Futurist Predicts the End of Writing
February 1, 2010
You have to read “Could Written Language Be Rendered Obsolete?” and the source article “Could Written Language Be Rendered Obsolete, and What Should We Demand In Return?” Kids in Kentucky no longer learn to write cursive. That means that kids may not be able to read notes handwritten. The death of written language is a bold thought. I think it is baloney. Make you own decision, but it may be tough to search content generating text from SMS, videos, and email systems that nuked themselves. Is Google worried? Probably not too much. Am I worried? No, I don’t care.
Stephen E Arnold, February 1, 2010
A freebie. I will report this to the Railway Retirement Board.
Univ of Georgia Study May Rain on Tablet Parade
January 28, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to the University of Georgia’s news release titled “UGA Researchers Find e-Readers Falls Short as News Delivery Tool.” Let me say that I hope e-Readers return the publishing industry to its salad days. University of Georgia’s survey results suggest that there may be some storm clouds on the hypothetical summer days that gizmos like the Kindle and Nook will bring. You will want to read the news release, but in my opinion the key passage in the survey summary was:
While adults of all ages were impressed by the readability of the Kindle screen, describing it as “easy on the eyes,” few considered it a primary way to read news. For younger adults, the Kindle fell short when compared to their beloved smart phones, with touch screens and multiple applications—from music to surfing the Internet—available in a single small package. The e-reader felt “old” to them. Older adults were overall more receptive to the concept of an e-reader. However, the Kindle failed to include aspects of the traditional newspaper they had grown fond of, such as comics and crossword puzzles. Cost was a factor regardless of age. Nearly all respondents balked at the Kindle DX’s $489 price tag for reading a newspaper.
I like the “old” word. What’s missing in the dreams of a return to the earning power of Computer Shopper is the reality that geezers like me are going to the big data center in the sky. The younger folks have different information pathways. Possible bad news for publishers?
Stephen E Arnold, January 27, 2010
A freebie. I will report this to the Pew research outfit, who has jurisdiction in wild and wonderful Internet survey data.
Shocking Paywall Information
January 28, 2010
I read “After Three Months, Only 35 Subscriptions for Newsday’s Web Site” and did a double take. If I lived in New York, I would definitely subscribe to Newsday’s Web site to keep up with the local information about the newspaper itself. My recollection is that it is a pretty exciting place with a buzz that keeps everyone on his or her toes. But I live in Kentucky, and I don’t think I will be spending money to read Newsday. I am not alone. According to the article:
So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to Newsday.com? The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class. That astoundingly low figure was revealed in a newsroom-wide meeting last week by publisher Terry Jimenez when a reporter asked how many people had signed up for the site. Mr. Jimenez didn’t know the number off the top of his head, so he asked a deputy sitting near him. He replied 35.
Wow.
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2010
A freebie. Who would pay me to summarize this astounding result. I will report this sad fact to the National Institutes of Health, an outfit that understands health.
Another Shot to the Google Liver
January 28, 2010
Short honk: You will want to read “Lessig Calls Google Book Settlement a Path to Insanity.” The article in TechCrunch reports that “Harvard law professor and free-culture advocate Lawrence Lessig” describes the Google Book settlement in harsh terms. TechCrunch links to an essay in “The New Republic” where more detail is provided. I don’t have an opinion about legal matters, but I do known a punch to the liver when I see one on the UFC mixed martial arts shows. Ouch.
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2010
A freebie. I will report this to the physical education instructor at Ft. Hood next time I am doing push ups for my own betterment.
Media Factoid: Trouble from the Youngsters
January 26, 2010
Short honk: In the article “21 Things We’re Learning to Live Without”, I noticed a startling factoid. Here is the passage that caught my attention. The topic is use of traditional media among kids:
A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that kids between 8 and 18 spend just 38 minutes a day with some form of print media, down from 43 minutes in 2004. That’s out of a total of 7 hours and 38 minutes they spend every day using some form of media.
Kindles and other ebook readers won’t create new readers I fear.
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2010
A freebie. I shall report this fact to the GPO.
Knol Gets Some Publishing Steroids
January 25, 2010
I was shivering in a security line in a country without many vowels when Google published “Write Better Knols with Object Embedding and PicApp.” Here’s the segment that caught my attention:
We think it’s important for a publishing platform like knol to provide people with the best possible tools for expression, so we’ve quietly added a large number of new embeddable objects for maps, docs, spreadsheets, forms, slideshows, presentations, videos, gadgets and more. Embeddable objects help you make better knols. For example, our equation object helps you add richly formatted mathematical expressions right in your knols. We really liked the cleanly embedded equations in this knol from the Public Library of Science. Similarly, our calendar object enables you to easily share details about upcoming dates, like swing dance lessons in Oregon.
I have highlighted the words that I noticed. Implications of this move are set forth in my Google: The Digital Gutenberg.
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2010
A blatant commercial for my own monograph. I shall report this egregious action to my publisher if has not left for Thailand.
Mark Logic Taps Amazon
January 25, 2010
Cloud Computing “Mark Logic Leverages Amazon” reported that MarkLogic Server offers a cloud option. According to the write up said:
The move will obviously let customers use its widgetry on a pay-by-the-hour basis. A native XML database that implements the W3C-standard XML Query (XQuery) language, the server includes full-text and structured (XML) search. The AWS version consists of an Amazon Machine Image (AMI) with the MarkLogic Server pre-installed.
Mark Logic’s technology has demonstrated its versatility in a number of information-centric environments. With a client’s information within the MarkLogic Server environment, repurposing is a snap. In the last year, Mark Logic has emerged as an information infrastructure company that makes big boys like Oracle quite nervous. With the move to the cloud option, Mark Logic is poised for new services. Mark Logic’s technology exerts pressures on companies in business intelligence, enterprise publishing, and information portal services, among others.
When Larry Ellison worries, I take notice. Important step from Mark Logic.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2010
Yes, I was given a free admission to the Mark Logic user conference in Washington, DC. No, I was not paid to point to this write up about the Sys-Con story. Yes, I will beg Mark Logic to throw large sums of money at me and the goslings the next time I see one of the firm’s senior managers or investors. I will report this intent to the FCC via this footnote. Wow, I feel so much better explaining that I am a shameless marketer.
Google, Word Choice and Nexus One
January 25, 2010
Short honk: I don’t have a Nexus One and I don’t plan on buying the device. Mother Google has caught my attention with each of my Google monographs. I try to steer clear. I did read “How Google’s Nexus One Censors Cuss Words.” If accurate, the story suggests that Google sees a dirty word and scrubs it out of the message. Not even IBM in its salad days would make the IBM Selectric so it would prevent the user from typing certain words. What if Charles Bukowski were still alive, keying poems on his Nexus One? Would the output be vintage Bukowski?
drunk and writing poems
at 3 a.m.what counts now
is one more
tight ######before the light
tilts out
Yep, just what Mr. Bukowski wanted, according to Mother Google and its nannytron.
Google knows more than a creative person. How reassuring. What about the references to off color subjects in Shakespeare’s comedies? What about the humor in the works of Plautus and Terence? Google would have fixed their work as well.
What a nanny society is emerging! If someone buys a device, the person can do what he wants with it in my opinion. Thank goodness I am over 65 and heading for the data center in the sky. I suppose when the Googlers, the TSA, and other nannyites arrive, I will not be allowed to write my opinions using unapproved words.
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2010
This is a freebie. I am expressing an opinion. I can envision a day when WordPress will delete any reference to nannies, wings, and guys like Charles Bukowski. Quite a world. I will report this to the National Archives.
Autonomy and Precise Team Up
January 24, 2010
Autonomy continues to sniff trends and move before other players in the enterprise search and content processing space. I saw a short announcement on Sharecast (a service with more weird pop ups than most Web sites I visit) that said:
Search software firm Autonomy is teaming up with UK-based media intelligence outfit Precise to develop and market next-generation media intelligence services to the public relations and communications sectors.
Autonomy is well known to readers of this Web log. Precise may not be. Here’s a quick run down on that outfit:
- The company is in the “media intelligence” business. This is somewhat similar to the old style Bacon’s clipping service put on steroids.
- The company has more than 5,000 customers and a big chunk of them are in the financial services and information sector. The idea is that media monitoring provides open source information that Precise converts into intelligence about what a company will or may do. This is the enterprise version of government intelligence agency operations.
- The chief information officer comes from the real time information side of the business. (This suggests to me that Autonomy is deep into the real time content processing spaghetti.)
- The company’s description of its services sounds almost Googley: “Our Media Portal allows our clients to view and evaluate the impact of coverage from every media source – print, broadcast, online. In addition they can access forward planning data at the touch of a button.”
My take on this is that Autonomy will be nosing into other real time information sectors as well. Some of the incumbents may find that Autonomy’s marketing and its corporate clout will push them out of their comfortable positions. Who will be affected by Autonomy if it moves in this direction? That’s a good question.
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2010
A freebie. No one paid me to write about this tie up. I suppose I shall report this sad fact to MARAD, an outfit that knows about brown water tie ups.
Will Online Revenue Return the NYT to Wall Street Glory?
January 24, 2010
In my opinion, the NYT’s online charging plan may not return the NYT to Wall Street glory? My instincts were confirmed when I read the interesting article by Erick Schonfeld. The story “The New York Times’ Online Meter Will Hardly Move The Needle” works through some assumptions about online revenue for the NYT. The net net for the analysis is that the NYT may not make much headway in traffic or online revenue. I agree. But the addled goose has several observations to make about any online revenue projection. I am not disagreeing Mr. Schonfeld. I want to add some color to the challenge of generating revenue online.
Will the NYT’s plan for online fees create a triumphal moment for the company? Source: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gcgZo60Vlvo/RtmLbS2ttmI/AAAAAAAAAPY/nnlQN2aQSG0/s400/Arc_De_Triumph_Flag.jpg
The Need for Big Money
First, the NYT has to generate more money from online than Mr. Schonfeld’s analysis outlines. The reason is that increasing costs in the NYT’s other businesses forces new revenue streams have to outperform expectations. If not, the NYT will continue to suffer revenue pressure. In my model of online pricing, I include such factors as the increase in G&A costs, rising costs for consumables, and increased sales and marketing costs. If online performs at a level consistent with Mr. Schonfeld’s analysis, the NYT will have no choice but find other revenue or just get much smaller. Drastic steps may be need to get the NYT back on the investors’ must-buy list. Will the 2011 target and the revenue from online make this happen? No in my opinion. Cost control will be the killer.
Second, an online product is different from a print product. The audience or customer typically reacts in a way unique to online. The result is that different products and services are needed. In my experience, the domain expertise of print and traditional audio or video programming cannot be quickly or economically repurposed. More that technology is a challenge. The “deep knowing” is different for print and online.The people right for print or traditional media may not be the ones for online. A core competency, it is producing content using a scheduled, serial method. Online and the new audio and video distribution channels require different methods and different “deep knowings”.
Third, the NYT’s online product– like that of the WSJ and the FT for that matter– is going to get some oomph or an “X” factor. Today I reviewed for a client the now defunct or at least non responsive FT Newssift.com (you may get a 404). The FT has not been able to leverage its global brand with its successive “reinventions” of its online service. Newssift.com was to be a new approach using nStein, Endeca, and Lexalytics. I don’t think it worked. The WSJ as well as the FT and NYT present news and information is a way shaped by their print siblings. Putting print online works to a degree but more is needed to make online generate the type of revenue the NYT needs. The NYT, like other newspapers containing more general interest information, my not be be “must have” content for a big chunk of Web users. The problems are the users and the Web medium. Where’s the hot service that makes NYT content the cat’s pajamas.
Here are some items from my notes about traditional publishing and online:
ITEM. Thomson Reuters jumped into for fee online by buying Dialog Information Services. Thomson Reuters jumped out of online by selling at a hefty discount the Dialog for fee online service to a unit of Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. Thomson Reuters is a canny outfit. Net net: online is a tough sector for experts like the Thomson Reuters’ management team which saw problems in traditional publishing a long time ago, tried online and did serious reengineering, and now is moving in new directions such as value added software and services plus information. Will the NYT follow in Thomson Reuters’ footsteps?
ITEM. Newsstands, book stores, and NBC face difficult market hurdles. Without a viable traditional distribution mechanism, the traditional business models don’t work very well. As a result, the traditional producers of content must raise prices, cut staff, and find new products to sell. The result is that both the buyers and the distribution channels for traditional products are constricting. In short, market realities are going to increase the financial pressure on traditional publishers, not reduce it.
ITEM. Individuals who used to work at traditional publishing companies now have to find a way to make money. The result is that there are some skilled journalists who write blogs, create content for outfits like Demand Media, or who go to work for a company and write white papers. The challenge is that as the volume of digital information goes up, algorithms not human editors can make sense of this information. With more humans writing and algorithms making decisions, what’s the money making niche for the traditional publisher?
Why do Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo focus on online advertising, fees, and other charging methods? My hunch is that these three companies focus on getting revenue, not applying traditional publishing business models to their information businesses.
Stephen E Arnold, January 23, 2010
Yep, another freebie. I was on the phone from Europe with a client on another continent. I was paid to talk, but not about traditional publishing. I will report this failure to bill for this write up to the closest US embassy.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
