I’m now blogging over at my new site, DaveLee.me.
Please update your bookmarks and RSS feeds! As ever, I’m on Twitter.
Archive for the ‘Blogs’ category
This blog has moved
March 28th, 2011Just one example of how a blog can help your career
March 18th, 2009I’d like to share with you a string of emails I sent and received recently.
Dear [Editor],
I would like to offer you this feature idea for [publication]– hopefully I haven’t missed your print deadlines for your next issue. If you’re interested, please get in touch.
[My pitch went here -- you think I'm gonna show off my technique? Pfft!]
I hope you are interested in the piece and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Dave
The reply:
Dave,
Thanks for getting in touch. We have already lined up an article about [my pitch] for next month.
Regards
[EDITOR]
Balls. My reply:
Hi [EDITOR]
Not to worry — thank you for getting back to me so quickly.
Best wishes,
Dave
End of discussion. Or was it? A few moments later:
Dave,
I see from your blog that you write about media & technology. We had half an idea for looking at [story]. Is this something you’ve been following?
[EDITOR]
Ah ha! Looks like Mr jBlog has helped me out — yet again!
My piece went into the magazine last week, earning me a modest yet satisfying sum.
Is it worth starting a blog? This piece alone has covered hosting/domain costs for the next two years. You’d be a fool not to!
Is the BBC reporting on Twitter too much?
March 8th, 2009
In the last six months, thanks to a certain Stephen Fry, Twitter has catapulted from being a past-time restricted to, mainly, geeks and journalists into a mainstream hit.
It’s everywhere. On Thursday, freebie London mag Shortlist led with it on the cover, a magazine which generally tends to stick to top actors, sports people or beautiful women on their front page.
It’s also all over the BBC, as this Google search demonstrates. It appears some readers have had enough.
This post by Darren Waters on BBC News Technology dot.life blog fell onto the pointy end of the licence fee payer stick in the comments:
Here is a line-up of self-appointed ‘techies’, neither of whom can claim any real scientific or technological qualifications, who are being paid, with license fee-payer’s money, to inform us precisely how they waste our money.
Says one.
Any chance you could shut up about Twitter, and start to do some journalism for a change? For example, a half-decent investigation into Phorm and BT, or are you scared you might upset someone?
Says another. And one more:
You’re peddling the same opinion (note, not “story” or “news”) again and again – that Twitter is a journalism tool. We get that you believe that. Thanks for pointing it out. Repeatedly.#
It would be wrong to ignore their points (and indeed, I was surprised to learn when I joined, comments are taken very seriously at the Beeb. Pressure from readers via blogs really does make a difference here).
It’s easy to see their argument. If you don’t use the service, it must be a bit tiresome to see so much coverage on what is essentially one solitary website.
In comparison to other sites, though, the BBC is relatively Twitter-free. Darren Waters tweeted these figures a few moments ago:
Readers complain we talk about Twitter too much. BBCNews: 450 refs in 1 month. Guardian:1,700 Times.co.uk 4,500 NYimes 9,800.
And what if those nay-sayers are just, y’know, wrong? When BBC blogs (and most mainstream media blogs) first started out, the comments ranged from the crazy to the bored unemployed. But now their a little more diverse, and often raise points as well put as the original piece. I draw your attention to this (from the same entry):
It’s *really* nuts to complain that Twitter is just full of “mindless drivel”.
Twitter is a medium, not content.
Content is provided by human beings, not the medium itself.
Hence, if you’re reading drivel it’s because you’re talking to the wrong people. If you were at a party listening to a bunch of people stood around together and the conversation was rubbish, you’d drift away quietly and find some more interesting people to talk to.
This is like complaining that it’s the fault of “the telephone” that people ring you up and try and sell you double-glazing. Or putting your foot through the TV because you’re watching a rubbish programme on a crappy channel.
Twitter is an extremely powerful tool that enables conversations between lots of people simultaneously. That’s all. If you’re finding it tedious, follow some different tweeple.
Brilliant point, I’d say. Many of the readers that are anti-Twitter complain it is simply full of rubbish. The above comment deals with why that’s no reason to give up on it.
But we must consider this valid perspective too:
You see, conventional social discussion mediums such as email and SMS (used by the BBC, in this case, for the acquisition of public opinion on TV and radio channels, read out by presenters) are all regulated by international internet or phone network standards, none of which is protected or owned by a particular trademark or brand name – at least not one the BBC ever endorses. You can SMS a BBC TV or radio station with your opinions in numerous different ways, as you can also email from any domain or webmail package out there. It is transparent, free and bereft of any endorsement or brand advertising.
But Twitter is different. Twitter isn’t a standard or a protocol, it’s not regulated by any government or any international internet organisation. It’s a brand name. A trademark. A business. It is self-regulating and self-managing. And for the BBC to chime out messages, from the public writing on Twitter, to their audience via TV or radio, they are endorsing Twitter – simply by mentioning it to this audience.
I couldn’t possibly argue against this. He/she is right. We rarely say ‘micro-blogging’ is taking the country by storm, do we? We just say Twitter. But then why wouldn’t we? Micro-blogging, on the whole, isn’t doing all that well — Twitter is only popular choice. But it’s still a business which will, eventually, come to use its dominance for commercial gain. The BBC, in that respect at least, should be very careful.
But here’s the twist: I firmly believe Twitter is part of a communication revolution. It’s not just some little website.
Just like the telegram, the telephone and the email that came before it, Twitter is already changing how millions of people communicate.
Therefore, it’s the BBC’s duty to be on top of its every development. To not be would fail licence fee payers. Technological advances are never popular — even among technology readers. Scepticism runs wild: “Why do I need this?” is the common cry. But, I’d argue, it’s our job to hold onto a makeshift crystal ball. There are few tech journos who don’t think Twitter is a major player in the internet. I myself recently penned a piece assessing how Twitter can be right up there with Google in web search stakes — look out for that soon.
Whenever I think of sceptics, I think of two groups of people. The first I was reminded of a couple of days ago when I met a man who worked on the launch of bbc.co.uk. He told me that there was some opposition to the BBC using the internet at all. I wonder how those opposers feel now.
The second group was a bunch of people who said that the video phone was a pile of steaming proverbial. And they were right.
I’m not saying Twitter is as significant as the maturing of the internet. What I’m saying is that the principle behind Twitter is, despite its simplicity, a major shift in how the world interacts. A shift that should be covered, disected and scrutinised at every turn. Not only by the BBC, but by everyone.
Not convinced? 10 things to change your mind about Twitter
February 17th, 2009
Yesterday I went up to Birmingham to visit Paul Bradshaw and his online journalism class.
Knowing Paul’s area of expertise — social media, web 2.0 and how it all rolls up into one tasty journalism package — I was curious to see how he taught his craft.
Not that I doubted his abilities as a tutor or anything — more that sometimes I feel a lot of social media is unteachable. In the same way that if someone keeps insisting you watch a film, or listen to an album, you somehow start to get fed up of being told how to spend your leisure time.
You have to ignite a bit of interest.
Before I would come up with lots of philosophical ways of telling people why Twitter is the canine’s crackers (“You can connect with conversations and communities all over the world” …blergh), I’m beginning to think that maybe gimmick-y ideas are in fact better to at least get people started. If nothing else, a nice gimmick will remove the chore element of converting someone.
Twitter isn’t a gimmick, but gimmicks keep someone entertained. Allowing them to discover the real power of Twitter… engaging with like-minded— you get the picture. So here we go:
10 things to change your mind about Twitter
1. You’ll know about stuff before everyone else does. There’s nothing quite like breaking news, is there? BreakingNewsOn is so quick it makes you wonder if they’re not watching our every move. Scary.
2. You can use it to find out what people think… about anything. Are you a PR? Search for your clients products and see how they’re getting on. If you represent Nike, it may be motivating to know that people generally like your brand. If people hate your product, maybe you can’t afford to ignore them.
3. You can find people who like what you do. Got a hobby? Find others that have that hobby too. That not good enough for you? Find people with your hobby… near where you live.
4. You can use it to get help. Technical problem? Tweet it. You’ll be surprised at how quickly you’ll get an answer.
5. It can transform your career. Think of five places you’d like to work. And then think of the people who have the power to make that happen. Wouldn’t you love to get them in a room to hear what you have to say? Well hurry up — follow them and get talking. It works.
6. You can campaign for good. Yes, it’s a bit cheesy, but Twitter is fast becoming the most effective word-of-mouth tool in the world. With one simple ‘re-tweet’ (that’s someone copying your message), your ideas could be exposed to thousands. How about @twitchhiker, going around the world using Twitter contacts and very little else. Or TwitterTitters, using Twitter to create a funny book for Comic Relief?
7. You can talk directly to people in power. You know what’s annoying? Wheelie bins. Bloody, rubbish, smelly wheelie bins. If I lived in West Bromwich I’d be able to have right old whinge about it to Tom Watson, the local MP. He’d probably reply too — all without the need for tiresome official channels that are generally a pain. Not all MPs are on Twitter, but the number is growing steadily. Get stuck in.
8. You can read stuff you’d never normally have found. This is a tricky one to explain, but you know how you’re chatting with your friends, and they say something like “Oh, I saw this on YouTube the other day” or “Did you see that screamer scored by Aberdeen at the weekend?”… well, with just a little URL they can share their delight with you. Don’t underestimate how useful this is. Especially when someone sends you a website that allows you to place a rasher of bacon over a webpage.
9. You can use it to save heaps of time. “I haven’t got time to Twitter!” you say? “Madness!” say I. Harness your Twitter friends to help you out. “Where can I find a wi-fi pub around here?”… you’ll get an answer. “I need a restuarant for Friday night in Oxford”… you’ll get a personal recommendation in minutes — rather than having to spend ages looking online for a decent place and then not really knowing until you get there. Timewaster? No chance!
10. MC Hammer is on there. Can’t touch this.
So there we have it. And while you may think I stuck ol’ MC Hammer in there for a laugh, it’s actually quite an important point. Sometimes it’s that little piece of novelty that will tip someone over the edge — curiousity is enough to start the Twitter-ball rolling.
This is by no means a top ten of uses for Twitter. No way. It’s instead a list of things you can shove in the direction of anyone that says: “Twitter? Pathetic. Why would I want to know what Jonathan Ross is having for lunch?”
NUJ follow up: I’m still not convinced
February 12th, 2009
I’ve been doing some thinking about this whole NUJ thing. My post the other night reads very ranty — indeed, I guess it is very ranty — but I’m pleased to see that many readers of this blog agree with what I’m getting at.
And, from the defence, I received some rather predictable responses against my argument.
I’ll start with this point, from Joanna Geary (formerly Birmingham Post, now The Times):
I have much sympathy with your argument, although £13 a month for legal protection may be worth it and it is for that reason I am still an NUJ member.
Of everything I received (and blimey, there was a LOT) this was perhaps the most useful. £13 a month, as Joanna says, is very good to get legal protection.I can’t argue with that.
But it’s comments like this from ‘Chris’ (no link given) that remind me why I wrote that post:
But you wait till you’re staring down the barrel of redundancy – through no fault of your own, just because it happens that your team is being shut down.
Wait till you’re being forced to accept alternative work in a place you don’t want to live or in an area you have no interest in.
Wait till you’re summoned to meetings for a “quick chat” and end up facing four senior managers using classic intimidation tactics.
Then you’ll wish you had a union rep by your side to help fight your corner.
It’s always good to have a union behind you if you’re facing redundancy. Now, I underqualify myself here, as not only have I never faced redundancy, but I work for a corporation that is arguably more ’stable’. In other words, licence fees are still coming in. While not immune, we are safer.
But my issue is that while the NUJ are fighting a corner, it’s all rather pointless. Take this recent example of an NUJ ‘fight’:
The NUJ has strongly condemned the decision of Independent Newspapers to enforce three redundancies at The Kerryman newspaper in Tralee.
Séamus said: “This proposal represents a direct attack on the editorial heart of one of the oldest and most significant newspapers in Ireland. The inevitable consequence would be a poorer newspaper, which would not adequately reflect the community life of Kerry.”
At a meeting with the union yesterday, management announced its intention to make three journalists redundant. The NUJ chapel held an emergency meeting at which management was urged to rescind the decision, which staff say will have a detrimental effect on The Kerryman and Corkman titles.
My issue with this goes back to my ‘SAVE THE JOURNALISTS!” argument. The NUJ is pouring its efforts into protesting job cuts, when really they should be coming together — as a union — to offer more productive aid to their members. Advice on training, re-skilling and re-deployment.
Ed Hart’s comment:
As an objective observer on this one, I have had good and bad experiences of unions. If I had to sum up what I would want a union to do and be, it is to work on behalf of its members. The problem is that some unions lose touch with what this means, and see themselves as lobbyists, or big movers and shakers; when in fact their remit remains low key, but essential to those who really should matter – their members. Do they occasionally forget who the customer is, and what their customer wants?
Helps me counter this argument from ‘thatstheway’ (uh huh, uh huh, I like it!):
Someone so self-consciously hip like you could have some input into its digital media strategy if you weren’t so busy doing precisely what you accuse the NUJ of doing all the time, which is complaining, and making digital media sound like some big deal that’s going to require your special skills alone.
I feel I could contribute with the NUJ no more actively than I could to ASLEF, the train drivers union. Why? I feel I don’t have a connection with their outlook in any shape of form.
I’m all for protecting the strength of print. By doing so, we uphold the values that have made our profession truly great. But I’m also aware that, like the industry, a union has to change and adapt. Sometimes there are battles that cannot be won by standing outside a building with a placard.
I think it’s time for the NUJ to take a step back and reflect.
It needs to swallow a bit of pride and admit that just because journalism is online, doesn’t make it bad. In fact, it can make it very, very good.
It needs to stop posting videos like this, which show not only a devestating lack of understanding about online media, but also an aggressive “We’re trained and you WILL employ us” attitude that we just can’t afford to have anymore.
Maybe what we need to do is knock our collective heads together and search for ideas of how the NUJ can modernise and become the forward-thinking union we all need it to be.
Because here’s the thing: I want to join the NUJ. One commenter on my last post accused me of having no sense of solidarity which, and I hope my friends would vouch for this, couldn’t be further from the truth. If the NUJ can bring itself up to speed, I would love to get stuck in and get my hands dirty.
I believe in the future of journalism. I believe that journalists will be as important in 50 years than they have ever been. I’m preparing myself, and training myself, for a world without newsprint. It’s time the NUJ got ready too.
The new way to learn journalism
January 20th, 2009
There’s a very interesting piece in a Guardian supplement today about something they’ve labelled University 2.0.
Annoyingly — and surprisingly, considering it’s the Guardian — the article isn’t online. But not to worry, I’ll quote the bit that got me thinking:
“[Peter Scott (director of the Open University's Knowledge Media Institute)] predicts that students will soon be mixing their higher education experiences from resources all over the world, choosing to study at Harvard, say, while listening to lecutres from Oxford, taking part in discussion groups at the University of Mumbai, and sitting exams somewhere entirely different.”
Isn’t that great? Pick ‘n’ Mix education. The finest material from the finest institutions.
A date with Greg Linch and Andrew DeVigal
And, of course, this is already happening. A fortnight ago I logged on to Twitter to see Greg Linch tweeting about his imminent live webcast with the New York Times’ multimedia editor, Andrew DeVigal. I’ll pop in and have a look, I decided, not because I was really interested in sitting down for an hour and watching, but because I a) like Greg — our careers seem to run in parellel in some weird way and b) I wanted to see if it was any good.
And boy, it really was. Watch it here. Now while the shot may have been a little dark (owing to the fact Andrew was doing a presentation), it didn’t detract from the viewing. And even when the audio dropped out of sync every so often, it didn’t really matter too much.
Why? Because Andrew was brilliant. Engaging and well-prepared, his ‘lecture’ was more like a Jobs-like keynote… pacing around the room, getting excited about what he does.
And then add to the experience that while this was going on, Greg was popping links into the chat panel so that we could have a go at what he was talking about. For example, when Andrew mentioned the Virginia Tech graphic… Greg popped up moments later with a link. In that respects, this experience was actually superior to actually being there.
Oh Mindy, you came and you gave without taking
Really, she did! And indeed… she does. Constantly. Mindy McAdams, I mean. She puts her courses online so we all can learn. I used them extensively to prepare my work for New Zealand. Not because I was lazy and just wanted to copy, but because I know that Mindy is possibly the best in the world at what she does. How do I know this? Because she puts it all online. So, if the worry from colleges and universities is that free courses will mean no students — I’d argue it means the opposite. If you do a great course, we’ll all know.
Mindy doesn’t stop there. Not content with just plonking course syllibi online, she also makes online content for teaching too. Made for her students, but shared with the world. Want to learn Flash? Take a look.
Let the thinkers do the talking
So, from the practical skills-learning of Mindy, to the theoretical get-your-mind-thinking work of Adrian Monck. I was lucky enough to catch Adrian in Cambridge last year as he introduced his new book, ‘Can you trust the media?’. He is a strikingly nice bloke and, even more importantly, he discussed things that still embed themselves in my head on a dayt-to-day basis. As I established over dinner one night in the company of Martin Hirst and Jim Tucker, a good ethical brain is as important to a journalist as his newsgathering skills.
Adrian shares his thoughts on a daily basis. Offering up links and resources that, in previous years, would traditionally be saved for his students — he teaches at City — tied up in reading lists that are as long as they are tedious.
And then there’s Paul Bradshaw, David Dunkley Gyimah and the brilliant Jay Rosen. What a dream team! Not to mention all the educational journalism blogs out there. 10,000 Words being the best example right now.
Please, sirs, can we have some more?
So all that’s great, isn’t it? Of course it is! You’d be mad to argue that all this information in the open internet isn’t promoting better journalism.
As ever, we can do so much more. At the University of Lincoln, the wisdom-ous Richard Keeble organises a series of guest lectures every fortnight. Past speakers have included the BBC’s Jonathan Charles, Channel 4’s Dorothy Byrne and, the speaker that really kicked off this blog for me, Philip Knightley.
They were all brilliant sessions. With some lively Q+A. Next month, Lincoln will be hosting Will Lewis, editor of the Daily Telegraph. I’m going to try and go. But couldn’t this be streamed too?
I know other universities are holding similar sessions. And I’m sure we’d all be interested in what each place is learning about — so why can’t we share? Why can’t some students at these universities be shown how to set up a camera and stream these guest lectures to the world. I’m sure, like when I logged on to Greg’s feed, we’d have journalism students from all over the world chipping in to ask questions, get involved in discussion and, above all, LEARN.
The great open-source syallabus
In the last month I’ve attended a lecture at the University of Miami, courtesy of Greg, and asked a question to the multimedia editor of the New York Times. I’ve taken a course in Flash journalism — thanks to Mindy — and read about the pros and cons of digital recorders — handy for the future, definitely. I’ve considered the effect of the media blackout in Gaza thanks to insight (and links to other opinions, let’s not forget) from Adrian Monck. I’ve discovered some nifty resources for following breaking news thanks to 10,000 Words. That’s one hell of an education.
Overheard in the Newsroom: My new favourite site!
January 19th, 2009Oh you just gotta love this.
My favourite:
“How much does it cost to cremate a horse?”
“Lets call someone and find out.”
“Who do we call for that?”
The excitement of news
January 18th, 2009There’s nothing quite like the excitement of getting a story. It’s a feeling I’m missing a bit right now. But I read this post from the awesome Reuters Photographers blog with a sense of knowing acknowledgement. Scrambling to action for a big story — you can’t beat it:
It took about a minute for the plane to drift behind a building. I only shot about 30 frames before it disappeared from sight again. At that point I ingested the images, made a selection, blew one up huge to confirm it was a US Airways plane and sent the first picture to our picture desk in Singapore for transmission to the wire.
Within minutes it seemed Brendan was back in front of me with pictures from ground level. He was able to shoot some pictures of passengers and grabbed a pedicab to take him back to Times Sq. His pictures kept the flow of fresh images flowing.
Eric Thayer arrived at the river and saw a group of firemen running to a big ferry boat. He asked if he could go aboard and was told yes, as long as he stayed out of the way. Eric was able to get up close to the plane and take some of the most dramatic photos of the day, of passengers in life rafts waiting to be rescued.
Wonderful!
Video Journalism will save newspapers in 2009
January 15th, 2009
In the past twelve months we’ve seen the amount of people watching online video go through the roof. But, unlike the YouTube boom that potentially signalled the end for professional journalism (citizen this, citizen that!), this new round of video habits has one crucial factor: length.
The success of the BBC iPlayer has shown that people are prepared to watch video online for a long time. Half an hour or more. And, in the same way the blogs took off once people were used to writing and conversing on the web, I believe that long-form online video will have a similar such boom, where masses consider half an hour spent watching something on their PC a good use of their time.
What’s more, sites such as the brilliant Vimeo show the eagerness of viewers to lap up some full-screen, HD-quality stuff. There’s no sitting around for big downloads, or trying to keep your eyes strained on an awful, grainy clip so tiny you could put a stamp over it.
Video journalism has finally come of age.
As I write this, the Guardian has no less than three pieces of video on its homepage. The NYTimes led with video earlier today — and has a HUGE video section. So too does the Telegraph. Soon, I’ll predict we’ll see video blossoming into the primary content on newspaper sites. Lead headlines always complimented with a video.
Why? Because for the reader, it’s easily digestible, engaging and interesting.
But more importantly, for the publisher, it could prove to be the money-maker they have long been searching for
Many have written about David Carr’s ludicrious statements suggesting an ‘iTunes for news’. Most are saying it’ll never work — and I agree. Why pay to read news on NYTimes, when I can read the same news in the LA Times? Or the Chicago Tribune? Or ANYWHERE?
But wait a second. What if there was a way to make your news better than everyone else? What if there was a way you could cover the same stories, but cover them so well and in such a way that people come flocking to your site; not because they can’t read it in other places, but because they really want to get your coverage.
Video journalism offers this chance. It doesn’t allow for lifted quotes, for recycled copy or for blind churnalism. It promotes good, inventive journalism.
And the reward? Advertising. Loads of it. Think of it like this: When I was in New Zealand, I regularly logged on to the BBC website to catch up. Of course, being abroad, I got BBC.com, the international, advertising-laden edition. When clicking to watch a short (<30 seconds) clip, I was presented with an advert.
I clicked away. The advert was almost as long as the clip.
But on the other hand, when I’m at home, I watch a lot of 4-on-demand, Channel 4’s catch-up service. Before and during the show, there’ll be adverts a plenty. Do I turn away? No! Because in a half an hour show, two minutes of adverts is more than acceptable. Just like in traditional media, it’s all about ratio. 30 min programme = 1 break. 1 hour programme = 3 breaks. A film = 30 minutes of trailers. Or more if you go to Cineworld.
Video journalism finally solves all the problems:
- How to stay unique — no-one has your pictures
- How to save money — no big production projects here, folks. One man, a camera and a laptop
- How to make money — people don’t mind watching adverts when it comes to long content
In time I’ll be posting my plans for how I aim to get stuck in to video journalism. I drawing inspiration from the likes of David Dunkley Gyimah, and hopefully by utilising my job at the BBC as a means for getting training an experience.
Over the next year, me and a friend will be testing the water. Baby steps, if you will, with the aim of selling two pieces of video journalism to the world’s press. Two isn’t a big number, but it idoesn’t make it any less of a task. All in good time.
20 practical and innovative ways to introduce micropayments for newspapers
May 15th, 2009A couple of posts ago, while pondering micropayments, I wrote “If my time at the BBC has taught me anything, it’s that ideas are worthless — it’s working examples that really get you somewhere”. Since then, a friend emailed me, saying that she thinks the problem with micropayments is that people don’t know see how they fit in. They don’t see how people — the punters — will react to suddenly being told to pay for something that used to be free.
I believe it can be done.
Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
It’s not a case of just throwing up subscription walls, slapping readers in the face with a log-in screen that says “Join now and get 40% off at Debenhams”. We need to be inventive. Considering how creative journalism is, the lack of creative thinking with payments (and the web in general) is baffling. What are we afraid of? Innovation? Profit?
So I’d like to get the ball rolling. Here are 20 suggestions for adding micropayments to a newspaper website. The ideas cover promotion, implementation and, for want of a better phrase, damange limitation. I’m going to divide them up into categories depending on the ‘type’ of person.
Mr Jones the Newspaper Buyer, 53
1. Mr Jones appreciates online treats after buying his newspaper
Mr Jones goes out and buys The Times. He spends 90p. Mr Jones reads The Times on his way to work, and stuffs it in his bag when he’s done. At work, he checks the newspaper online; but hang on — he can’t access the articles. Under the new micropayment scheme he’s forced to pay again. Right? Wrong. In Mr Jones’ paper, he has a voucher. On that voucher is a unique code that can be used once — and only once — to access the day’s content online. He can do this for just 30p — that’s a third of the normal price. For £1.20, Mr Jones has got the print product and all the additional online extras too. Mr Jones is happy.
2. Mr Jones wants to subscribe (Thank you Mr Jones!)
Subscriptions are on the decline, yes, but there are still core subscription readers who will be around for some while yet. Mr Jones is one of them. If he wanted to subscribe to The Times he would have to pay £5.50 per week. Mr Jones should be offered the newspaper plus all the brilliant web content for £6.50 a week. Five days of web goodness for just £1. “That’s lovely,” says Mr Jones.
3. If there’s one thing Mr Jones enjoys more than cricket, it’s reading about cricket
4. Mr Jones is interested in politics
Between work, cricket and spending time with his lovely wife, Mr Jones doesn’t have much time for anything else. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to know what’s going on in the world of politics. For 50p a week, The Times will send him a politics digest t0 his inbox once a day from their team at Westminster. If he likes it, he can subscribe for £1.50 a month — saving 50p as he goes.
5. Mr Jones is delighted with his theatre vouchers, and he knows which show to see
So many shows, so little time. Or maybe, so little money. The good news for Mr Jones is that to go alongside the micropayment relaunch, The Times has also launched its special interactive theatre guide. Mr Jones knows what’s on, at what time, and how good it is. The guide costs 50p per week — but at the end of each month he’ll get some vouchers to print off and enjoy. Money well spent Mr Jones!
Pete the student, 20
6. Pete gets £5 of free credit every month
Pete may be eating moudly bread and sleeping in grubby sheets, but he still likes to keep up to date. Handy, then, that he gets £5 free credit to spend on newspapers online each month. He can spend it as he chooses. On any newspaper. Just one of the perks of being a National Union of Students member.
7. Pete thinks Flight of the Conchords are awesome
8. Pete really loves music
Pete is getting fed up of having to buy clips from his favourite bands individually each time. Those 50p installments soon add up for him. For £5 a month, Pete can download clips, listen to podcasts, see exclusive video interviews on all all online newspaper sites. Not just one. The income is distributed to newspapers depending on which content he chooses.
9. Pete supports Chelsea
Don’t blame Pete, it’s not his fault. But we shouldn’t begrudge him the enjoyment of knowing about his club. Mr Jones subscribed to the test match, but Pete just wants to know about Chelsea. That’ll cost him 80p a week. For that money he’ll get daily news digests, exclusive interviews, features, fan community involvement: all sorts.
Now while Pete is a bit of a grubby glory hunter, he still follows his local team: Shrewsbury Town. He can follow them as well and, because he already subscribes to Chelsea, the second team only costs him 20p per week.
10. Pete wants to share his favourite articles with his friends
Chelsea thump Aston Villa 4-0? Well we have some celebrating to do! Pete can send the interview with 4 goal hero Didier Drogba to his Chelsea-supporting pal Dean. Dean, subsequently, signs up to the newspaper service. “How does this work then?” he asks.
11. It’s dissertation time — get the archive out!
If Pete’s lucky, his university will give him access to Lexis Nexis, a brilliant archive of newspaper articles. Problem is, not all newspapers are included. Searching is tricky, and it can be quite buggy. For £5 — a one off, he won’t use it again — he has full access to the online and offline archives for all UK newspapers (or, indeed, the world’s newspapers!). If he’s struggling, all consecutive weeks of archive use will just cost him an extra quid. Pete is thankful — his dissertation is bloody brilliant.
Karen the stay-at-home mum, 35
12. Karen cares about her childrens’ education…
Karen wants to know everything there is to know about schooling and education. She wants league tables, inspection reports and real-life case studies. Does she have time to sift through the paper every day? No way! For £1 a week, Karen recieves a weekly digest of the important stories of the week in education. If she buys a newspaper on Sunday, she can use a voucher to get this digest for 50p. Again, if she subscribes for a week, she gets a discount.
13. …But that’s not all she’s in to
Education is important, yes, but Karen would get bored (and probably quite depressed). So as part of a bundle offer (think Sky subscription packages) Karen can choose two other sectors to get digests for — for just £1.50 per week. That’s less than half price!
14. Loose Women — let’s go online
(for my non-UK readers, Loose Women is a daytime chat show with a panel of four or so middle-aged women.)
Karen likes to get right stuck in with Loose Women when it’s on. Sure, they’re whiny, and she can’t stand one of them, but she likes the relevance and indeed the fun the show brings. For 20p, Karen can join in with the online webchat each day. She chats about the issues covered in the show and has fun with other likeminded people, all from the comfort of her home.
15. Karen is an avid reader, but hasn’t got time for a book club
Before they moved onto that strange digital channel, Karen really loved the Richard and Judy book club. It made the tricky task of picking the wheat from the chaff much easier. For £1 a week, Karen can subscribe to the newspaper book club. The literary editor will preside over the suggestions, and subscribers will get money off the featured titles. Every week, a distinguished author will be on hand with interviews, podcasts or webchats.
Phil the news junkie, 26
16. Phil wants to be up-to-date, all the time
Phil can’t get enough news. He always likes to be the first to know. He follows all the social media services, but what he’d really appreciate is a human filter. For £1 a week, Phil gets access to the human-powered breaking news wire. The wire editor’s job is to filter meaningful tweets, images, links and news snippets and bring them to Phil. The editor is doing the leg work so Phil doesn’t have to.
17. Phil knows he is likely to spend a lot online, so he deserves bulk discounts
Each month, Phil is spending around £20 on micropayments. That sure is a lot! His loyalty should be rewarded. If he adds his newspaper credit in chunks of £20, he gets £5, absolutely free.
18. Phil treats his newspaper credits like an Oyster Card
If you spend more than a certain amount on an Oyster Card in one single day, any trips for the rest of that day are included in that price. Nifty. Likewise, when Phil spends a lot of time reading one particular newspaper, he could end up spending the same amount as the cover price. If this is to happen, Phil automatically unlocks the rest of the ‘paid’ content for that day. Lucky Phil!
19. Phil spends SO much, he’s now a priority member
Phil is really valued by newspapers. He spends a lot. So, whenever newspapers are promoting a special event, or book, or film… Phil is the first to know. And Phil gets first refusal.
20. Phil knows a big story when he sees one
Phil is shocked at the recent revelations revealed by the Daily Telegraph about MPs expenses. He wants to know everything about it. Fortunately, for £1.50, Phil has access to all articles relating to the expenses issue. All analysis, commentary and opinion is free for him to enjoy and digest.
–
Additional notes
Are these ideas the finished product? No, clearly not. But from what I can find its a pretty extensive bunch of thoughts – and I’d love to see what others can come up with too.
The important bit: What we DON’T charge for
I’m going to try and nip one of the inevitable criticisms of these ideas in the bud straight away. “Why would you pay if you can get the news somewhere else?” Simple: Because what we’re charging for will be unique. You don’t charge for the story — you charge for its valuable extras. You don’t charge for the written interview, you charge for the associated audio clip. In other words, if you site is the only place you can get this information, then that’s when you can charge.
Easy-to-remember rule: If it would go on the Google News frontpage, it should be free.
We also need to know how sites adopting micropayments would fit into the link economy. In particular, what do we do with blogs? Simple: we leave them as they are. Blogs can act as traffic vacuums. By linking here and there, appearing on feeds, getting involved, blogs can keep newspapers involved socially, while at the same time drawing new readers to the paid-for content.
Outdated ideas we need to dismiss
The notion of ‘all or nothing’ subscription walls is outdated and, quite frankly, ridiculous. When someone clicks on an article and is greeted with a message saying they must take out a monthly subscription, their mental response is “But I only wanted to read that one article!”. Just like small top-ups brought mobile to the masses, micropayments can bring paid online content to the masses too.
Loyalty in news no longer exists. If you think there is anyone out there who goes online, reads one source and one source only then you are deluded. Move on.
Crucial factors that must be in place
Do you go to a seperate newsagents each time you want to buy a different newspaper? Didn’t think so. They’re all in the same place, and all bought using the same currency. Let’s bring this way of thinking online. There must be one, and only one, system for paying for newspaper content online. You need to be able to sign in, and be signed in to every newspaper in the world. Only then can we succeed in monetizing the web.
18 comments »
Posted in Blogs, Comment, Newspapers, Social Networking, Sport, The Future, The Web
Tags: ideas micropayments oyster card subscriptions