The story points out that the new Google interface looks more like Excite 1996 than Google in 2007. Microsoft, on the other hand, looks almost exactly like Google.com’s interface in 2007. Are flips like this the new approach to search interface innovation?

KMWorld, Information Today, Inc. The column for KMWorld discusses enterprise information from the angle of semantic technology.

• January 2012, “Insight from the Information Tsunami.” The column discusses Microsoft SharePoint and BA Insight, a software complement to SharePoint designed to address some of the “issues” associated with Microsoft’s flagship content management system.
• February 2012, “Bitext: Engaging in the Semantic Arena.” The article profiles Madrid-based Bitext, a company emerging as a leader in the enterprise semantic market.
• March 2012, “Xyte and Insight into Online Behaviors.” The write talks about Xyte’s approach to market research and discloses some interesting findings about Facebook. These items suggest Facebook is a more potent online force than some believe.
• April 2012, “Consumerizing Knowledge Management.” The essay considers that analytics programs with training wheels deliver some benefits to enterprise users. However, acting on auto-generated reports without understanding the assumptions behind the report can lead to bad decisions.
• May 2012, “Big Data, Cows, and Cadastres.” The write up looks at specific business pay offs from the analysis of big data. The biggest benefits come from analysts who understand the data and the math behind a particular numerical recipe.

Online Magazine (published six times a year). Information Today, Inc. The features written for Online Magazine focus on open source search in the enterprise. For more than a year, Mr. Arnold’s column has explored a range of subjects related to open source search.

• February 2012, “Open Source Search: Clarity with Lucid Works.” The feature discusses Lucid Imagination’s newest release of Lucid Works Enterprise 2.0.
• April 22012, “Open Source: Fascinating Uncertainty.” The feature takes a look at some of the jockeying which takes place in the open source world involving “foundations.”

If you are a public relations person, an azure chip consultant, or an unemployed middle school teacher, Mr. Arnold does not accept story suggestions for these for fee writings. His policy is to contact people with regard to a question or issue. Mr. Arnold is not a journalist. In a previous life, he indexed medieval sermons in Latin. He does not understand “real” journalism, marketing, public relations, investment bankers, private equity firm owners, and sales people.

These articles are available from the publishers who purchased work for hire. At some point, Mr. Arnold’s staff may post versions of some of the essays on one of the reference Web sites Mr. Arnold operates. For copies of these articles, please, contact the publishers. For a briefing on one of the topics addressed in Mr. Arnold’s for fee writings, please, contact us at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com.

Donald C. Anderson, May 9, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

You can use the content to track a leading vendor; for example, enter the query “Autonomy” in the site specific search box and you see the events which we consider significant. You can also get my personal views on online products and services. Just run a query for “mysteries of online.” You can use the categories to limit a display to indexed content. No index is perfect, but you can look at a result set for a hot topic like “indexing” with a mouse click or two.

Now about the content.

First, I am not running a news operation. In fact, I don’t do news. Neither my editorial team nor I are real journalists. I am supposed to know about medieval religious sermons in Latin. The writers are mostly librarians or researchers who have been trained to produce the equivalent of a debate note card. I learned how to prepare 5×8 inch note cards when I returned to the US from Brazil and entered a wonderful American high school. Let’s see. That was in 1957 or 1958. In short, I have been doing one thing as my core research method for more than 50 years. Do you think I am going to change because a PR maven, an unemployed middle school teacher, an English major turned search expert or a Panda wants me to? In case you don’t know the answer, the answer is, “No.”

Second, we run sponsored content. We  use Google AdSense. We run ads for companies who want to get a message in front of my two or three readers. I wish I knew what the business model for Beyond Search is, but the content continues to flow, seven days a week, year round. When I was in intensive care in January for more than a week, the content flowed. I know one of the editors smuggled my laptop into the hospital lock up where I was. We kept publishing. Those working on the blog just kept on going. My writing was given an extra cycle of editing because I was, quite literally close to being a gone goose. Keep in mind that the only difference between a note card content object and sponsored content is that the subject of the write up gets a chance to provide input to an editor. The ironic or cynical comments remain. If I get fascinated with a topic, I write about it or get one of the editors to produce content objects on the subject. So you will find certain topics get covered and then dropped, it is because I lose interest. You want news? Find a real journalist. Examples of what I follow and then drop range from European search systems to ways to federate the text and numeric data associated with building a fungible product like a personal computer.

Third, I am usually biased, often incorrect, and completely indifferent to the hottest trends that azure chip consultants pump out to sell consulting work. If you read the content in Beyond Search or any of the blogs which we produce, you have the obligation to think about what we present and make your own judgment about its usefulness, accuracy, or appropriateness for your particular situation.

Fourth, I use the content in Beyond Search for my columns in Enterprise Technology Management magazine, Online magazine, Information Today (a library oriented tabloid), KMWorld (an enterprise information tabloid), and Searcher magazine (a specialist publication for people who know how to use the old fashioned Dialog and Lexis systems). The content in my for fee articles is closer to the type of reports I prepare for my one or two clients. I am not a great writer. I try to look at popular or emerging technical trends and put them into the frame of my experience. If you want stories that reinforce received wisdom, you will find Beyond Search inappropriate for your needs. In my for fee columns, I knit together a number of items of information and interpret those items in a business context. The for fee columns, therefore, go beyond what is in the free blog.

My plan is to keep the information stream flowing and free. If you have a comment to make about the point of view or the information in a content object (my word for article or story), use the comments section of the blog. If you write me with spam, silly news releases, and baloney I did not specifically request—be advised: I may write about what I call “desperation marketing.” Don’t like the term? Well, I do, and it is accurate. The facile notion of “pivoting” a company is mostly marketing baloney. I don’t like baloney.

For more information about the editorial policies or how to contact us to get access to our two or three readers, navigate to the About page.

Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2012

Sponsored by Stephen E Arnold

Writer Tom Wald reports:

“Rupert Murdoch shed light on his fluctuating relationships with British powerbrokers as it was revealed that he had 75 meetings with Prime Ministers over the past 24 years. The latest revelations at the Leveson inquiry included current Prime Minister David Cameron flying in on Mr. Murdoch’s son-in law’s jet for a meeting with the media tycoon on his daughter Elisabeth’s yacht on the Greek resort island of Santorini. . . .

“He met Margaret Thatcher eight times, John Major 10 times, Mr. Blair 31 times, Mr. Brown 17 times and Mr. Cameron nine times.”

So. . . I guess Murdoch and Cameron were meeting about the weather, perhaps comparing that of London unfavorably with the lovely Santorini. The trip must have been research. And the other 74 meetings, perfectly innocent as well.

Right. Keep in mind, folks, this guy owns the Wall Street Journal, too. Oh, joy.

Cynthia Murrell, May 4, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

I then read “News Corp. Contrite In Wake Of Scathing Report.” I assume that the top dog of News Corp, which owns the Wall Street Journal, is the number one leader of newspaper publishing. The write up contains this statement:

“Hard truths have emerged from the [UK] Select Committee Report: that there was serious wrongdoing at the News of the World; that our response to the wrongdoing was too slow and too defensive; and that some of our employees misled the Select Committee in 2009,” it stated.  The company has cited the work of its internal Management and Standards Committee, which has turned over voluminous email exchanges and other records in an effort to show authorities in the U.K. and the U.S. that it has changed its behavior and is being cooperative.

So top US newspaper and its top dog are cooperative. Does one plus one equal winning? Makes sense to me.

Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2012

Sponsored by HighGainBlog

Articles are curated by prominent authorities who take responsibility for the contents. As trusted custodians, these shepherds are also able to sponsor new articles.

The format of Scholarpedia should look familiar. The site’s About page explains:

“Scholarpedia feels and looks like Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Indeed, both are powered by the same program — MediaWiki. Both allow visitors to read and modify articles simply by clicking on the edit this article link. However, Scholarpedia differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways.”

Ways like a strict modification approval process, the selection of elite authors, and the curator review system. The statement goes on to emphasize the advantages the online community brings to the traditional scholarly paper:

“. . . Articles are not frozen and outdated, but dynamic, subject to an ongoing process of improvement moderated by their curators. This allows Scholarpedia to be up-to-date, yet maintain the highest quality of content.”

The site is well worth checking out for all you science types.

Cynthia Murrell, May 1, 2012

Sponsored by Augmentext