Things I hope we can talk about now [Setting myself up for disappointment]

It's far from Christmas and it's not my birthday but I'm going to ahead and make a wish anyway. Here are the thing about which I'm really excited to see intelligent analysis following the drama of #amazonfail

1. The massive gaps/fails (loooove NiemanLab's use of #mediafail in reference to this debacle) that came to light. Author Craig Seymour says that his book was de-ranked back in February, and media outlets weren't interested. Will they only be interested now because it's had a day of internet madspin? How much of it has to do with the Easter holiday? How much to do with less reporters reporting? How much to do with the subject at hand?

2. Amazon is consistently pointed to as one of the kings of predictive search, behavioral targeting and general keyword mastery. What does this massive fail say about that? Does it make us question who, if anyone (besides Google), really is a leader in this area? Is it scary that someone who supposedly uses it so well screwed it up so royally, making it clear that the knowledge gap in this arena is even wider than a casual glance makes clear? Are we all even on the same page about how important this type of technology is to the next phase of making $$ on the web?

3. Twitter as a news-breaking entity. I know. I don't really want to talk about it either. But here we are. Not talking about it is silly. There will likely be a lot of whining and complaining and disagreeing and "but how will the monetize-ing," but it would be nice to see discussion on how the power of Twitter (I can't believe I just typed that) can be harnessed and used by traditional outlets on a regular basis - if at all.

And what remains to be seen, is what Amazon will do. While a Publisher's Weekly report that a representative called is a "glitch" crashed their site, an LA Times blog reports that indeed, they're trying to play this off as a mistake.

Best of luck with that, Amazon.

(And ps, I found the link to the LA Times through following the trend topic "glitch" on Twitter.)

And then I put a band-aid on his severed neck [The press is falling]

A friend posted a link on Facebook tonight to the Reuters article about the senate bill introduced today that would allow newspapers to restructure as nonprofits.

Pause.

Now, I clearly work for a nonprofit news source, so I believe in the concept.

But riddle me this: says the article "Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations."

Oh, really?

The Reuters report later lists the papers that have ceased or reduced publication -

Seattle P-I - owned by Hearst (28 TV stations)

Rocky Mountain News - E.W. Scripps (10 TV stations)

Baltimore Examiner - part of a media group of newspapers, but the owner also owns stakes in a number of professional sports teams, movie theatres, radio stations

SF Chronicle - see Hearst

He then mentions Gannett, Advance and Tribune.

Seriously?

Community newspapers, according to the National Newspaper Association's 4th quarter 2008 results, are outperforming the industry at large by 14%. Larger metros were down 20%, the industry 21% and community papers - 6.6% (Full NNA report >).

Forest, meet trees, trees, meet kettle, kettle, meet - oh, nevermind.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer goes online only [The press is falling]

It was announced today that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer will print its last edition tomorrow, March 17 and shift to online only publication. This leaves Seattle with one daily newspaper, The Seattle Times.

While many saw this coming, it will be interesting to see it actually play out - how will seattlepi.com change and grow and will it truly embrace the medium it now calls home? Will it innovate and problem solve, or continue to try the same old tricks?

Here's hoping that having the staff of this large and this prominent of a publication fully focused on an online model will uncover a thing or two. Or ten. And help illustrate the common sense that many are missing.

Because, really.

In Denver Times [Striking while the iron is hot]

Former Rocky Mountain News staffers announce online venture called In Denver Times based partially on subscriptions.

Now, while I thoroughly believe that unless you have highly specialized content, subscription models don't work, I'm going to go ahead and say that I think they have a pretty good chance of reaching their goal (50,000 pledged subscribers by April 23rd). Why? Because their business model has little to do with the circumstances under which they're kicking it off: the perfect storm of passion, drama, incessant "death of newspapers" coverage (oh wait, is that the same as drama?) and a city that just lost an institution. It's very Mickey and Judy "let's put on a show" and that is never to be underestimated.

And the logo design is good.

Now, whether its sustainable or not will have to do with a whole different set of details - how good is the subscription-only content? How is the business structured internally? See all previous questions regarding seattlepi.com.

But I personally think we'll get to the place where these questions get the chance to be answered. This, in itself, is almost more a viral campaign than the launch of a new form of journalism. 'Twill be interesting to watch indeed...

Update: I like the logo, less so this video, but in general the right idea...

iTunes SchmiTunes [This thing isn't that thing]

Why bother breaking down why you can't compare micro-payments for news to iTunes (duh) Clay Shirky has done it so well?

That's sooooo nine days ago [Questionable allocation of resources]

Over a week ago (Saturday, February 21st, to be exact) Michael Ian Black declared the first ever Twitter war on none other than LeVar Burton. Hilarity and odds on BetUS.com ensued. Many tweets later, it was all over by Wednesday, February 25th (truce was called, everyone won).

Today, I repeat TODAY Michael Ian Black tweets that he "just got off the phone with the AP who [is] doing a story on LeWar."

There are two possibilities here:

1. AP is doing (yet another) story about Twitter in general (because OMG there aren't enough of these ill-informed missives clogging up our news day already) and referring to LeWar as an illustration of something or other.

2. AP is doing an actual story on the actual LeWar a full NINE DAYS (and counting) LATER proving that it isn't that journalism is dead, but that, well, I don't even know what to say.

Perhaps some questions will help me verbalize:

- Given the immediate and viral nature of Twitter, is there a point to a traditional one-to-many story covering something that you kind of have to experience to get and a full NINE DAYS (and counting) LATER at that?

- Would not a shorter story, during the event be more relevant? Maybe even some sort of app that tracks progress, or a mock-serious blow by blow (in the same spirit as the BetUS post)?

- In the midst of, oh, I dunno, lots of real drama going on in the world, is LeWar truly worthy of an actual thought out story NINE DAYS (and counting) LATER?

I hope I'm wrong and jumping on my soapbox too quickly. I hope that the AP is working on a story about actual effective uses of Twitter, and using LeWar as an example.

I hope. Because, really.

Michael Ian Black on Twitter
LeVar Burton on Twitter

Hey forest, meet tree [Missing the point]

In this TVNewsday article, Harry Jessell asserts that the "demise of the papers" leaves the door wide open for "TV stations . . . to become the dominant local Web sites."

*Sigh*

Well, let me take that back. In theory, I could agree with this. However, in practice, without completely re-defining what it is that a TV does, this is simply moving around the FAIL.

The advertising model is broken. This was a discussion in broadcast with the rise of the DVR, then we got distracted by the newspaper implosion. And let's not forget that one of the most popular websites in the world (Facebook), cannot make money off of advertising.

In the article Jessell brings up the recently announced ESPN website focused on Chicago sports, as "plunging into the local online marketplace," which is technically correct. But the real key here is that they are using online to deliver highly desired, in-depth content to a proven audience that happens to be localized. Because it's ESPN, this can be a 360 dive - web, print and broadcast - all leveraging each other to likely support a number of monetizeable products.

Local TV stations are not poised to replicate this unless they take a step back and approach things in a completely different way - which Jessell points out. He also points out that they can't do this alone. Partnering up with other entities will be key. But the really what this would take is a mind shift - a shift away from chasing advertising dollars and a shift back toward the basics. Because, really, content is king.

Which part of "not the WSJ" is confusing to you? [Grasping at straws]

*Sigh*

Newsday thinks is can charge for its web content.

I truly don't understand how people make these decisions. Because, really.

Ken Doctor has the energy to verbalize why this is a bad idea here.

Live and in virtual person [The press is falling]

Though everyone's on edge and continuously waiting for the other shoe to drop, it's still horrifying when it happens, especially when we all remember, as humans, that all this drama comes home to roost at the doors of actual people, with families. And even more so when technology allows us to get a front row seat. It was announced today at noon that Denver Rocky Mountain News would publish its last edition tomorrow. How's that for short notice?

Denver Rock Mountain News liveblog of the actual announcement >
Denver Rocky Mountain News newsroom Twitter account >

Because, really.

On KDHX [The press is falling]

Margaret and I on KDHX >.

The link goes directly to the stream.