Look for the Signs- They are Everywhere

By the way, neither of my two current websites (www.beapowerplayer.com) nor (www.yourinstantappeal.com) are in any way related to the news venture I am in discussions about. Just wanted to clarify, since some folks may see the content that I create for companies, and think THAT is the model I am referring to. (I can just hear the protests now! LOL!) Rest assured, it's not . As I said, I am in the early stages of discussions with VC partners on the news venture and, therefore, we don't have anything available for public viewing yet.

Can't believe I didn't see this post until now...Oh well, better late than never to respond, I suppose.

>>"It’s funny: if you talk innovation with the bulk of reporters, you hear all the negatives. Give a bunch of entrepreneurs the challenge, and they see opportunities."<< -- Chris Brogan

As a former journalist (TV reporter and anchor for nearly a decade), I have a bit of a different perspective here, and can see both sides. But one side does have the advantage in the era of "new journalism".

It is BECAUSE I was on the journalism side, and BECAUSE I have also been an entrepreneur for 12 years, that I can see there are HUGE opportunities to make LOTS of money in journalism -- AND to pay reporters well. But you won't do it with the old model. (I have a new model that I have floated past a few venture capitalists, and they are excited. They haven't given up on news. They think it's a viable industry -- IF it catches up with the rest of the world in terms of technology, business models, vertical markets, and so forth. Fingers crossed...I'm close to a deal on this.)

To be sure, when I tell my former colleagues--those who have spent their entire adult lives in journalism -- about my pending venture, they are skeptical and look for the "why-it-won't-work" angle. Contrary to what a lot of business folks (who have never worked in journalism) think, that doesn't mean reporters are negative; they're not, for the most part. No. They're not. They are just doing what they have been classically trained to do: to question, to play Devil's advocate, and to think critically. That's just looking at both sides of the issue. (Some dot-com entrepreneurs, among others, could have benefited from that mindset.)

What I think we're really dealing with is fear. I have noticed a great deal of fear among some reporters when ANY solution is proposed that isn't from the "old school." As Chris said, you have to look to the future. I would add that you have to look to WHY people read news, and WHO BENEFITS from having a newspaper or broadcast news stations in a market. You'd be surprised. Yes, it's the citizenry. But it's also a cadre of other entities and organizations. And if you want a free press, then you can't be afraid to embrace a new way of financing news.

I don't expect reporters to easily embrace the new technologies, the new business models, the new ways of doing business; they aren't business people and most have never started a company, had to do business plans, conduct market research, do a SWOT analysis or hedge a bet on the future of technology and public sentiment. That's not their job nor their area of expertise, and I think it's a bit harsh to chastise reporters for not knowing those things.

Having said that, though, successful reporters in the future will have to know five things if they want to be employable: (1) great storytelling; (2) outstanding research and fact-checking skills; (3) an understanding of computer programming; (4) how to design, write, and create INTERACTIVE stories (and I don't just mean a "comments" section after their stories), and --as Chris pointed out -- (5) an understanding of how to market content. (1) and (2) most reporters already have mastered. But when speaking with J-school students (and some seasoned reporters) they balk at having to learn (3), (4), and (5), saying "that's not the part of my brain that I use." But that's like saying a creative person who develops games "doesn't use" that side of his brain to do the programming to get those games online, or that a novelist "doesn't use" the part of his or her brain to create a viral marketing campaign for the book on the web.

My apologies for rambling...It's late, I'm jet-lagged, and a bit out of sorts. But this post is about a topic that as a former, classically-trained journalist and experienced entrepreneur, is near and dear to my heart.

I can't think of a better way to innovate, create, change and bust the old than to insert yourself into someone else's POV. Chris, I appreciate your long range vision. Keep it up, social media prophet. ;-)

Excellent Blog. The article very clearly explains how journalism is an important element for one. It says how one should develop business and what are the steps to be taken.kalamazoo

Traditional media has ignored these signs becuase it has been in their best interest to do so. They controlled the distribution points and access. This got mapped a little to tightly to the editorial vision and payment schemes. The guys who made it available got paid. Now everyone is "sharing" (lifting?) stories from various sources and trying to get paid for it. The distribution is so scattered and fragmented that nobody can concentrate enough value to earn a living. If something becomes ubiquitous, does it lose it's value?

Chris, you are 100% correct. The signs are all around us to make a change in the way we communicate to the market and even conduct business. Many still choose to ignore these signs. I believe that because markets are changing (we knew this from the ClueTrain Manifesto) that we would all have to evaluate everything from PR and marcom to product developement and customer service. It's suddenly a business decision and still, many at the healm, are ignoring the signs and not making careful decisions for their businesses!

Working on the industrial/manufacturing side has many at rock bottom. Things have been slow to change in many facets of this industry and only the largest companies were seeking technology solutions. Economist Adam Fein (pembrokeconsulting.com) writes, "the companies with the will, the skill and the till have the best chance of survival." Make good choices, take some risks and seek the capital to execute your plan. I think it's about time that those with traditional methods seek new media for execution of their value proposition.

Oh I know the current system doesn't work. You won't get any arguments from me on that. I also know that many, many people love to read HuffPo. It does have great articles, not to mention technology, which is amazing considering these people are all working for free, right? They have no incentive that I know of to do a great job, yet they keep doing a great job. Just ... I don't hear about anyone trying to solve the compensation puzzle over there. Maybe it's all happening behind the scenes?

I've already called three newspaper execs and 2 VCs looking for feedback. There are already a lot of content aggregators out there like Mixx and Digg and Yahoo Buzz. But somehow they don't seem like news, they seem like a popularity contest.

I cannot understand why these reporters aren't psyched to work for someone who actually wants them, someone who gets the need for real journalism. AH seems to be an early-adopter in this way, I agree, but she still seems intent on control points, as in her site. In the end, though, isn't it still the same old distribution model, even digitally? The more eyeballs, the more value.

I want to start a news company full of experienced journalists that get the social web and don't care where their stories get consumed and understand the value of spreading it everywhere. . Now THAT would be a fun place to work. Who's with me??

@Alisa - touche, and yet not. I think the compensation for content puzzle has yet to be adequately solved. I know that the old model doesn't work. Period. You can't support a stable of reporters on ad revenues any longer. What I *think* comes next is content marketing to go along with the journalism. Daily Candy, things like that.

But I still stand that AH has moved the needle in journalism than most organizations interested in its continuation. Maybe just not on a "figuring out how to pay YOU" way. Yet.

It's funny: if you talk innovation with the bulk of reporters, you hear all the negatives. Give a bunch of entrepreneurs the challenge, and they see opportunities. There's obviously a disconnect. I'm thinking about Guy Kawasaki's speech about ice. (Won't explain here.)

These signs are opportunity knocking. And while it can be tough to respond to each sign, the potential payoff for many of these opportunities is incredible. I'm grabbing at every idea that these signs are sparking: it's a gamble, but if you can chase at least one opportunity, the odds that something good will come of it is at least better than the odds if you do nothing!

I agree, the signs are everywhere. The problem is how do you read the signs and then decide which of the millions of spores are the ones for you to follow?

It would be great if you could give us an article on that.

It's so important to look around us. There are so many things we can learn and gain from the world if we just look around and take things in. Thanks for reminding me of this!

If I'm Yahoo or Google, I am buying up the best journalists in the world across multiple news categories and keeping my powder dry.

Sadly, generating original, credible news takes time and therefore costs money. Folks will be reluctant to do it for free, regardless of the public's willingness to consume it for free! So those who publish (aggregate) it may feel the need to recoup the costs they incur in acquiring it. How to do this? I don't see this model changing at the source anytime soon.

HFPost is still full of ads, will still seek to migrate the web's disparate readers to its site and content from other options like the NY Times, Washington Post (those sound almost the same), or even Drudge and the model will simply transfer from one masthead to another, or many others. As long as something has a cost, it has a value that needs to be extracted or it can't survive. How do we disintermediate that?

In WWGD, Jeff talks about going to speak to a room full of newspaper industry colleagues. He was told not to say anything that would upset them. Well, they are upset now! I am amazed at how many people / industries choose to keep their heads in the proverbial sand. I've been in the tech industry for over 13 years, and I will tell you, I'm always betting on a future based on more technology, more innovation and CHANGE!

That's my secret to success. Let's all pool our money and go buy a newspaper.

Outsourcing, downstreaming, all of these trends are real and create material opportunities. This is the good news.

This post captures the feeling I get of being caught between this innovation and people still chasing yesterday's tactics. For example, our newsletter is widely read in our vertical and we've been growing our ad revenue nicely. One advertiser praised our performance as "off the charts" and when I asked, the chart was Click Through Rate. Granted, it's a branding game, but are we really starting with CTR as measurements? Isn't it 2009? Somebody let me in on the joke please.

Chris, this is a great "call to action" for any marketer (or business professional for that matter) who has yet to explore one of the most basic disciplines in business - creativity mixed with a bit of common sense. I believe you said it best - "look for informational and inspirational sources outside of your main discipline, your vertical, and outside of even simple reason." This is the creativity. In order to best understand your business and industry we have to continue to ask ourselves about what really matters to those we are trying to connect with (that's the common sense). I'm always learning from you as you do a great job of making people think...thanks Chris!

Matt Batt (@storyassistant)

I have found myself migrating to THPost over the NYTimes for two reasons,
real time news and the writing reflects my "weltanschauung" for the most part.
The aggregate mixed media bag is attractive, the comedic video montages from late night talk show hosts, etc. It's a more robust source.
For my personal habits, it is a game changer.
For the record i LOVE the new ballgame. The democratization of information and distribution is brilliant. YAHOO!
It distresses me however if the last post is accurate. Hopefully Ariana is not applying the new tools to the old roles and rules, as an internet robber baron of sorts, not paying the people who make contributions. What's up with that?

I hear what you're saying Chris, and it's a great challenge. I think those who really work this out will become the captains of (fragmented, disaggregated, open-source, outsourced, vendor-managed, webX.0) industries of the future.

Looking for new directions to branch your business, start investigating opportunities before they appear, offer value to a sector that has yet to determine its future, is where a lot of truly entrepreneurial work is established.

In times like these, when economies are running on a low ebb, the more obvious opportunities go hidden, but if you find one now and it's successful, it should grow exponentially once the economy picks up again.

But our current industry position is not just related to the economic down turn, but also indicative of the evolution of the digital sector as a whole, irrelevant of the economic state of play. It's an interesting time.

We need to be finding our feet for the economic recovery and digital evolution now, to find ourselves best placed to offer help to the right people when its needed.

Looking for the signs, as you say, is an important part of any successful business.

Arianna is doing good, new amazing things in journalism? She doesn't pay her contributors, good people she can only get because the newspaper industry is dying and they are out of work and have no other viable option. Is that the new "good"?

I think it's fine and well and important to analyze the trends in one's industry and to keep one's finger on the pulse, as it were.

However I do think that often, people spend far too much time analyzing and far too little time actually doing any real work with what they've discovered.

Talk is cheap...but hard work is where the real payoff comes.

Oh great, now you've got me all ranty too. :-)

"No matter what your business (or whatever your use for social media), look for informational and inspirational sources outside of your main discipline, your vertical, and outside of even simple reason. Find stuff way outside your typical scope, and way far away from your own point of view."

This is the definition of "innovation". Excellent post, Chris.

Hi - absolutely - no one has noticed but Apple just did that - the application part was moved out of the organisation into public domain - modifying the traditional value chain that Friedman mentions.

Further I think organisation-employee relationships are going to change fundamentally. We will have new loose forms of organisations that can fail easily and not become tighly controlled - economic behemoths that can hold entire economies to ransom. The new form of organisation will most likely have Schumpeterean creative destrution switch built into their DNA making them more efficient, vibrant through fail-fast, fail-safe means.

Being plugged in means having signs shown to you far before they are noticed by the mainstream. I love it and sort of hate it at the same time. Selling the future to people is hard but far more rewarding. I think one of the primary reasons is that it is so hard to do is because people are fearful of things they don't understand or of things they like to put "the" in front of (ex. "the facebook, the youtube etc").

It's far more fun and rewarding though to pitch something that you think is genuinely interesting and has an amazing potential to save your client money. Now if I could only convince them to drop that Yellow Page ad...

Thank you for this bit of inspiration of how to go forward to be different. Ask questions, look around, and bring back a sense of wonder.

Change is all around us, if not yet, signs are there. I like reading your blog, and Jeff's, because you are listening to the winds of change blow and talking about it. Sadly, there is a huge contingent stuck in the mud of the past, moaning and groaning. Go ahead and rave and rant and know that people are listening to you.

You're right, and the thing is - NOW is the time to capitalize on change as things are being disrupted and we're reaching intersecting points. Miss out now and you may regret it forever.