[Thanks Markus!]

Comments

Tag:

AP Is Dead … Killed By Blogs & Aggregation

In the pre-Internet days the AP had little competition beyond a few other news syndicators like Reuters and UPI. The AP’s world has now changed forever with the advent of blogs and news aggregation sites.

Blogs are the new "AP" journalists and aggregation services which started with NewsLinx.com in 1996 (founded by me!) and which now include Google News, Topix, Techmeme, WebProWire and the new Blogrunner have made the AP much less relevant. There are now tens of thousands of  bloggers around the world providing coverage and analysis of current events too! It comes down to why pay when you can get the news for free.

The AP is scrambling to remain needed in this fast paced up to the second blog news world. As reported and analyzed by WebProNews, the AP is suing Moreover for of all things… linking to AP stories. Does the AP not realize that winning this suit would result in less readers of their stories? The old news order is dead, the AP will have to adapt or die.

AP President and CEO Tom Curley does seem to realize that something has to change. In a speech yesterday Curley remarked:

" We — the news industry — have come to that fork in the road. We must take bold, decisive steps to secure the audiences and funding to support journalism’s essential role in both our economy and democracy, or find ourselves on an ugly path to obscurity."

Curley goes on to say that "we must understand and embrace the new ways people are consuming content".

Right …. like blogs and news aggregation and linking! Does the AP really get it? I personally don’t think so. Tom Curley’s entire speech on how news is changing does not even mention blogs or news aggregation. He also seemingly references his linking lawsuit when telling the audience …

" We have the power to control how our content flows on the Web. We must use that power if we’re to continue to be financially secure and independent enough to speak truth to power." 

The Associated Press model of news is dead … dead as can be. It is a business model that pays reporters to travel and write stories and then syndicate those stories to traditional news organizations. This model cannot compete with bloggers who write for free and often live where the news is. Additionally these bloggers are often experts, not just reporters looking in. News is now being reported by the news makers themselves who blog about it and then analyzed by hundreds of experts who themselves blog.

Aggregations sites have made the need for news syndicators like the AP obsolete. Bloggers themselves, by linking to related stories have also become content syndicators.

The AP’s relevance has disappeared. The AP’s business model has evaporated. The AP is dead, killed by blogs and news aggregation.

One observation I will share as I’ve been scooting about, is that I’m increasingly seeing this me-too mentality surface inside companies that want to do more with social media. My hunch is that this stems from a mix of places, but mostly, it stems from fear. Fear that companies that are embracing new tools and new practices online are gaining "all sorts of business advantages" — and that other companies somehow, sadly are falling behind because they are not.

Truthfully, this is a healthy fear to have, but please don’t kid yourself or let it blind you.

If you’re considering social media projects, don’t be afraid to ask the hard questions first.

Can your company tell its story with a blog? How will a presence on MyFaceSpace augment communications? Does a SMPR have any utility? Can a widget add value? Do your customers watch online videos? Does a mention on a blog really get you anything? Do you have the time to invest to do this right?

The list goes on, the important thing is that you ask the questions – both internally if you’re on the corporate side and externally, if you’re talking to a consultant. Oh, and for all of these questions, there’s the big, fat inevitable one, right, which is "where has this been successful?" I mean, if you’re gonn’a try and replicate something that’s been done, know that it worked, right?

Fear is one of those classic business motivators, and at times it’s a healthy one, but don’t let it cloud your judgement or get in the way of what you’re company is trying to accomplish. Social tools, social strategies might be be able to help your business in a number of ways, but they might also be a terrible distraction.

The only way you’ll know which is to be uncomfortable with the easy answers and always ask the hard questions.

Comments

Tag:

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/ask-the-hard-questions-when-it-comes-to-social-media-2007-11/feed 0 http://www.webpronews.com/yahoo-shuts-down-360-2007-10 http://www.webpronews.com/yahoo-shuts-down-360-2007-10#comments Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:28:49 +0000 Nathan Weinberg http://www.webpronews.com/?p=41435 Yahoo has announced it is shutting down Yahoo 360, its never-popular social networking service. 360, which launched on March 29, 2005 (apparently the last time I was ever hopeful about Yahoo), never caught on the way Microsoft’s Spaces did, having a less-appealing interface, and bad decision to start as invite-only, and a lack of promotion and integration from its host company.

Just part of putting my name and mug out there in unprotected glory, or lack thereof.

But sometimes the fiery vengeance is justified, and a consequence of so many people (commentators, generally) having the shield of anonymous commentary so readily at their disposal.

A man threatening TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington, for example, is feeling the heat, even singled out for online Jihad. At TechCrunch, a commentator posted a link to a photo of Ashton Kutcher, which leads us now to an accusation of copyright infringement, demand for shush money, requirement that Arrington delete the image from Google’s index, and a desire to "settle this quietly."

Like I said, bloggers have learned nothing is settled quietly in the blogosphere.

That link, which caused the photo to appear in Google’s results attributed to TechCrunch, would, if quietly settled, cost Arrington $150,000 now, or $1.5 million if it goes (quietly) to court.

Arrington, being Arrington, posted the threat, which garnered 475 comments on the post, a couple of which are from the one making the threats, digging his hole deeper by making the subsequent accusation of "robing people of there work."

I’ve refrained from using his name. I know how it feels. I write now to illustrate a point at his expense, not so much to dogpile.

The point is: The blogosphere is a powerful weapon – the people’s press (read: not owned by conglomerates with every inclination to shape the news) – and the physical, established world outside is learning (slowly) that it stings. Not kills. Just stings.

Because they do forget about you eventually, once they’ve tired of stoning.

But what’s also interesting (and laudable) is that as the – what shall we call them? – the Litigious Class abuses the privileges of the courts with unfounded threats, DMCA takedown notices, and even claims to copyrights of cease and desist letters as attempts to silence critics, the Blogging Class has a breathtaking method of fighting back.

Simpler (I’m always having to do this), the transparency that gets it trouble is the same transparency used to rouse the masses to their defense, and, in the end, gauge and/or sway public opinion.

Maybe that wasn’t simpler. Oh well, sue me then.

Go Figure: A Yahoo Partner Googled Me

I can’t swear that it was a Yahoo staff member who wrote this; the person appears to have forwarded my questions to a customer service rep at St Minver, Yahoo’s partner in its Yahoo Poker endeavor.  But still, for a Yahoo partner – or anyone else connected with the search engine corporation – to use the term “googled” struck me as funny.

Did he actually turn his back on Yahoo and use the Google site?  Or did he just dilute the meaning of the word and use it to describe a Yahoo search?  He did, after all, employ a lowercase “g.”

Either way, Yahoo’s not likely to be happy.  That second possibility might annoy Google, as well – the Mountain View-based company has fought hard to keep its name from slipping “from trademarked status into common usage.”

And, well, that’s about all there is to this “story,” to be honest.  Perhaps, in order to restore some sort of karmic balance, I’ll go yahoo someone now.

When the RIAA came knocking on Patti Santangelo’s door, she didn’t even have a clue what peer-to-peer file sharing was, much less how to set up a network for the sole purpose of propagating the illegal dissemination of copyrighted audio content, but nonetheless found herself on the wrong end of a massive lawsuit.

Since no judge would hear a case against Ms. Santangelo because of her obvious lack of computer savvy necessary to pull off the crime for which she was accused, the charges against her were summarily dismissed. Not to be foiled, the RIAA instead filed a secondary infringement suit against Santangelo and targeted her children with the primary charges.

Judge Colleen McMahon, however, isn’t satisfied with the RIAA’s case against Ms. Santangelo. Expressing distaste with the RIAA’s legal tactics, McMahon has laid down an ultimatum to the RIAA, with both options basically requiring that the organization embrace defeat.

Eric Bangeman at Ars Technica has more:

The choice is clear-cut for the RIAA: either proceed with a full-blown jury trial in which they will have to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty of secondary infringement—making the same argument that the judge in Capitol v. Foster didn’t buy—or agree to an order dismissing the action with prejudice. 

Dismissing the case with prejudice would then make the RIAA liable for any legal fees incurred by Santangelo regarding her defense, a bill that the organization isn’t exactly thrilled about having to pay.

The greater truth here, however, is that the legal system is growing weary of the RIAA’s chicanery. I expect that Judge McMahon’s posture will set the precedent for cases to come, and we will begin to see the RIAA think twice before filing whimsical lawsuits against ordinary citizens for exorbitant amounts of money. 

Why be honest?

In business, being honest means that you will inform anyone you are communicating of an objective, true state of things about you. This will not only set the right level of expectations with the other person (hopefully), but will consequently make it clear for you, whether the person is ready to do business with you.

Unfortunately, online, it is very hard to build trust. That