Comments on: Newspapers: even if you don’t have the solution, stick with the main issue

By: Wolfgang Blau

Wolfgang Blau — Mon, 21 May 2012 11:13:52 +0000

Thank you, George. To add one cause of likely disruption in the near future:

Comparing each other’s share of mobile users has become the latest game or competition at journalism conferences in Europe and the US, as if mobile traffic was a virtue in itself. Aftonbladet expects to have more mobile than desktop users by 2014.
At the same time, though, there is no plausible scenario yet for achieving the same ad revenue per mobile user as per desktop user or tablet user. In Germany, the volume of the mobile ad market is still comparatively tiny.
Looking at the stellar growth of smartphone penetration in Germany, this spells serious trouble.

By: Richard Kendall

Richard Kendall — Mon, 14 May 2012 23:36:22 +0000

And therein lies the problem: either build a wall, semi-permeable or not underpinned by an established, trusted brand, or just let the unstoppable news product unbundling happen whilst keeping enough of a rein on each shard of content to attach some level control enough to leverage some revenue and a return on the investment.

By: Neil Budde

Neil Budde — Mon, 14 May 2012 14:41:22 +0000

I’m glad to see more people discussing the impact of breaking up the bundles. I talked about it at SIIA in 2007. http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/01/19/neil-budde-yahoo/

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:56:31 +0000

If material is split into fragments, what happens to the trust?

Three answers:

1. Trustworthiness must be demonstrated anew in each article (e.g. by “showing your work,” linking, etc.) — a good thing

2. Trust becomes a property of an individual writer rather than their employer (I trust Dana Priest; I don’t trust the Washington Post). — maybe a good thing

3. Trustworthiness may be communicated via shorthand with a logo or graphic — not such a good thing

By: jtownend

jtownend — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:21:32 +0000

I think the trust question is really interesting – especially when you think about it in the context of broadcasting and public service requirements.

The post also reminded of something Adam Tinworth wrote back in 2009, on the death of the news package – http://www.onemanandhisblog.com/archives/2009/12/our_real_problem_the_death_of_the_news_p.html