Jun 7, 2010

Beware of false profits.

Journoprenuers took a licking last week from two heavies in the media landscape: the federal government and Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Both made comments that would invest journalism’s future in its past, that is, institutional mainstream media that for years hasn’t been able to find its own ass with both hands and a flashlight.

First, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unleashed its draft policy recommendation “to support the reinvention of journalism.” While the document suggests the IRS recognize novel small-business structures for nonprofit tax breaks, it also pitches ideas that would keep small media outlets from doing their thang.

A tax on large broadcasters would relieve them of obligations to provide “public-interest programming,” like the kind a hyperlocalist would produce. A 2-percent tax on advertising sales would add a layer of meshugas to a small content producer’s books, as well as add an extra charge on local advertisers. Increased postal subsidies and a tax on accessing the mobile web would favor large print publications over hyperlocal newspapers and websites.

These proposed taxes would go towards establishing a national local-news fund, doling out university grants for investigative journalism, and tax breaks for hiring salaried journalists. Personally, I oppose government money in the media piggybank, and while a tax credit for hiring journalists is nice, hyperlocalists generally rely on freelance or volunteer contributors. The FTC document doesn’t do enough for small media.

And then there’s what Apple CEO Steve Jobs had to say at The Wall Street Journal’s D8 conference. The appointed messiah of media told conference participants, “I don’t want to see us descend to a nation of bloggers myself. I think we need editorial more than ever right now,” PaidContent.org reported Wednesday.

One might quip that Jobs’ disdain for blogs stems from the Gizmodo iPhone fiasco, but I think there’s another reason. While bloggers (and the online hyperlocalists who have that title hanging over their heads) create oodles of content, they probably don’t have the financial resources or tech savvy to distribute that content through an iPhone or iPad app. That’s money out of Jobs’ pocket and control out of his hands.

According to PaidContent, Jobs followed his swipe at bloggers with: “Anything that we can do to help The New York Times, The Washington Post and other news-gathering organizations find new ways of expression so they can afford to get paid so they can keep their news gathering and editorial operations intact, I’m all for it.”

Sadly, Jobs doesn’t recognize the original news gathering that hyperlocalists and bloggers do, and how some of those large media outlets base their “reporting” on a smaller outlet’s original stories. Again, I suspect this elitism stems from the lost potential of app sales: The iTunes store sells iPhone apps for The Times and The Post, as well as a Times app for the iPad.

Where is the love for hyperlocalists? When did innovation and imagination (the kind that Apple touts in its advertising) fall victim to monopolies? Instead of encouraging new voices and new investment, the FTC stifled them to preserve the industry’s collapsing status quo. And instead of lending Apple’s devices to new experiences with content, Jobs whittled them down to technological troughs for whatever iTunes’ gatekeepers deem worthy of consumption.

My advice to the FTC and Jobs: Beware of false profits.

Images courtesy of Flickr users 1Happysnapper (photography) and reelsinmotion.

Jun 1, 2010

Justin Bieber will not save journalism.

Long weekends are always good for catching up on important reading. For example, this long New York Times article (epic by online standards) gives great insight into how some entrepreneurial news outlets are making it in the New World Order. Websites such as True/Slant and Examiner turn a buck by maintaining low overhead, basing their writers’ wages on page views and thus advertising revenue.

It’s a kicker for the online news environment to rely on this same tired, old business model that has newspapers circling the drain: a nearly complete reliance on ad sales to keep business going. In the print world, selling ads meant generating fluff stories that appealed to readers. Online, it means keeping tabs on Twitter’s trending topics — prepubescent pop star Justin Bieber seems to be the shit these days — and then cranking out fluff copy on those subjects to woo Google and other search bots.

Despite inflated page views and low overhead, True/Slant and Examiner have yet to turn a profit. It’s pathetic. PAH-thetic.

Of course, some hyperlocal news sites have done well for themselves strictly through ad sales. The hyperlocal economies of those beats are healthy enough to support such publications and their writers, so if the business model ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.

But what if this Great Recession treats the economy to a summer sequel? Or what if (for whatever reason) page views don’t translate to ad sales? Even worse, what if the quality of reporting suffers because writers can’t or don’t get paid? Then it’s time to have an alternate revenue stream ready, if it isn’t already up and running.

The New World Order demands innovative strategies for generating revenue, and I don’t just mean psyching out the search engines to drive page views. It means hosting events with cover charges, offering web-design services, selling stock photography, and forming Groupon-like arrangements with local businesses to sell products beyond news. It might also mean converting a for-profit project into a nonprofit one to bring in donations, or charging subscription fees for premium content.

It should not mean fluff content cranked out by pay-per-click writers. If a hyperlocal news site’s business model supports nothing but that, then it’s working either the wrong model or the wrong business. Innovative and diversified revenue streams beget better pay, better writers and less Bieber.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Daniel Ogren.

May 26, 2010

Still life with money

Hyperlocalists might be familiar with the idea of content syndication, where larger news outlets pay smaller ones for permission to republish (or rebroadcast) their timely hyperlocal news. I’m not sure how often it’s done these days, but given the big push into hyperlocal news, it’s probably a reasonable revenue stream for hyperlocalists to pursue.

But one form of syndication I’d never considered is that of photographic content, and not just shots related to news events. Last week, an art director for a regional magazine requested permission to reprint a photo I’d taken for my former hyperlocal news site. The photo (right) was taken at a fashion show last year, and as it turned out, the magazine was publishing a small blurb about the show’s return to the area.

The best part: The art director offered to pay me a nice fee to reuse my previously published photo.

Moreover, I made myself available to this art director as a stock photography supplier. I’ve got a hard drive loaded with copyrighted pics of street scenes, food from local restaurants, seasonal and recurring events, and of course topical news items that this magazine and other publications might be interested in using. Why not capitalize on existing works.

Admittedly, selling republishing rights to regional magazines might not bring in big bucks immediately, but the magazine industry seems to be recovering from the recession. Also, advertising agencies might be interested in using a hyperlocalist’s photos and video to meet their clients’ needs. And other local businesses might make use of such content for self-produced print, broadcast and online promotional material.

The easiest way to publicize the availability of stock photography is to slap photos on the web, either on Flickr, a hyperlocal news site, a photo blog or some other online venue. The photos (or at least the web pages on which they’re posted) should have search engine-optimized titles that point directly to where and when the pics were taken. And all content should be labeled with a copyright statement and contact information.

I don’t expect to retire from my non-existent day job with income from reuse licenses, but it’s certainly an efficient revenue stream that hyperlocalists should consider.

May 25, 2010

Hello, potential investor. Will you be my friend?

I enjoy speaking with fellow hyperlocalists, especially when one has an interesting question to pose. Recently, one hyperlocalist — I’ll call him Buddy for privacy’s sake — said he’d been approached by a large local business that was willing to finance a news network covering nearby neighborhoods, with Buddy at the editorial wheel. In exchange, the business would get discounted advertising space and a regular column about its industry.

However, Buddy was worried about a potential conflict of interest. Might this solitary business investor dictate content to the detriment of his publication’s journalistic integrity? Would this be a deal with the devil?

My advice to him was this: Make the damn deal, but hammer out every detail first. That includes details in one’s business plan, corporate or nonprofit structure, and newsroom hierarchy (even if it’s a newsroom of one). Getting his house in order allows Buddy to spell out his publication’s financial and philosophical objectives to this investor, and it will help both parties understand where the boardroom ends and the newsroom begins.

Next, I suggested that Buddy and his investor test drive this business arrangement on his existing publication. Instead of launching new franchises from scratch, Buddy can apply the investor’s capital to expanding his current news coverage into adjacent neighborhoods, taking advantage of his existing network of local freelance reporters and bloggers. If the expanded coverage proves to be self-sustaining, he can then launch franchises with the same journalistic clout and financial stamina of his original publication.

Buddy’s one investor can also be his greatest cheerleader, encouraging other businesses to invest in or advertise with his original news outlet and new franchise network. After all, a viable hyperlocal news product reflects a neighborhood worthy of investment, something from which area retailers, restaurateurs, employers, homeowners and municipal agencies benefit.

I hope Buddy keeps me up to date on how this business arrangement progresses and whether he’s taken approaches other than what’s mentioned above. In the meantime, hyperlocalists can get help with the nuts, bolts and numbers of their business plans with the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), a terrific nonprofit group that advises small business owners.

Good luck, Buddy!

Photo courtesy of Flickr user mtsofan.

May 19, 2010

Yahoo! News and the big, bad buyout

We interrupt this week’s fashion report to bring you this crazy post. The fashion report resumes Thursday.

Oofah! The Twitterverse was buzzing Tuesday afternoon about Yahoo! News’ acquisition of Associated Content for $100 million. My initial reaction was an apathetic “So what?” Associated Content’s sloppy editorial practices would only dilute Yahoo’s wire content, and its contributing writers probably won’t see much difference in their paychecks.

But then I read this very good article by Michelle Rafter, whose blog focuses on freelancing in the digital age. In it, she points out that Associated Content’s buyout signals Yahoo’s entry into the war for local ad dollars. (AOL and Google are already in the ring with their own products.) Rafter says straight up that “local content [generated by Associated Content's writers] gives Yahoo access to local advertising that would otherwise go to those hyperlocal news ventures that have been cropping up everywhere.”

That’s when my apathy turned into complete panic. I’m one of “those” hyperlocal news ventures trying to crop up. Those are my ad dollars Yahoo, AOL and Google are taking! Motherfuckers!

Once I pulled my head out of the oven, I refocused and took an inventory of what makes independent hyperlocal news outlets the better deal in local advertising. The bottom line: Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t stand a freakin’ chance. Here’s why.

Hyperlocalists have the inside edge on what’s happening in and around their beats. Where content farms like Associated Content and AOL’s Seed spin press statements into content (don’t expect peanut-earning writers to put too much effort into their reporting), hyperlocalists fill in the blanks with strong local flavor and details that larger outlets can’t and won’t detect. It’s the difference between having an embedded journalist and reporting from amalgamated wire stories.

That flavor gives the hyperlocal outlet an “emotional value” with its audience. As I wrote Tuesday, consumers do more than just consume a successful hyperlocal outlet’s content. They incorporate the information into their decision making and allow it to influence their lives. Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t have that kind of hyperlocal clout — perhaps they never will. Score a big one for hyperlocalists!

Also, hyperlocal news outlets are more likely to have access to charitable contributions from homeowners’ associations, chambers of commerce and local professional organizations than Yahoo, AOL and Google. Sure, the big guys have investors to fuel their efforts, but investors are interested in only one thing: a big, fat return. It was the drive for profit over quality journalism that took down print newspapers, and it has the potential to undo Yahoo, AOL and Google. Slightly different business model, same outcome.

On the other hand, local donors have other interests in mind. Homeowners want their property values to rise (or at least not fall), chambers of commerce and professional groups want publicity for their businesses. Having a locally owned news outlet in the neighborhood goes a long way to advancing these donors’ respective goals. It’s something that generic news coverage from content farms can’t offer.

I really don’t mean to knock those hyperlocalists who choose to work with these larger organizations. As I’ve said previously, if a hyperlocal news organization stands to benefit from some kind of arrangement with the big guys, then do it. Surely, well-versed and justly paid hyperlocalists can only enrich the news landscape with their content, regardless of who’s doing the distributing.

But if writing for a content farm leads to nothing but pennies per click and “exposure,” then one would be better off in the trenches, digging graves in which to bury Yahoo, AOL and Google.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user godutchbaby.