The Next Media Company

Hi Chris - enjoyed the post. Agreed with most of it but this part:

"Advertising cannot be the primary method of revenue."

I agree that advertising, as it's been done and is being done, is just not gonna cut it for the future. I do think, however, that it's the current model that is broken and not the concept itself.

I've been watching the brilliants out in CA and elsewhere for a decade as they try to get 'targeted' ads to provide the ROI everyone needs. I've come to the conclusion that these guys are just too damned smart - trying to figure out what I want before even I know what it is. They should face the facts: behavioral targeting is a #wipefail, not good enough to be used as toilet paper.

But what if We, the targetees, trade places with Them, the targeters? Flip the whole thing on its end and look at it ... up the backside, so to speak.

Instead of them Trying to target us, we can easily target them. If all our ads were requested, wouldn't we come to see them not as an intrusion, but as something We control, something we'd come to depend on to make our shopping decisions easier?

Of course, this means that advertisers and marketers would have to 'give up' that control. I doubt they'll want to do that, even for sustainable profit.

I feel its pretty simple

U2 make only 10% of their income from recorded music (the thing that most people think of as their "product") – this is the model for media - experience lead monetization (what a great acronym!)

if the human being is experiencing something they value from the media - then they'll pay
how do the new media companies generate those experiences? data (as Tim O'Reilly says) - the book moneyball describes how Billy Beane did it for baseball – same for media – mine the data, look creatively at the data and a whole new world of opportunity appears

I challenge people to try it – take any media company you can think of – spend an hour with your team trying to figure out all the different data sets they “own” (from the sales of their products through to the temperature of their offices) – and then spend half an hour working out who would be interested in this data – and in what context

When you do this its pretty easy to see where value is

Fascinating. I like the fact that you have thought through changes in the way content will be created, changes in the way it will be distributed and changes in the way it will be paid for. I think that many of us are trying to cobble together bits and pieces of what you’re talking about here, without the benefit of a few million in venture capital. One thing it makes me realize is how people will need to learn to step seamlessly between roles – content creators will also be distributors who will also be both consumers and advertisers.

Look at how this works, just on this one post of yours. You write something this is great content because it’s well-thought out, insightful, and yet a pit provocative. People comment with equally well-thought out ideas and insights. They fill in the gaps for me. They make your content even better.

Thus, even the blog commentors become a) content creators for me b) distributors for you 3) sales people for themselves.

On a different point, I’m still not clear of your definition of advertising: isn’t “In-line content marketing, clearly delineated/disclosed/explained” actually advertising? Wouldn’t something that tells me I can buy how-to info from AdAge be advertising? If I could book a hotel from an article on travel, wouldn’t that hotel be considered an advertiser? Let’s be clear, just because it doesn’t “look like an ad” doesn’t mean it’s not advertising.

One thing missing from the list is that online content must be free.

The question then becomes, how do you make money online when you're giving away your product and can't expect to make anything off of ads for other peoples' products? One way is to sell physical products... another way is to sell experiences. What are others?

I think that once we truly understand the questions around the challenges that a new media company will face, we will be able to come up with the answers.

-chris

Interesting conversation starter. I think its incredibly important that traditional media companies learn that in the new media world, content stands on its own. Each article has a micro- ecosystem of people who are interested in that particular story, want to share it and potentially contribute to the development of its "story" by providing additional content related to it. Each article now has the opportunity to be much greater than the sum of all the previously published content that has ever been rolled up and bound by a rubber band and tossed on your drive way.

Those who are interested in a particular piece of content can all crowd around it and interact with each other in the same way that we are doing so on your blog, but thats just the start.

I agree, Chris, that curators and editors rule - which leaves the creators out. But this becomes the crux question: Who pays the creators?

I'm 30 years in traditional media, and since I'm from the radio side I chuckle on one level at the demise of print since they didn't have the foresight to see this coming (especially since they've been cleaning radio's advertising clock since the dawn of "traditional media" time). But as a consumer I also regularly read stories and columns from the NYT and the Wash Post on line virtually every day. Not to mention the numerous other stories I come across via a Google search or a RT on Twitter. Those "places" are all curators and editors. But they usually also employ the creators.

Where do the creators end up in the new world?

It's a world you describe here. It's one talked at length about by Jeff Jarvis in "What Would Google Do?"

It's a world where we most of us don't feel sorry at all for the loss of print... But some of us wonder: whither goest thou talent?

Nice post Chris,

This part really speaks volumes about where the internet as a whole is going, in my opinion.

'Everything is modular and linkable. Everything is fluid. Meaning, if I want the publication to be a business periodical, then I don’t want to have to read a piece about sports.'

If only all of us can think in a much more fluid way.

Nice post, I agree with everything your saying, power will and must be in the hands of the people. Also, people will not be running to see "Heros," anymore, but see and listen to their favorite online personalities. Oy, and there needs to away to listen to an internet program from your car as well in real time, not just through pod cast.

I like your curator idea. I think that is a great way to think about it. Perhaps this curation is not one person, but rather a body with different backgrounds and ideologies.

Chris, you keep turning on the light in a room that hasn't been built yet. Damn I want to go there.

I know I should be very pleased with what you have already given us here, but I wonder if you have seen deeper into the house that "we are the media' built.

Do you have ideas on what you think the revenue streams will be? If as Jon Knight suggests consumers pull advertising is it still advertising or is it a form of the new revenue stream you hint at?

Hi Dean
The new revenue will be booking things on line and trading things on line - for a minimal sign-up fee see http://www.trademe.co.nz as an example. So is it advertising? or facilitating trade? I'm not sure, but Trade Me in NZ has almost destroyed print classifieds.
The overheads will be lower too.
There's a great interview here with Prof Wu from Geoff Livingstone's blog. Post title: Net Neutrality http://tinyurl.com/ca686l gives some possible insights.

I'm not certain that the advertisesrs/marketers will actually need to change anything at all, at first.

Look at advertising as if it were a huge pool of products. Look at the whole thing, not just bits and pieces. There's everything there from household cleaners to diamond rings to (forbid it!) stocks and 'other' financial instruments. Grouped together, all these advertisements add up to a huge ocean which we, the consumer, are served from.

But right now, it's like a lunch line - you get what they give you. Take it or leave it, that's the deal.

So most of us leave it. We've gotten so good at leaving it that we don't even see ads anymore. But if those ads were suddenly put under our control, individually, they would not only cease to be seen as intrusive, they would be seen as something akin to a 'Search' for what we are looking to buy, right now, real time. They would become a personal asset to each of us.

Clickthrough rates should skyrocket in this scenario. Actual purchases/ad should go up correspondingly.

And all this seemingly new idea is actually a very old concept, taken from stories my great-grandfather used to tell about how his father knew what to stock in the general store.

He would simply ask folks what they wanted, and then get it to them.

@jonknight I think this is a very good point - endless adverts that are irrelevant to the content I am searching for, or looking at, is annoying. But turn this into a recommendation of a product based on the content I am looking at, and this is something else. I'm much more likely to click through and look at the product in more detail than I am with a bunch of random adverts.

@chrisbrogan - you've got some great posts here, keep up the good work!

We need to focus on building more Bazaars (Bottom-up / Organized Chaos) not Cathedrals (Top-down / Structured Doctrine).

Take any market or industry. Electric vehicles for example. I've done the research. Most of the current players are conning us or worse, conning themselves. The place to start is not with the technology to get the cars rolling and recharged (yet another top-down Cathedral). The place to start if with the sources for the metal, Lithium, to build the batteries to power the cars in the first place and then work back - reverse-integrate - the process. Why? At current rates of consumption, the world's supply of Lithium will run out by 2015! In the run up to 2015, the cost per ton of Lithium will be so damn high that the cars predicted with this tech will be unaffordable to the majority of buyers! Sure there is a solution. The Nation of Bolivia who currently have significant deposits. But they are not letting go to "western" countries.

I've noticed an interesting trend set in in the Mid-West with a couple of Churches (traditional top-down Cathedral model) who are "getting" it. Not sure if it is via divine wisdom or due to logical necessity:

Instead of maintaining the enormous "fixed" cost base of maintaining their Church real-estate and all the expense that goes with it, they are opting to sell of these assets and instead are contracting to "rent" down time in movie theaters for their congregations to meet in (Bazaar model) - complete with built in a/v equipment, included insurance & pop-corn to boot! Decentralized model with extreme relevance. The Church wins, the followers find convenience AND the movie theaters have an additional source of "yield management" that helps optimize revenue from their fixed assets and indirectly market upcoming flix with the hopes that some members of the congregation will return to view a film in the theater rather than rent it or stream it at home. An all-round win in my book and one that gets you thinking, bottom-up, about just about any existing incumbent model. I for one and incubating two of these new "media" paradigms quietly through one of my holding co's. Heavenly inspiration!

How do the above examples apply to next generation media models? You are right. "Everything IS Fluid". Therefore, we need to forget about what "we" want - instead we need to focus more on what value the customer/consumer/user is seeking to receive. Form my point of view, we are living in very exciting times. Let's innovate ourselves out of this mess and onto greener, brighter pastures.

BTW, like the Mr. Clean look!

Best, @AAinslie

Transition? Getting from here to there? Perhaps its outside the scope of this article, but i see the process as media evolution, spurred on by communication revolution.

Great article, but there are parts I'm struggling with.

In the pre-internet world, media companies were companies first and foremost. In other words, outside of the BBC, content existed purely to fill the gaps between adverts. Content sold advertising. This was the model for over a hundred years for every newspaper and periodical no matter how noble the journalists thought their mission.

Now that the Internet has reduced the financial barriers to entry for publishers everyone wants to be in the business of "news". The problem of course is that there is simply not enough advertising dollars to support all this "news". I'm not sure that the solution is to dilute the integrity of your news still further by including in-line content marketing. That won't increase the amount of advertising dollars available. I do like the idea of value added services, but I think that the ultimate solution will be simply to publish less "news".

Less advertising should mean less content. Your article is about the Next Media Company, but I just don't believe there will be one until the existing media companies understand the economic realities. As with TV, advertising grows as the range of channels expands, but there is a point at which it simply cannot grow further. I think we passed that point several minority interest, long-tail blogs ago.

Any content that can bring eyeballs has the opportunity to be a broker for other products and services that they think may be of use to their audience. Like the local theatre that makes revenue from selling lollies (candy) at intermission content producers should look to do the same.

The revenue model to me, is beyond advertising. Affiliate marketing has demonstrated that transaction based commissions work well for both publisher and vendor. The newspaper has a difficulty because the old media advertising does not work when compared to new media.

Old media doesn't have an 'active' audience. They have to interfere with our lives to get attention. Then when they do, we discover that their content tends to be, in the most part, targeted at the lowest common denominator and when compared to the diversity of content that can be found online, has little relevance in the discussion. These days Old Media quotes New media a lot more often than it used to.

We can discover compelling content at a click that has not been filtered by a Publisher, editor, sub editor and we're told 'not to believe everything you read on the Internet' . Whilst I agree with this sentiment, my online life has taught me, don't believe ANTHING you read, hear or see in old media.

So the publishers challenge is to create 'spaces' that foster involvement & diversity. Local newspapers for instance could get more involved with their communities so their voices can be heard. Create the space and educate the community on how to use it. They need to get more active as a positive force with their audience and then provide a path to products and services that reflect their brand values.

Even though Microsoft IE has it's default home page as MSN, on the majority of PCs sold around the world, it is still the no.3 or 4 search engine. Google is way out in front because it is a better product. "HEADS UP" for Old Media, you can no longer coral the audience.

I'm misquoting David Meerman Scott here, when he say's "online, you have to earn attention"

I realise I'm preaching to the choir here ..

Great stories are still great stories, and will always be magnets.
Add value, don't just aggregate.
Show the whole jigsaw, not just edge pieces.
Don't start by thinking of ways to make money, start with ways to make meaning - money will flow.
It's a media business, not a medium business.
There will always be something special about paper ("always" might be generational)

How about some basic journalistic tenets?
- Editorial independence from whatever revenue source is paying for the thing.
- Some degree of objectivity and separation of fact from opinion
- Community service - watchdog of government and powers that be

All of those are less "useful" than some of the other items in your manifesto, but all necessary roles of the news media in a democracy.

stlevine: Sadly, most people do not really want objectivity and separation of fact from opinion, as long as the message supports their preconceived opinion... They want something that serves as validation that their little pea-brain is "correct."

I've been in journalism 22+ years and have been saying many of the same things (but not all!!) and being shot down by the media dinosaurs for decades. Where I agree - everything but:

Collaboration on covers and pics, given the breaking news model and legal and ethical and other considerations, can't rule. If 20 folks send in cellphone pics or HAVE a better shot - that photo is generally used now anyway...unless the editor is a real loser (many are) and insists on everything being original photos. MANY photos have been photoshopped or altered to include extra details or the sender's name or photo....and papers have ethical obligations to print non-altered photos.....which is why they used breaking news cellphone shots of the plane crash in the Hudson, but may not use other kinds of photos.

Major news organizations attract major talent. Small town weeklies get whoever shows up and can string words together. Some times the word slingers are really, really good - but they don't stick around there long. They learn, prove themselves and get out.

Small towns have 20-30% (high) of folks online because of internet connections, lack of internet or knowledge about the internet. So they NEED and WANT a physical paper. Conversely, the people who advertise the most and have the biggest ad dollars in those papers, ie Realtors and auto dealers, realize they get more bang for their buck on the internet so they shun the paper more....cutting back on ad dollars which means the paper cuts back on reporters, so fewer people read or want the paper, which means advertisers cut back even more and so the cycle goes.

I think there's still 10-20 years of good newspaper need out there. Until another generation cycles through (boomers) we'll still love our papers. So why not create a paper that drives readers to the internet? Why not a module, a paper with links, with summary, with more of an overview and "guide" to what's on the internet. You can scan the paper, find what you want and check out the web later. Incorporating local bloggers, photographers and business networks is the way to go!

It's questionable whether we need a paper anymore. However, I have worked in the area of investigative journalism, and I believe it's imperative there will be a medium for a high quality journalism. Because of this 'market' need - bloggers and twitteres cannot supply this, they can't afford to work a month or so on a good story and meticulously verify any detail and source - I believe the functional revenue models are just about to emerge. Personally I like what the guys of www.spot.us (a crowd sourced journalism) are doing. Another suggestions regarding possible streams of revenue outlined by Chris seem to be promising. It has to be portable and the collaboration is a must, I agree.

All true. Newspapers, bookstores, magazines, and book publishers all do not get it. DOA

@mathewi Tweeted this point - Great food for thought. I agree with many of your points, however I stop at the extent of collaboration. I don't find that having "the masses" contribute to articles or choose the photos will lead to better media - I still like the idea of some sort of curation by people who have some experience, training or skills in journalism. I know it's not popular to say, but I find the alternative may end up dumbing things down too much. I look at the comments of many of the people who write in to newspaper sites, and think, if those people were allowed to contribute to articles, I would never read them.

I use art (my world) as a parallel example - a lot of art that is popular commercially is not art that is particularly insightful, well executed or impactful.

Just to offer a couple concerns:

You need to be careful with too much user freedom and collaboration. And not relying on any top level creatives? The business will be directionless and without vision. Something will have to make your company different and unique, and it wont strictly come from your customers, unless you direct them or attract a certain type.

Restrictions and rules foster creativity and happiness. Free for all and unlimited choice isn't as enjoyable as you'd think. The worst thing you can do to an artist/creator/writer is not give them direction and say 'go wild'. They'll not only have a horrible time coming up with something - they'll probably not give you what you wanted.

I'm always cautious when I hear of everything being shared and collaborative and user-generated. It's a little utopian. People flock to the iphone making their own apps, creating the marketplace. Indie musicians upload their music to the itunes store. But Jobs and his crew designed the platforms to make it cool and different from other phones and music players. You need a top level vision behind anything successful - if 'anything goes', you'll have a wild west on your hands!

How about making all of this linking more automated? With info about how relevant and/or trafficked the linked piece is?

Love your idea of "curators". I have strong loyalty to producers who are strong, focused filters. This will surely only be more important as the volume of info becomes ever more overwhelming.

I've been struggling with this issue as I work with an online media client. I agree that advertising cannot be the only source of income for online media ( which, eventually, not supplant print but become the main vehicle for news distribution). I also agree with one of the commenters that there is a place for true investigative journalism ( But why pay for it when someone else who pays for it summarizes it in a blog post?)

There needs to be some true out-of-the-box thinking about how to keep our news organizations in business- or should we just ditch them and all news will be delivered by citizen journalists? A scary thought with it's potential for abuse by the charismatic, not necessarily the rational.

I keep thinking back to Web 1.0 when " free shipping now and forever" was the rallying cry- well, those days are long gone so maybe..."free content now and forever" will go the same route eventually?

Maybe

Chris,

As usual I really like where you are going here, especially with the multiple revenue sources since that will be critical in this next phase of "journalism." There are many people that tend to forgot that media needs to at least break in to be viable. Even when some of the "reporters" are the public at large, there still need to be staff folks to man the base of the operation.

Good also to see that you are not one of the many who are proclaiming "paper" as dead. There is still a hardcore group out there not willing to say goodbye to paper, as least not yet.

One question I have under this model is whether the idea of a "media source of record," like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal has been seen by some, will still exist in this world of a constatly morphing media outlet?

Thanks for your insight.

I am unsure what you mean by this: "We will all audition for mass physical distribution"...can you (or someone) explain a little further?

Nick, thanks for commenting. It led me to your interesting work.

Thanks Chris. You have many of the aspects we are trying to capture as we create C3 - Complete Community Connection. I agree with Paul Moss that we need to focus on the actions we can take in transition and with Laurie Foley that we need to make relevant linking more automated.

As to transition, we believe that we have to start by separating content creation from product creation.

As to making linking more automatic, we are starting to explore new authoring tools and user interfaces using some of the new semantic tools.

Fluid, flexible, relevant, in context. A tall order. We are trying.

Chuck

Chris:

Great post. I think one of the things we're all struggling with is "advertising." That is, how does it work moving forward? If the Next Media Company can make some strides in making ads more relevant, we'd really be on to something.

For example, we talk about "targeting" ads more, but those are still an interruption. Just because I'm discussing being thirsty with a friend, or looking for beverages online doesn't mean I want to see something about Coke. It's better than a generic banner ad or similar, but it's still a guess. The question is how to make messages part of a natural conversation, yet do so in a way that can generate enough revenue to support the service. Taking my example above, could a brand like Coke ever find enough appropriate ways to join a conversation on, for example, a business blog? Probably not.

For the short term, I'm still convinced a "sliding scale" is the best answer. It's kind of like a movie: If I want to see it on release day, I have to go to a theater and pay for it. If I'm willing to wait a year or so, I can see it on network supported by commercial interruptions. We're quickly moving away from the time-mandated element of that. So, on a news site, I can pay a monthly fee and get no ads, or I can go for free and get ads, or someplace in between (maybe ads from the five vendors I get to select for a lower monthly fee). This allows advertisers to reach me, but also encourages them to engage me in such a way that I don't vote them off the island, so to speak.

i think you've touched on most of what will help build the next media...but there is more to be added.

two years to the day, i cranked out this post in response to the news that the sf chronicle would be cutting 25 percent of their editorial staff - http://asu.ms/3hmRzA

still rings true today.

thanks for the post, chris.

I think you're dead on. Although think it will be possible for advertising revenue to be a primary income stream, but only if online advertising changes its tune. Online marketing needs to move away from trying to force people to click links. Instead of being invasive, it needs to be inviting.

Part of it will be on the shoulders of the person selling ad space. Instead of selling it to just anyone, the publication may be judged on who it sells advertising to. What if you never saw another irritating "free smileys" ad or "you're a winner" flashing banner ad again, because reputable publications refuse to sell advertising to them?

The online paper would become valuable if it only sold ad space to local businesses. Now suddenly there's real value in the local online paper because it's the place to go for what's going on around you -- from news, to specials, and what's hot locally. Taking it a step further, social media could become a valuable tool for immediate feedback on that local ad.

For example, I'm going to use real-life local coffee bean roaster, Has Beans, from the London Ontario market. They create an ad in the local online section, detailing what the weekly special is. As I'm a fan of their product, of course it catches my attention -- and I'd make a special trip for some of their blends. But for people who've never tried it, there's a space underneath with comments from various social media. So they can see what others think of the ad. The comments not only increase the trustworthiness of an ad's claims, but can also provide vital feedback to the business. I think this would be a perfectly viable primary source of income for a publication. What do you think?

One of the most interesting posts I've read in quite awhile. As on old-media person who was [forcibly] reborn I couldn't help noting that the infrasturucture for what you are describing DID partially exist way back in the 1990's, although burdnened with legacy and fixed cost issues.

I would redefine the way you use modular. I think that the media company should evolve as a pipeline to get information from any worthwhile source to any consumer regardless of the consumer's media consumption habits. So that if a business writer has something useful to say about gardening the gardening media company has a way to dsitribute the piece agnostically to mobile and fixed users, along with collaboration mechanisms.

Also, I think we need to redefine advertising. Is a Facebook app advertising? If an airline builds an app so that you can book a ticket to Italy while reading about it on your mobile thay are, in a sense, running an ad, just one that has closing capability as well.

Whenever you read an article about a place or an experience, you should be able to click on a "LET'S GO" widget that takes you to a road trip planning tool to get there. Each person reading it would then be able to plan a trip to do exactly what was described, whether it was online, in a printed article, on a radio broadcast or a TV show (I own this IP, so if someone thinks it is a good idea, let's talk!).

You have pretty much described the Huffington Post, which is why I love to write for them although they don't pay me. I want to be known by the new curators as I had no chance to be known by the old ones.

You're such a great thinker and writer, Chris.

Agreed!
Just a few weeks away from launching our private beta test for just such a "next media company":
# Stories should not be isolated - but "in the middle" - a continuance of what we do, experience and enjoy. They start "outside" of the web, find some way of manifestation there - and then (ideally) continue in another way beyond the web.
# Curators and Editors play an important role - and, at least partially, like writers, are members of the community at large.
# Stories can be anything and a combination of any type of media - based on the preference of the creator. No more separation by type of media asset.
# Integration between mobile and online, both for the creation as well as the distribution and syndication of content.
# All content has collaborative opportunities. Users can add links, enhance stories, add tags etc.
# Less traditional advertising, more engagement, communication and interaction. Revenue comes form multiple sources and income streams.
# Clearly defined and always relevant marketing messages, allowing for follow though, consumer brand communication and a high level, opt in engagement.
# Contributors come in many shapes: online and other publishers, recycling, re-purposing new and existing content; brands providing relevant and informative content; users contributing stories and sharing in revenue.
# Value-add services are an integral part of the revenue stream. From SaaS to ad-serving, to custom publishing, to ...
# Everything is about collaboration and the ability to participate, chime in, make choices and...
# Everything is about relevancy.
# Not just paper: everything should be on demand.
# Do-it-yourself publishing to be an integral part of the experience.

I would like to add (in no particular order):
# No (behavioral) targeting of people and demographics (I am truly tired of getting wrinkle cream and diet ads no matter what I am looking at, just because I am female) - but focus on creating a perfect, relevant and mutually beneficial match between content and brand messages
# Breaking of existing silos/verticals for content and the ability to discover content across multiple environments, based on relevancy (i.e. a travel story that also contains a recipe can be discovered in a travel vertical as well as in a food vertical) - thus also creating new audiences and opportunities for monetization.
#Management and distribution of content across multiple environments/domains from one single dashboard.
#Creation of "new" content by combining different sources from one content owner (i.e. a media company that owns print, tv and audio content - can now "mash-up" its content into new or enhanced all-media content that is more informative, interesting and engaging.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is a great example of a newspaper company that's making the transition to new media. I have been a subscriber for years, and for the last three years (or more?) I have not received a paper copy of IBD daily, but instead I download a PDF with the full content. I can read it anywhere, anytime; take it with me, copy and paste into blog posts or Twitter. You get the picture.

What's more, their content is incredible: they have a current (business events) section with all the latest news; they have a leadership section where they profile real leaders and give advice on how to succeed; and they also have a political section that keeps readers abreast of what's happening in the world. All their articles are available on-line and they make changes to them. Writers from many different areas contribute to their publications. They are years ahead of the Wall Street Journal.

I have absolutely no ties with IBD other than the fact that I am a happy customer. They understand how to use new media, and I believe IBD will reap the benefits of the next wave.

-Michael

Nice piece. I'm a fan of the theory "Donate the news and sell the data"
Dan Conover has longer, more elegant manifesto on this here
http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/05/the-l...

I like how you thought about linking the hotels to the travel magazine to make booking easier. This is a better model then advertising. This makes a lot of sense.

I am working with a blog aggregator which takes the hottest stories and then puts them in one place. They have an iphone app and a blackberry app too. So they have taken it to the next level for news by making the content mobile.

I don't own a smart phone but I can see why it is important wave for the future.

Chris,

Great post, agree with most if not all of it. Thought you might be interested in this commentary on Seed magazine. Dovetails with pieces of your thinking.

http://www.draftfcblog.com/Lists/Posts/Post.asp...

Monocle magazine out of the UK is another new media venture that appears to be trying to use a print magazine as a wedge to creating a multi-faceted media brand/company - which so far includes, in addition to the magazine and podcasts, pop-up retail, limited edition books, and strategic partnerships with consumer companies like Tretorn.

Exciting to watch it play out.

Marian

One of the problems - why is print media going under? Ask people why - and most will tell you the same answer - "Stop telling me what to think, what to feel, what to do, what to be - I have a brain, I can figure it out - just give me the facts of a situation, do NOT anyalyze it for me - let my brain do my own thinking and critical analysis! I am not stupid but I resent being treated as if I am." When print media realizes that fact - they will have a chance - but as long as people are never asked, and their answers never listened to if they are, the results will be the same no matter what is done. Reporters need to report - and opinions needed to be segregated from facts!
Bonnie

This post and Chris' Thoughts on Nowhere and Nowhen post feel to me like enabling thoughts on how we will get better at 'living in the moment'. Isn't 'living in the moment' one of the key prescriptions for being happy? And won't the web (and all of its accomplices) be enablers to help us do that? It's not narcissism that makes me want what I want when I want it right now... it's utility and my desire to be happy/satisfied.

If it seems too Pollyanna to be true, it’s because it probably is. When curators and editors rule, the truly talented creators will disappear. Long term, who is going to pay them and let everyone else use their content for free?

We are facing a world of do-it-yourself news idiocracy, and there is no clear solution in sight. On demand trumps investigative time-and-effort.

I have faith that the good citizens of this nation will somehow find an answer. On a national level it’s easy. But on a local level, errr, I don’t see that realistic answer in this post.

Really interesting ideas Chris. Very thought provoking. The internet is merely a teenager and has a lot of growing up to do. The cool thing about The Next Media Company is that we get to shape it. You've started the ball rolling on it.

Here's a question - did movies on video cassette kill movie theatres? Everyone said they would when video first came out but it turns out that Video-movies- at -home and watcing-movies-in-a-theater inhabit two different 'spaces' and so both flourished. Did DVD kill video casseettes? Yes. They inhabit the same 'space'. And next blu-ray will kill DVD.

So my question is this - do print media and on-line media inhabit the same 'space' in our lives and therfore only one can win? Or are they fundamentally different experiances - even with the same content?

I agree entirely and wrote about that over on my blog http://www.whitneyhoffman.com/?p=642, knowing I'd take up too much space here. The new thing makes the old thing move over some, but doesn't destroy it entirely. I think, as Matt Mason might say, newspapers have to think about getting out of the paper and ink business and into the news business, as that's where their primary value is, just like music companies are in the music bsuiness, not the plastic disc business.

Chris, enjoyed the post. Agreed with almost all of it except this:

"Advertising cannot be the primary method of revenue."

Advertising will get smarter - is getting smarter. Your new media company will target ads based on behavior and content that is absolutely relevant to the advertiser. Take it one step further and analyze the user, calculating their receptivity to the ad and automatically setting CPM etc.

Great post - thanks!

I like a lot of this, but I have some questions. As stories won't end in publication, edits and updates will be the norm, how will the revisions be distinguished? A color code? How will the editors and curators be paid? How will the contributors be paid?

Of course everything should be multi-media, (linked) and multi-media accessible, that's a complete given, the real trick, how are we going to sync everything, with everyone?

Advertising is an evil, but a very necessary one. I don't like it, I just don't see a way around it. We have to establish ways of people getting paid, making a proper living. If we don't, this simply won't be viable as anything more than a hobby.

I don't understand this bullet: "Everything is modular and linkable. Everything is fluid. Meaning, if I want the publication to be a business periodical, then I don’t want to have to read a piece about sports." Can you elaborate?

Content remains king.

Hi Chris, this is fascinating stuff, as these 100s of comments before mine also indicate. My initial question was to be about advertising as well, but I can see the debate/discussion on this point has already taken off so I will leave that.

My other question revolves around the idea of (please dont burn me at the stake for this) editorial control. Of course I believe that everyone should have wiki-access to add their thoughts on restaurants, and we should all be able to participate online. And I love the idea that stories will not be published, finished by some certain date, but rather will be constantly evolving stories. However, these stories that run in the mainstream media, ie New York Times in the US and the Times in the UK, have traditionally formed the first drafts of history books, our understanding of history, and subsequently, our understanding of current/future society as well.

If everything is fluid, evolving and wiki-able, we are, in a sense, creating a situation whereby history will also be recorded in a multi-media, multi-faceted way. All of this can be democratic, and egalitarian of course, but happens with hackers or just plain jerks?
Who will maintain editorial control and who has the right to maintain that control in the new media company? It might be one step too far to say this here, but in a sense, what will the understanding of reality be in a future where we can all participate in documenting the past?

Your "future vision" is fabulous contribution! In the whole "evolution of media debate" here are my concerns:

1. Truth: As a reader of many blogs, I have observed first-hand that "facts" -- even basic numbers and stats - are often flat-out wrong. Whose job should it be to check those? The creator, or the editor? If someone adds to a story through a wiki, will anyone ensure the ongoing accuracy of the story? Is it the responsiblity of the editor?

2. Money: Who pays? The outcome of the debate between "information wants to be free" and "users need to pay a little bit" will shape the quality of the news and information in the future.

I think http://www.guardian.co.uk/open-platform/what-is..., http://www.openaustralia.org/ and http://www.whirlpool.net.au/ are all worth looking at in terms of new & effective ways of producing, consuming, distributing and organising information and adding considerable value in the process. If I had a few million I'd try to become an "authority hub" on one or more niche areas and provide a range of tools around which people congregate to share information on these topics.

Beyond advertising income could come from providing value added services or aggregate data or providing access to a focused user base via surveys or other market/social research.

Profitable? Maybe, maybe not..

Hi Chris

A thought occurs reading your post (which I agree with by the way) - media could / should become a bit like the film 'Vantage Point'.

People will want to see the same story but from a different perspective (social comment) whilst others just want to see the pictures (video phone sharing - google maps etc).

Other will want more in-depth analysis (links to similar topics / people, event or location specific).

The next media company will be able to utilise all of these mediums and platforms (from twitter to youtube) to bring people the whole story or as much of it as they want.

Perhaps it's already here - just not collected in one place yet?

Jonathan.

Good points and interesting comments. I've never been a newspaper reader...I was raised to turn on the radio and television as the vehicles used for information. My career has been in electronic media and watching the newspaper slowly decline is as if the end of a movie is obvious!

"Media cannot stick to one form"....absolutely on target for ALL media! The diversity of where and when to get the information you want demands multi-sources and forms. However utilizing "collaborative opportunities" is crucial. Those opportunities must link and feed off each other and yes, be fluid! But consistent!

"Advertising cannot be the primary method of revenue" without question. But advertising will, without doubt, be part of the plan. The one aspect that all mainstream media has got to get through its thick skull is specificity, personal relevance and a businesses niche! Quit trying to be everything to everyone and solve a specific problem!! Too much garbage and plastic promises. Tell me what makes you different and why I need you! We're talking the creative message people!

I'm not sure about the premise -- that "media" companies will exist as such. I think they will disappear into the cloud.

Great post, Chris!

I agree that value-added services -- especially educational/how-to services -- are a critical piece. I am in the final stages of discussions with a VC about an online news outlet that does just that -- having educational content for each type of story. (And this is being applied to regular news, not just specialty magazines or industry-specific magazines. That means a heavy emphasis on JIT instructional design for the learning content.)

Whatever model comes out, it's important to remember to pay contributors and instructional designers for the content. A lot of proposals have various business models, but they involve using writers, photographers, illustrators, and designers for free. "Guest" is a loose term that could include a lot of people. When it comes to creative and writing talent, the old adage "You get what you pay for" holds true. I've definitely found this true in my business.

The thing with traditional media--- the content is good.

I subscribe to way too many bad blogs--not everyone has the chops to make the good content.

These people get paid to write, they aren't just doing it for their health...Chris you've got a talent that you could get paid for (directly). Most other people just don't. Self publishing is a bit overrated, but I love that we are all sold the dream we can do anything as self starters.

When so much information is available so freely and immediately, how do you tell the good information from the bad information? In the "old media" you could generally assign some level of trust based on the source (i.e. the brand of the media outlet) because the top brands protected their value by verifying the information they published. Now the old media struggles between immediacy and accuracy. Maybe verification and trust work differently with new media. Instead of something that happens before a story is published, maybe it's something that happens continuously. Maybe it's a premium feature instead of something that's tied only to brand. Corrections move off the back page and go front and center-- that's part of the service because we expect things to be continuously improved.

well...you've obviously never pitched a vc for money? pitch starts with how you/they are going to make money. goes on to explain (simple) idea and then explain how you can either defend yourself from competition or do it better/faster/cheaper. seems to me that you have provided the exact reason not to invest in a new media venture at this time.

sorry.

I don't think allowing readers "wikified" access to articles is practical or realisitic. Everyone can go ahead and comment on content, but edit it? That sounds like a recipe for a media content site I'd like to avoid.

One potential revenue stream that need not be overlooked, the dreaded pay for content model.

In-line content is advertising, not content, no matter how the words are played or rearranged.

Patrick,

They said the same about the encyclopedia, but look at Wikipedia. The same is now happening everyday at WikiCity, which provides a city wiki for over 22,000 towns across the U.S.

Granted, the model has its flaws, but it might just work twice.

To me, there is only one thing that matters: Content that engages people enough that they're willing to pay to get it.

In my new media company, all else flows from this. If people want the content, people will pay something for it. Advertising should be secondary, to some extent -- in my new media company, we'll prove the model by whether readers/participants are willing to pay for what we do.

Comments and feedback are a must -- and a robust community of people who comment enhances the content. But will people pay to participate at the outset? Probably not. Save it for later.

Your list is a great one, but it's tactics before strategy. The Atlantic has a fine website, but readers don't create -- they get an opportunity to read and interact with the fantastic writers...and if you love it, doesn't take much to convince you to pay for the magazine.

Newspapers -- a whole different animal...

"Advertising cannot be the primary method of revenue. "

I think you're on to something here, but what are the realistic alternatives? I don't think that consumers are going to pay for content, unless it is something they really can't acquire elsewhere which, given the Internet, is unlikely. Delivery services (paper, various technologies to push information onto mobile devices, audio versions of content, etc) might be able to be sold for a premium, but that won't be a primary revenue source.

I can see advertising changing. For instance, people would probably pay to guest post on your blog - even if you maintained some sort of editorial control. You benefit due to content and money. They benefit due to exposure. This is, arguably, advertising... even though it is potentially useful, quality content.

yoo chris- great post. Unfortunately I'm going to have to disagree with @jonknight below me. I think that advertising is going to need to be drastically changed (at least until the economy starts to turn and advertisers are comfortable spending more money). I'm really interested to see if companies like ABC or NBC start offering in-house social media experts as added value to network ad-purchases. Maybe the smaller 'local' organizations who are prudent about buying ad-space would be better enticed if they were given a social-media campaign to build brand awareness. As far as the current model needing some changes, I definitely agree. I read an interesting article from AdAge about how comparison advertising or "attack" advertising is becoming more common these days. ( http://bit.ly/eqSnz ) Cheers to a new "Super-Agency"

-Sean

Social media integration and stream updates/streamcasting are equally important.

I think you are looking through rose colored glasses. I would imagine that this is all likely, but not in the near future. There are some kinks to work out at best. If advertising is not the main source of revenue ... what will be? I can't wrap my mind around any realistic ideas. I seen your suggestion about selling services (the hotel tickets) but what is the actuality of people changing how they conduct personal affairs - I don't think I would change how I handle my personal affairs. So who knows, maybe you are a Polyanna or maybe I am just an old Skeptic?

See, you NEED a perspective like mine (I say not so humbly) because you need to know what the STRETCH goal is. Does that make sense? This is like concept cars in the American automobile system. It's not a dream, but it points people towards ideas you can move with.

Make sense?

I read an article about a barcamp panel in Orlando not long ago about how traditional media could revive subscriber rates, and step up to the next level. A lot of the suggestions looked at print media as a completely separate entity. I think print media could leverage social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, though specifically how I'm not sure.

I agree that partnerships and collaboration will play a vital role. The challenge will be for the New Media to generate revenue. Whether it is advertising or charging for in-line content, those of us in marketing who do not have the budgets to saturate the market will continue to look for ways to target our messages to select audiences and to reach those in select geographical areas. We will be looking to the New Media to help us justify how we can wisely spend limited dollars. We also will be looking at the New Media to help us justify why we should spend money on New Media versus the more grassroots approach of using no cost Social Media to reach our target audiences.

The New Media also may have a challenge of being able to distingish fact from commentary, opinion and fiction. Does the photo reflect reality or is a PhotoShop creation? Who will be responsible for verifying accuracy of information and will the desire for immediacy far outweigh any commitment to accuracy?

I think what comes next is a two-step news process. There will be fast news and accurate news, and we'll accept that one comes before the other. I think this works much better in the online world, and not nearly as good in paper.

I really enjoyed this entry Chris. Based on the comments below it was really thought-provoking for many people.

I think many of the traits you outline above are correctly executed by the team over at www.boingboing.net. I think a lot of companies could learn from their community-centric approach, killer content and excellent array of curators.

boingboing is definitely one of the better models.
-grant lyons, http://GreenerMags.com

Hi Chris, this is the first coherent view of the future of media I have seen *and personally bought into*. I can visualize what media will become!

The one thing you didn't mention is *when*. And I think this is important. Despite the rise of the 'silver surfer' I think there is still a generation gap in consumer behavior which this manifesto potentially discriminates against, to put it bluntly: there is still a mass of our ageing populations which won't be ready or willing (even though able) to take part.

Will this new world order in media be addressing the needs of the whole of market?

Wow, Simon. I'm so damned happy to read this. I haven't been able to comment much yet, but I started at the most recent, so thanks.

I doubt any project addresses a whole market, but I'd say that we're getting closer.

Hey Chris:
Great to see you exploring this. Here's my take in this week's FierceContentManagement Editor's Corner:

Searching for new models to make content pay online:
http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/se...

I think you have a lot of terrific ideas here.

I disagree with allowing the general public to add to an article Wiki style without previous review by the staff using established best practice guidelines. Commenting on an article would be fine.

Do it yourself publishing is fine as long as your readers find your information to be consistently credible. It would only take one major editorial mistake to lose your audience.

I do not understand why you think inline content marketing is not advertising.

My assumption is that you do not envision This new company to be merely another aggregation venue for content produced by other outlets. As well as collaborating with other content producers, would you be planning on producing original content? Would your reporters be trusted freelancers?

Many of your themes are put into practice at WikiCity.com, which provides a city wiki for every city. Collaborative headlines, restaurant reviews, etc. Check'r out, Chris!

Pat

It should also be run as non-profit.

"Everything must have collaborative opportunities. If I write about a restaurant, you should have wikified access to add to the article directly."

Collaboration is great, and readers often have valuable insights or perspectives to add to a discussion. However, one reason readers trust a publication is because of its curators and editors. You mentioned this yourself, and I think blending curation with that level of collaboration presents some challenges. Perhaps what you suggest (wikified access) is simply an evolution of "commenting" that will sort itself out over time, but I'm not convinced of that just yet.

I agree with you completely. The way we take in media has changed, and MANY media companies are attempting to catch up with this. Magazines should really think about capitalizing on blog articles, and newspapers should focus on real time feeds (which they are already doing, but could get better). My only concern is what will happen to the novel and the short story? yes they are published electronically, but what else will happen?

[quote]If you were given a few million bucks from a venture capitalist to build a media company, what would that look like?[/quote]

Try me! Already ahead of this curve. Every couple of years my businesses shut down & re-align for the "projected" future. I realize most businesses cannot simply "shut down", but its kept me in the game and ahead of the curve! The "Business Model" has always changed over the years, it's just that with our current tech pace its changing every couple of years instead of every decade.

That’s something,That's what I was thinking.Brilliant idea.