Truth in Journalism
Today, Akamai announced amid little fanfare that they were introducing a new metrics service that would allow real-time monitoring of news stories as they break online. While the service might seem to be of small value on the surface, the implications and full significance will not be immediately apparent.
"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - It's debatable how big a deal any specific news event is compared to all the other human mayhem that occurs each day. Journalists, editors, historians and the guy at the end of the bar could probably never agree.
A news mapping service introduced on Thursday by Akamai Technologies Inc. promises to give unprecedented insight into the relative hunger that millions of Internet users have to learn of breaking events minute-by-minute."
The rest of the press release is here.
Imagine a new era in the near future when people can actually follow an "important" news story as it breaks in real time. Let's say the New York Times decides a story is significant enough to merit front page status: "Bush Bites Dog!"
Old School: Smaller papers and news wires pick the story up and run with it causing it to appear to be a huge story. Soon other newspapers paraphrase the article, often injecting their own "details" until the story gains a life of its own even if it's half-baked or completely insignificant. But on a quiet day (or week -- like Cindy What's-Her-Name camping out down in Crawford, Texas), a feeding frenzy ensues and can actually create a news story where there often isn't one. Nothing worse than a bunch of bored reporters sitting around looking for a story.
New School: A story hits The Times and people immediately start monitoring its newsworthiness using some variation of the Akamai News Mapping Service. They see that the story isn't really being read by very many people and the story gets flagged early on as unimportant and dies a fast death. Kind of like a Nielsen or Arbitron rating for the news, right? Conversely, as interest picks up in a story, other bureaus will be forced to follow so they can feed the public demand for more. Those who choose not to cover a real story will be left in the dust -- literally. It's still all about advertisers and eyeballs. The more page views you get, the more advertising dollars you'll receive.
I think we're going to see a micro-news process in reporting soon where single stories will be individually judged and advertisers will pay to be linked to them. Why would I want to pay to be in the print edition of the New York Times when I can reach a larger number of more targeted consumers faster? This is already starting to happen today: The big Hollywood studios are considering the concept of not using the New York Times to promote their blockbuster hits with $100,000 full-page opening day ads simply because they're no longer worth the money. Huge loss of income for the papers.
Such subtle but powerful changes coupled with the impact of revenue-destroying models like CraigsList will have a chilling -- and overdue -- effect on print media, particularly newspapers.
This article was posted on BNN here.
"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - It's debatable how big a deal any specific news event is compared to all the other human mayhem that occurs each day. Journalists, editors, historians and the guy at the end of the bar could probably never agree.
A news mapping service introduced on Thursday by Akamai Technologies Inc. promises to give unprecedented insight into the relative hunger that millions of Internet users have to learn of breaking events minute-by-minute."
The rest of the press release is here.
Imagine a new era in the near future when people can actually follow an "important" news story as it breaks in real time. Let's say the New York Times decides a story is significant enough to merit front page status: "Bush Bites Dog!"
Old School: Smaller papers and news wires pick the story up and run with it causing it to appear to be a huge story. Soon other newspapers paraphrase the article, often injecting their own "details" until the story gains a life of its own even if it's half-baked or completely insignificant. But on a quiet day (or week -- like Cindy What's-Her-Name camping out down in Crawford, Texas), a feeding frenzy ensues and can actually create a news story where there often isn't one. Nothing worse than a bunch of bored reporters sitting around looking for a story.
New School: A story hits The Times and people immediately start monitoring its newsworthiness using some variation of the Akamai News Mapping Service. They see that the story isn't really being read by very many people and the story gets flagged early on as unimportant and dies a fast death. Kind of like a Nielsen or Arbitron rating for the news, right? Conversely, as interest picks up in a story, other bureaus will be forced to follow so they can feed the public demand for more. Those who choose not to cover a real story will be left in the dust -- literally. It's still all about advertisers and eyeballs. The more page views you get, the more advertising dollars you'll receive.
I think we're going to see a micro-news process in reporting soon where single stories will be individually judged and advertisers will pay to be linked to them. Why would I want to pay to be in the print edition of the New York Times when I can reach a larger number of more targeted consumers faster? This is already starting to happen today: The big Hollywood studios are considering the concept of not using the New York Times to promote their blockbuster hits with $100,000 full-page opening day ads simply because they're no longer worth the money. Huge loss of income for the papers.
Such subtle but powerful changes coupled with the impact of revenue-destroying models like CraigsList will have a chilling -- and overdue -- effect on print media, particularly newspapers.
This article was posted on BNN here.
posted by RobertinSeattle at
7:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home