Firstly, let’s state the obvious that physical newspapers cannot be searched easily, as compared to bookmarking and saving a link online.
Next, even if there were links online to the news articles, it usually ends up in one of two ways:
1) The link expires when it is transferred to their archive section or some similar movement (Ever bookmarked a page to find it’s not there anymore? That’s what happens)
2) They try to make you register with them after the “free access” period has expired. Whether or not they try to charge is another issue, but registering for news which is essentially free, is ridiculous.
With such a poor value proposition (information can’t be found, or is hard to access), is it any wonder we’re turning more and more away from newspapers? Yes, there are some mainstream media news sources that are doing a good job online as well. That’s fine and good, but the industry as a whole doesn’t seem to be getting it’s act together.
Add in the Associated Press threat of legal action against bloggers who wrote about news and linked to them (which incidentally, actually helps the papers), and you just wonder if newspapers and mainstream media are enjoying themselves walking backwards instead of progressing
On the 26th of March, I was invited to Supperclub at Odeon Towers to check out the new laptop from HP, the HP Pavilion dv2 entertainment notebook pc. If you’ve been reading this blog you probably know I don’t usually talk a lot about the gadget itself but more on the communications efforts behind it, but this time I’ll say this is one gadget I really do like.
In terms of what a laptop is, no biggie, it’s a regular laptop. Moderate processor, 12.1 screen, no cd drive. But the big plus points for me: It’s 1.6kg and its’ price starts at $1,299. I mean seriously, I bought my current laptop for double that. I think in the current day and age where mobility is a huge factor, the HP Pavilion dv2 stands out. Why would I buy a $800-$900 netbook and squint my eyes out at a 8 to 10 inch screen, when I could shell out a few more hundred bucks and get a proper laptop? It’s quite a no brainer.
The other thing that’s awesome is a width. Check out the picture below and you’ll know what I’m talking about. It’s less than one inch thin. Oh, and it has a HDMI port too. Another thing my current laptop doesn’t have.
HP Pavilion dv2
The event itself was one of the more intimate ones, and that’s a good thing. I make it a point these days to try not to attend events that are shared with mainstream media, simply because it’s just too difficult to get someone’s attention and a demo of the product. With this event, no problem. Within three minutes (literally) of stepping into the room, I had a drink and a product manager letting me have a hands-on go at the Pavilion dv2, while he was there to handle any questions. I think the premise behind this is simple: The more the blogger plays with the product, the more he/she can talk about it.
One thing I will say (and I’m being cheeky here) with regards to the communication effort. I wanted to say that not having a cd drive isn’t a dealbreaker these days because seriously, how often does one use it anyway? Then I realised all the press materials they handed out were on a cd. It would’ve been nice to emphasise that cds are really not that important anymore with a small thumbdrive, sd card, or just a downloadable link!
All in all, if I were in the market for a second, backup laptop for school or travel, this would be it. Sure, it doesn’t have the gaming power that my current laptop does, but there are some days when I’m heading out for just a three hour class or I want to sit somewhere and just blog (like I’m doing now), and on those days, a lighter, slimmer laptop like the dv2 would just be awesome.
You can read the full account at his blog, but one disturbing point here is the “journalist” who talked to him on the phone, wasn’t even an author of the story. I was once contacted by a “journalist” who used a hotmail account. Something fishy?
How many of us, who will be communicating with the media in five, ten, fifteen years, will have unpleasant instances with journalists, combined with the rise of digital media and distribution (yes, it will happen), and begin to avoid the journalists whenever possible?
How many journalists will continue to, for the sake of a “story”, mold their “angle” at the expense of a good, professional relationship with the person at the other end of the interview?
How long before this we see a “blacklist” of journalists guilty of consistently shaping a story to suit their angle, and use that as a warning system to other communication professionals a la Chris Anderson’s PR blacklist?
I am beginning to think, at least here in Singapore, it might be time to start up that “blacklist” (and to be fair, a “whitelist”), so that all of us bloggers (and corporate communicators) can at least have a reference point when someone cold calls us on the phone, or sends an email, and know who to avoid and who to talk to.
It’s no different from checking our reviews for a product/service before making a purchase decision. Just as I want to know what I’m buying is a good product, I want to know the person on the other end of the phone is trustworthy. If the media industry will not hold themselves to the high standards that come with being the voice of and to the masses, then we may well have to hold them to it.
For now, here’s what I would advise bloggers to do:
After giving an interview, type a blog post detailing what you said and if possible a transcript of it, even before it goes live.
Insist that the journalist link to you or that specific blogpost so that the context is clear and transparent.
After the article goes live, blog about it again and compare how true it stayed to the original context.
(Credit to the Digital Media Across Asia class for bringing up some of these points in discussion a few weeks ago)
It may not be a huge help, but at least to the people who read your blog, you can build the understanding and credibility that being quoted out of context might destroy.
My mum showed me this article from the Straits Times a few days ago, with the headline: “Blogs’ reach limited: Study“, stating that mainstream media is still the key source of news and views, at least socio-politically. (Straits Times: It literally took me just about four minutes to find the link to that page. Why doesn’t Google pick up your stuff and why is your archival system so bad?)
So what I want to comment on, is this paragraph:
Mr Tan compared the several thousand readers who tune in to socio-political websites The Online Citizen (TOC) and The Wayang Party Club to The Straits Times’ circulation of nearly 400,000 and its readership of 1.3 million.
Without going on all day, here are my quick thoughts:
I suppose newspapers being awesome have nothing to do with the numerous newspapers shutting down worldwide. (Here are some Google search results)
Of the 400,000 circulation, how many people actively care about the “socio-political” commentary?
Straits Times has a “readership” of 1.3 million, which means the 400,000 circulation is roughly passed along three times. Or in the case of my family, seven of us (including the dog) have access to the Straits Times, but maybe one person reads it regularly. (The dog used to eat it regularly. Talk about consuming the news.)
I suppose the “readership” applies to army camps where they have one copy of it but it’s shared by 30 people, most of whom don’t manage to get their hands on it
The websites with “several thousand readers” (why no figures?) are actively being sought out, compared to newspapers.
The people seeking out that content are particularly motivated and highly engaged in the source material
If I were in an organisation (non-profit, cause, school, company, government), I’d easily trade 5,000 newspaper “readers” for 1 person actively searching for my content
Reach means nothing.
What are your thoughts? Are articles like this just plain in denial? Or is there really something here?
Now that the hype has subsided a little bit, I have my own opinion on why the news of the ABS seems generally badly received by the Singaporean blogosphere. Do note that I’m writing my personal interpretation of the communication or non-communication of the ABS, and I don’t claim to be reporting the truth.
The problem with the introduction of the ABS is simple: The issue was communicated to the external audience before what is arguably the more important, if not critical, internal “stakeholders”, in other words, the “constituents” that the ABS is supposed to cater to: the bloggers.
Because the news was broken in the mainstream media, it does read to me like the ABS was concerned about getting their message out in “proper” channels (where the audience may or may not care), instead of the blogosphere (where the audience cares, a lot). As a result, now they are not scrambling to communicate their message to their primary target audience, but is it too late?
Whether the bloggers reacted with shock, surprise, or ridicule, I believe they did so because this was sprung on them in the exact opposite way a Web2.0 association should have been introduced: from the ground up. A form of “structure” or “authority” may have been introduced, but not in the way the crowd desires (whether or not they even want such a structure is up for debate).
There are other minor issues like the vagueness and lack of communication of the benefits of joining the ABS, the lack of street credibility (note that the ABS has “formal” credibility as they are officially registered, but I don’t think the local blogosphere is treating that as a critical factor), and not addressing the question that is on the mind of many: is this an extension of the 2008 saga? The strategic inclusion/appointment of the founders sure lead some bloggers to think so, but we have yet to hear from the ABS themselves.
The point here is not whether anyone believes them, but that they be transparent and deal with the issue, or the blogosphere will not let go. Unbranded Bread n Butter tackles this issue in particular, and doesn’t hesitate to remind us that the “fiasco” of 2008 is extensively chronicled online.
I also feel all warm and cosy inside knowing that the dispute mediator is a scorned former founder of ping.sg who was complaining about being left out of the “in-group”, didn’t receive ping award, stirred up a big fuss, left in a huff and puff and decided to form his own little own group. “Take that Ping.sg!” It’s all nicely catalogued here.
Will the ABS overcome a bad start and begin to win people over? I hope the more controversial members of the committee do not make the critical mistake of reacting the same way they did in previous controversies, by lashing out. It’s naive for them to believe the blogosphere would have welcomed such an association with open arms without garnering support beforehand, because particularly in this medium, acceptance and trust is earned, not taken as a given.
I did not mean to say that my generation doesn’t read news. I think we do. Just not the papers. The question at the panel was whether online is the new “it” in media, and coming from a communications standpoint, of course it is. Is there another medium that has more messages sent and received than online?
We don’t spend half an hour thumbing through the papers in the morning, we’re reading the latest Harry Potter in e-book format on the train.
We don’t spend 3 hours a night watching tv after coming home. We’re watching tv online, chatting to people, working on homework and maybe even playing a game.
In an advertising class I was once told “think about where your consumers spend their time”. I spend 75% of my waking hours online. That pretty much guarantees that if your message is restricted to traditional media, I’m not going to see it.
I know MediaSlut isn’t asking me about why I don’t read the papers. But I feel you have to understand that to move forward. Some are more specific to me, some are general for Generation Y.
Why I don’t read the papers
1) News finds me. I don’t mean it’s offered to me on a platter, but that if it’s a particularly relevant piece of news, someone is going to blog about it, send me an email with an URL attached or just tell me about it on MSN.
2) I need my information to be relevant. Let’s say I can read 10 articles a day. These 10 need to be relative to me (ie marketing or communications related). Reading 10 articles in my niche adds much more value that reading 10 articles (or more) about unrelated happenings in the world. Put another way, an economist is going to find relevant articles about changing interest rates or inflation much more valuable than the latest way to use Twitter. And vice versa for me. So to either the economist or myself, it makes more sense to subscribe to a blog or someone who talks about that niche or to just Google “changing interest rates today”, as opposed to flipping through 10 pages of unrelated text.
Points #1 and #2 are very important. Firstly, the papers are no longer a convenient source of news. Secondly, even if I did have a copy of the Straits Times hanging around, I wouldn’t thumb through it because I know only 10% (or less) of what’s in there matters to me. I can see ten headlines in my RSS reader and pick the one article that is relevant, in a fraction of the time it will take me to flip through 10 articles (including ignoring the disruptive ads)
3) Papers are slow. It’s not their fault, I know. Papers are published daily, not hourly, I get that. But explain to me how I hear about an Outram MRT shooting via Twitter, check out the CNA website and it’s not there? Yes I know CNA’s Twitter mentioned it, but sorry, dead man found at Outram MRT is not the same as man shot at Outram MRT.
4) Gen Y wants different things. I have no empirical evidence for this, but a communications professor told me once in school that what the newspapers publishes and considers “news”, is not what the public wants to read and considers “news”. He was comparing the front page of Digg to the front page of any newspaper. I think there’s some truth in there. How much, I don’t know. But one of my RSS feeds is to del.icio.us’s front page, and not that of the Straits Times.
So what can print do?
In all honesty, I don’t have the answer. I cannot think of something, that if present, would make me read the papers. But here are a couple of minor suggestions.
1) Speed. If I read about it on Twitter, please have it on the CNA website so I can verify that it’s true and read the truth.
2) Accuracy. If you can’t be fast, at least be accurate. If a man was shot, please say he was shot, not just “dead”. Shootings don’t happen every day in Singapore, post the tweet 3 minutes later if you have to, but make it representative.
3) Convince me of your value. Unrelated sources commenting on unrelated topics? Sorry, not buying it.
4) Be accessible. If I Google something and it directs me to a Straits Times link which then asks me to be a subscriber (free or otherwise), that’s it. I close the window and move on.
5) Be human. I wanted to present on this at Pecha Kucha night. Traditionally, journalists were immense gatekeepers of the media. I’m sorry to say that’s not it anymore. Maybe that explains my interviews yesterday. I’m “just another peon” to be interviewed by the venerated gatekeepers, and the peon should be honoured to have his name in the press. Sorry, doesn’t work that way.
Does MSM still have a place?
I think it does. As much as I’m a social media advocate, some things just don’t fly. I always use this as an example: NTUC (or Wal Mart) needs newspapers. That’s where their “aunties” find out about the deals and coupon clippings. I understand that. As long as this demand is there, MSM will have it’s place.
I’m going to come back to the point I was trying to make at Directions. This demand is not there for my generation. We don’t interact with MSM the same way people 10 years older do. If you sit up there looking at your old model and think “Oh it’s your loss, you ignorant younger generation”, I think you’re very mistaken. As I mentioned, I can think of nothing that newspapers can do to make me turn back to print. The question is what can you do to engage me online? Hint: subscription isn’t the way.
Incidentally, the issue of censorship of non-freedom of the press etc isn’t an issue for me. I know how Singapore works and that’s fine. Just make up for it in other areas.
Referring again back to the article in Today, “State of Sinapore Journalism”, there’s advice for the five stakeholders for journalists/newspapers. I have issues with two:
1) Readers
Read widely and hold Singapore newspapers to the standards of international publications such as Financial Times and The Economist. Make yourselves heard to the news organisations
Make ourselves heard? No. How about newspapers make yourselves heard and engage us instead? The biggest threat to newspapers is not that we think they’re substandard. The biggest threat is if we’re indifferent to them and don’t notice either way. And I guarantee you it’s easier to click that little “x” on my Firefox browser and switch to an alternative source online, than to write an email to the editor to make myself heard.
2) Advertisers
Look beyond readership figures. Shift your advertising dollar to newspapers with premium brand names held in high regard by the community
Yes, look beyond the readership figures, but I think it’s presumptuous to write as if the corporation’s ad spend options are between newspaper and newspaper. If I were to remove my ad spend from newspapers, they’re moving somewhere else entirely. If I were to move advertising to a medium with “premium brand names held in high regard”, maybe something like CNet would be a better option than Digital Life.
These are my thoughts. I don’t speak for the whole of Generation Y, and I’m sure there are many people who will take opposing views, so let’s hear them! Comment away!
Does social media work? Would you rather spend your money by generating promotions, or joining the conversation your consumers are having, with or without you?
