Archive for the ‘General’ Category

by Ben Elowitz

This article was recently featured as a contributed piece at Fortune.com,
regarding Google’s need to to manage itself and Wall Street through a leadership and business transition.

Facebook is the social king today, but Google doesn’t have to give up on the Internet’s future.

Courtesy Google

Google is confronting a series of rugged (and, perhaps, ultimately insurmountable) challenges. And make no mistake: these challenges loom large, because Google’s dominance of the Internet landscape is increasingly being threatened by Facebook’s rise.

If Google (GOOG) is going to maintain its leadership, still-new CEO Larry Page needs to have a plan for the social Web. And, as the new CEO, he’ll need investors to be confident that he’s got this handled.

There are four things Page could do to renew Google’s dominance:

1. Admit that Google has a problem.

Page needs to acknowledge to his employees the enormous threat posed by the socialization of the Web: already, 25 percent of all page views on the Internet are not only social, but served by Google’s enemy, Facebook; meanwhile, Google has no significant share whatsoever in any social activity. Google’s CEO should also be declaring to his employees that Google’s next life stage must be fully social. In addition, Page must offer analysts a more substantive and authentic message. 

When Google’s senior executive team sweeps its social Web weakness under the rug, Wall Street isn’t fooled. And Page’s silence doesn’t stop the tough conversation from happening. Indeed, in this age of investor sophistication and watchfulness, admitting neither problems nor opportunities only heightens the fact that the CEO isn’t taking his business seriously. Page could have preempted the hard-edged conversation with his analysts recently by proving that Google is ready to fully participate in the opportunity presented by the social Web. If framed well, and backed by demonstrative action, this could even help to highlight the potential upside in Google’s future, and that’s always a positive when it comes to dealing with the Street.

2. Show Google understands how the Web is changing.

Facebook isn’t just another really popular Web site. Rather, the entire nature of the Web has been transformed from a bunch of pages on servers that Google crawls, to the world’s people connected to each other and sharing their lives. Just as significant, more and more of the Internet’s capabilities are delivered via apps, rather than on HTML forms. 

Gone are the days when Web developers would make everything HTML-compliant just for Google’s sake, while end-users had forgivingly low bars for their own experiences. Now, customers must come first to publishers – and that means providing them with content when, where, and how they want it in the social networks, in video, and on mobile devices. Page needs to clearly show that he understands the “ground rules” of the new Web; then he needs to lay them out crisply, with their differences distinctly noted, so that his business units – from the moneymakers of search and advertising to the experiments in social media – can start remaking themselves accordingly. Gmail, for example, should be reinventing communication for a fully connected world in which email usage is on the decline, just as it reinvented the category when email was still on the rise seven years ago; and Google Apps needs to rethink how applications can be so much more than mere Microsoft Office stand-ins when its users are connected to the Web most of the time.

3. Recruit hard for new talent.

It’s not enough to rotate the deck chairs and the bodies that sit in them; it’s time for Google to parachute in some rescuers. For example, Google needs to win notables like Vadim Lavrusik, who just joined Facebook, to help guide social content in news and media; and it also needs to remake its employment proposition to attract the up-and-coming stars like those who have joined Facebook, as well as those who have started their own companies. Google developed an amazing human resources formula that attracted a slew of talent to fuel the search wave; but now the talent wars are underway, and Facebook’s pre-IPO buzz has leapfrogged over Google’s gourmet chef and personal training perks to attract the best and the brightest. Google needs to reinvent its formula and demonstrate a winning strategy to attract the next generation of stars.

4. Show your work on social.

Finally, Page should be demonstrating progress on a host of new, socially supercharged products and ideas that Google desperately needs right now. In addition to pulling from the outside, the company should be incubating its own ideas to take advantage of the social Web. Page’s incentive compensation plan is a start, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough to light a fire that will help Google out-compete Facebook, a private company that has already garnered nearly 50 percent of Google’s own market capitalization – without having even signaled an entry into the search marketplace yet. Google’s home turf of search is uncharted territory for Facebook, but, just as importantly, the social terrain has already proven a minefield for Google. Page should be working on these four items each and every day. But he should also be communicating his progress in these areas on an ongoing basis to investors and analysts, as well as employees. And, as for how, the outreach needs to be personal. 

He’s Google’s CEO; it’s his responsibility; and it’s an integral part of the top job – a job, by the way, that he recently chose to assume and shoulder.

In his debut earnings call with investors, Page made nary a mention of social. By sweeping the social Web and his new chief competitor under the rug, Page seemed to be making the false assumption that the analysts and media covering the company wouldn’t notice the rising force of social or Google’s lack of social progress. 

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, because Facebook’s $78 billion valuation represents a lump beneath the rug that’s nearly the size of Mt. Rainier.

Google can’t just ignore this mountainous marketplace impediment. And investors aren’t the only ones that take notice of Google’s lack of strategy here: the engineers coding Google’s products need to know that their leaders want to attack, not ignore, the mountain.

Markets go up, and markets go down. But opportunities like the social Web come along only so often. So, if Page and Google remain radio silent on Facebook’s clear and present threat, they’ll be frittering away much more than their market cap. They’ll be gambling with their greatness. And that would be a huge mistake.

by Ben Elowitz

The upside of all the data that can be collected about us on the social web today is that we can increasingly get better and more relevant information faster.

But there’s a dark side that Brian Stelter reported on this week in The New York Times – all that data can leave us exposed.

There’s no question that the benefits of a connected world are immense; but, after reading Brian’s probing piece and taking a big gulp, I recognize that it also means we’ll see more abuse.

The new information exchanges, marketplaces, and networks we are building online have huge power because they connect so many disparate people and things together.  That’s the appeal; and it’s also the genesis of the inherent potential for misuse.

In previous Web generations, newsgroups, eBay, and Craigslist offered people extraordinary new dimensions of information, commerce, and connection.  And we saw a small – but harmful – percentage of misuse.

And yet, the bigger surprise to me isn’t that these exchanges can be exploited, but that they work at all.  Whether they’re propelled by financial or ego-centric motives, the nefarious exploiters seem to be outnumbered twenty-to-one or more, and the exchanges largely work in spite of them.

Lately, I have been thinking and writing a good deal about the divergent approaches that Facebook and Google have been taking when it comes to the Web.

It’s clear that Facebook is a world filled with identity – and with a vast network where every node is identified comes unprecedented personal risk.  Do I really want my friends, my enemies, my government, and worse, my mother, to connect all the dots of my existence?

No, most assuredly not.

And yet having my identity established online offers enough payoffs that I permit it.

Increasingly, Facebook has been pushing for the benefits of an identified and networked world; at the same time, Google has established itself as the king of the anonymous Web.  The result is that Facebook finds itself in one privacy imbroglio after another; and I’m sure more are on the way.

But while Google scans the pages of the Web without any sense of human identity, its former CEO rues that they have missed out on the benefits of the social Web as a result.

We’re definitely walking a fine digital line here.

But my money is on an increasingly social Web; and we’ll clearly have to address the downsides as we tip-toe – or barrel – into the future.

by Ben Elowitz

This article originally appeared as a feature at AllThingsD.

We all read the statistics every week documenting the meteoric new growth areas of the Internet, and they are impressive:

Online video is exploding, with annual user growth of more than 45 percent.  Mobile-device time spent increased 28 percent last year – with average smart-phone time spent doubling.   And social networks are now used by 90 percent of U.S. Internet users – for an average of more than four hours a month.

None of this is a newsflash.  Every venture capitalist, Web publisher, and digital marketer is hyper-aware of these three trends.

But what’s happening to the rest of the Web?

The Web Is Shrinking - Elowitz/Wetpaint

The Web Is Shrinking.  Really.

When you take these three growth areas out of the picture, the size of the hole left behind is staggering:  the rest of the Web – the tried and true core that we thought would have limitless growth – is already shrinking.

Here are the facts:

When you exclude just Facebook from the rest of the Web, consumption in terms of minutes of use shrank by nearly nine percent between March 2010 and March 2011, according to data from comScore.  And, even when you include Facebook usage, total non-mobile Internet consumption still dropped three percent over the same period.

We’ve known that social is growing lightning fast – notably, Facebook consumption, which grew by 69 percent; but now it’s clear that Facebook is not growing in addition to the Web.  Rather, it’s actually taking consumption away from the publishers who compete on the rest of the Web.

And just what is the rest of the Web?

I have been calling it the “document Web,” based on how Google and other Web architectures view its pages as documents, linked together. But increasingly, it might as well be called the “searchable Web” since it’s accessed predominantly as a reference, and navigated primarily via search.

And it’s becoming less relevant.

In the last year, Facebook’s share of users’ time online grew from one out of every 13 minutes of use nationwide, to one out of every eight.  In aggregate, that means the document Web was down more than half a billion hours of use (that’s more than 800 lifetimes) this March versus last March.  And in financial terms, that represents a lost opportunity of $2.2 billion in advertising inventory that didn’t exist this year.

The Creation of a New, Connected Web

The change in the Web’s direction is a clear indication to me that we aren’t just in the midst of a boom for new interaction modes, but rather a generational overhaul of the Internet.

What replaces the declining searchable Web is a new and “fully connected” digital life.  You may have heard this before.  After all, the promise of the Web was to connect pages with hyperlinks.  Well, this time, “connected” means much more.  It means the Web connects us, as people, to each one of the individuals who’s online; and those connections, ultimately, extend from one of us to all of us.

Just as significantly, this all happens in real-time, and at nearly all times.

And here’s what’s different when you connect people, as opposed to pages: Now, the Web knows who we are (identity); is with us at all times wherever we go (mobile); threads our relationships with others (social); and delivers meaningful experiences beyond just text and graphics (video).

The connected, social Web is alive, moving, proactive, and personal; while the document Web is just an artifact – suited as a universal reference, but hardly a personal experience.

The Social Web Versus the Searchable Web

Analytical explanations – increasing smart-phone penetration, bandwidth availability, and technology sophistication – fill in some of the gaps as we try to understand this sea change, but they fall short.

Something larger is afoot, and it’s not about science or technology.  Rather, as human beings, we have changed how we fit the Internet into our lives.

And the nature of the Web is changing to match. The old searchable Web is crashing; while the new connected, social Web is lifting off.

The implications for publishers are massive.

The last decade has been defined by the rise of Google as the nearly limitless supplier of traffic to digital media properties.  And so a generation of digital media publishers developed and followed the same playbook:  create lots of content around top keywords; engineer for search engine optimization (SEO); and expand the surface area in search engines to reach more users.  The objective was to catch visitors in their net; expand reach – as measured by ComScore; look more impressive to advertisers; and capture more demand.

The landscape is changing, and fast.

SEO’s strategic value is quickly fading as Google’s growth slows and its prominence in distribution slides away.  In its place, Facebook has become the wiring hub of the connected Web – a new “home base” alternative to Google’s dominance of the last decade.  Facebook began receiving as many visits as Google in March 2010, and already garners more than three times as many minutes as Google each month from users, according to comScore.  Looking ahead, the best projections of U.S. online reach indicate that Facebook will surpass Google on that metric in less than a year, too.

And with this change, the nature of the relationship between users and publishers is being altered fundamentally – and perhaps forever.

Search offers a utility relationship, connecting users to content for the briefest of transactions; typically, it provokes users to just one page-view so they can find a piece of information, and then they move on.

But social discovery builds a relationship.  Leveraging social endorsements and an environment of serendipitous discovery, consumers meet publishers in a meaningful context. As a result, the relationship that forms is stronger – and, more importantly for publishers, it’s branded.

Unlike the ecosystem set up by Google, where the search engine ironically intermediates between users and the objects of their queries (so that users reinforce their loyalty to Google, far more than to the publisher), in the world of social publishing, the Facebook hub enables a direct, if constrained, relationship between users and media brands.

The results – at least for my own company, Wetpaint – are that social media brings more qualified eyeballs and retains them.  People who come via social media stay longer on the first visit; and they are more likely to come back sooner and more frequently.  Overall, our visitors from social networks have a relationship that’s several times stronger – and several times as valuable when measured in engagement, page-views, and revenues – than the relationships people form when then arrive through search.

The Human Connection

But it’s not just a change in mechanics.  It’s a change in our human relationships.

Lewis D’Vorkin, the Chief Product Officer at Forbes, speaks of it when he and Alex Knapp talk about “live” media, quantum entanglement and mutually rewarding relationships that bind authors and readers on the new connected Web.  It’s a sense of the Web moving from static published reference to living digital companion.

But there’s even more, and this vast change foreshadows bigger and better impacts on our lives.  The greatest innovators in social media are driving along exactly that edge today.   As one friend commented recently on the full potential of connected lives, by being joined more closely together, we can increase empathy and meaning, while decreasing isolation.

Toward a Fully Connected Future

Admittedly, we’re early in the replacement cycle when it comes to the connected Web. Even for strong connected Web performers like Huffington Post, my own company, Wetpaint, and others, the sum total of traffic from Facebook, Twitter, video, and mobile may add up to only half the total, or less.

But the trend has tipped; and with that tip has come both the business necessity and the human impact potential of elevating the relationship.

As the document Web of old shrinks, the new connected Web expands and delivers experiences that make our time online more effective, efficient, and enjoyable.

And that changes the role of companies on the Web from mere content publishers or providers to truly connected digital partners for real people.

Does Search Limit Us?

20 Jun
2011

by Ben Elowitz

I just read a provocative review of a provocative new book – “The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You,” by Eli Pariser.

The board president of MoveOn.org, Pariser muses about the perils of excessive personalization on the Web. He’s also concerned that technology companies are narrowing our digital experiences.

“Personalization filters,” he writes, “serve up a kind of invisible autopropaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.”

This point of view echoes that of legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who worried about Internet users getting stuck inside “information cocoons” in his book, “Republic.com.” 

Pariser has a solution for this, and he calls for greater openness and diversity when it comes to search results and recommendations so that unfettered and serendipitous discovery can take place.

My opinion is more intricate. I believe that personalization lives on a spectrum, as opposed to an all-or-nothing scenario. At one end, overdone personalization can produce an unhealthy bubble of self-ignorance as Pariser and Sunstein suggest. But at the other end of the spectrum, where no personalization exists, things are equally bad. The key is determining what’s best for the individual customer experience.

Taking search as an example, the future of personalization is getting the right resources or results to answer your needs as effectively as possible. But personalization doesn’t mean that we have to change the answer. Rather, it means having – and using – much more context about you than what’s available in technology and user interfaces today.

Personalization done well will generate the results you want, without forcing you to sift through the results you would have ignored anyway. And personalization still leaves room to access diversity and alternatives: done right, it will center the bullseye of its results right on your most likely interests; but that doesn’t mean it needs to block out the rest.

In fact, as long as we are interested in diversity, search engines and other content discovery engines will deliver it – because they are in the business of serving our interests. And if they stop doing so, the reason won’t be the technology’s preferences – it will be our own preferences.

In the meantime, the best companies will enable users to have control on the privacy front. And even with those controls, most consumers will almost certainly trade personal information for spot-on content and the right kind of delivery.

So, once again, I come down on the side of Web users. I’m in favor of personalization done well, and I’m all for letting consumers decide for themselves what works and what doesn’t online.

 

by Ben Elowitz

A couple of weeks ago, here in Seattle,  I had the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the future of SEO (search engine optimization) and SMO (social media optimization), along with one of the top SEO experts in the world:  Rand Fishkin.  The conversation was a lively one, moderated and reported –by Curt Woodward, at Xconomy.

My view is that – particularly for media – we are at a tipping moment.  The web is no longer a field of static documents navigated by a precise search engine.  Instead it’s a living organic distribution machine from person to person, through the ether of “social operating systems” like Facebook and Twitter.  And, as a result, I expect Google will be losing ground to Facebook.

It’s was a lively and fun dialogue.

Read the highlights and play-by-play here, courtesy of @curtwoodward.

by Ben Elowitz

Microsoft unveiled its first preview of the Windows 8 user interface at the All Things D D9 conference last week.  It was a thrill to see it.  And my first reaction was that it looks more like media than software.

But upon further reflection, it’s more than just Microsoft.  It’s been the theme of the recent wave of operating system overhauls on mobile devices, which are now taking root on the desktop, too. It’s happened on the iPad, on Palm/HP’s WebOS, and now finally on Windows’ mainstream interface. User experiences are showing more design heritage from print and media, and less from software roots.

It’s an important marker.  Going back decades to the beginning of the personal computing revolution, software was written by programmers, who were doing their best to make machine instructions controllable by end users.  It was an inside-out approach:  starting with the microprocessor’s constraints and translating them into displays that were at least interpretable by end-users.

Now, programmers have the luxury of fast processors, sophisticated graphics systems, and advanced libraries – not to mention the development of the new field of user experience.  So, instead of starting with microprocessors and asking users to adapt, we are seeing design go the other way:  we are starting with real people (consumers) and making the software conform to them.

When we do that, the “a-ha” to me is that the consumer-first approach is a media approach, not a software approach.  It doesn’t start with the machine; it starts with the audience.  And that’s exactly what the expertise of media is.  The result culminated in Steve Sinofsky’s demo of a complete overhaul of Windows 8’s interface, that looks so much like a media property, and not so much like any desktop software interface that we are used to.  Indeed, the “desktop” metaphor of previous generations of Mac, PC, and Unix interfaces is blown up entirely, replaced by a start screen with so many content tiles, each formatted richly and compellingly in a glossy, high-production-values sort of way

The future of software is looking a lot like media.

 

by Ben Elowitz

This week at the All Things D D9 conference, I found myself telling people that lately I’ve been “tricoastal.”  It’s a codeword I’m enjoying for the rotation I have been doing between the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and New York.  I seem to run between the three of them continually, as I’m trying to put together my best thinking about the future of media.  And, despite the time, expense, and hassle of the travel, I keep finding that blending the three of them is far more powerful than if I spent time in any one of them.  And if I didn’t visit all three frequently, I wouldn’t just be facing the catastrophic loss of super elite status on multiple airliner, nor innumerable calls from my mother asking “where are you and are you wearing a sweater??”.  Far worse, I’d be missing an accurate picture of media.

My company, Wetpaint, has its roots in Silicon Valley.  The Valley is great for its appreciation of the mechanics of digital media.  In fact, it’s obsessed with them.  The Bay Area practically invented the word “virality,” and it understands distribution – both through search engines and social networks, and from person to person – far better than others.  At least at a mechanical level.  The Bay Area culture is left-brained; it celebrates analytics, tactics, and leverage created by software and automation to get nonlinear results from human efforts.  However, it is blind to the art of content and the realities of the advertising business.  It assumes that both of these can be deconstructed successively into analytical components; that all actors are rational; and that these are systems problems, not human problems.  But these assumptions are all patently false in media.

New York, on the other hand, recognizes the art of editorial and the less predictable, more spontaneous nature of the consumer.  The iconic titles of companies like Conde Nast, and their personality-driven cultures, seem to have established a reverence for the editor-monarch with perfect knowledge, and have embedded a culture of royalty based on editorial superiority that translates into sales prowess.  And that last component is met by New York’s enormous advertising machine, which operates based on a currency of relationships and perks.

But it’s Los Angeles that impresses me even more for being image-obsessed.  Hollywood’s influence seems to understand the value of brands the best – that brands are greater than the sum of their parts.  The LA mentality, however, assumes that content creators have captive distribution – as they do in broadcast and cable TV channel agreements and movie theater agreements.  It assumes that once a brand is launched it becomes a pipe through which you can shove whatever content you want, like a cable channel, as though the lead-in and lead-out are guaranteed.  And it carries an assumption that brand franchises have immense value to be tapped and negotiated by dealmakers.

In truth, digital media doesn’t operate this way.  No distribution is guaranteed.  Just as LA has seen the record companies crumbling under disaggregation, now it is happening to other forms of digital content.  Published content online needs to find its audience one “single” at a time.  The brand value of the collection, while still significant, no longer carries guaranteed distribution online.  And the personalities linked to that content no longer have the star-power that an Anna Wintour or Tina Brown have been able to create in the New York model.

None of which is to say that the Silicon Valley mechanists are right, either.  They aren’t. Their mechanical analysis of the universe doesn’t survive contact with humanity.

Instead, what I love to find every time I tour is how these pieces fit together.

If you’re not practicing the art of content that the New York media is best at, then you are creating a bunch of meaningless drivel that will never deserve the loyalty of a branded relationship.  That branded relationship is the exact mantra of LA’s movie franchise creators; and yet, the distribution mentality of LA (that you can own a captive channel) is all wrong.  Instead, I find that the Silicon Valley mindset of each item needing to find its audience – and then self-lubricate for viral distribution – complements it best.  And this, then, reinforces the fact that it all starts with the NYC notion of content, in contrast to Silicon Valley’s algorithmic bias that it’s all about the technology.

By putting the three together, we end up with a complete picture of media – content, mechanics, and brands all working together – and that combination is one that represents how the audience behaves, with human drives around interest, engagement, and loyalty.

 

 

by Ben Elowitz

This article originally appeared as a feature on iMedia Connection.

Nieman Journalism Lab recently posted a very provocative piece on the eight trends to watch in 2011.

Taken together, the eight trends reinforce the fact that digital publishers have been forced to abdicate their relationships with customers. It’s a big change from our offline legacy, where news and magazine publishers built long-term customer relationships by offering a branded collection of content.

But in our current digital world, content is no longer oriented toward delivering on an existing relationship. Instead, every published piece is a marketing vehicle. The content itself has become the bait for customer acquisition, with each new item the means for catch-and-release fishing for more unique users.

With this practice, the basis of customer acquisition has changed: Digital media publishers acquire audience by the item — not by their collection. We all see it play out with the bad content around us all the time: An inflammatory headline earns clicks. Keywords garner search rankings. And sensationalist pieces generate social distribution and links.

But the obsession with acquiring audience article by article has had serious consequences and, in the end, the holistic sense of a “publication” as a product — one that builds a long-term branded relationship with audience — has gone out the window.

How did this happen?

I chalk it up to the perverse system of online media buying that takes place with advertisers and, particularly, their agencies. This system places such a high priority on maximum momentary reach that it totally overlooks any question of relationship.

The net (and short-sighted) result of this focus is that digital publishers spend all of their energy acquiring customers. But acquiring them to what end?

There’s no reward for keeping customers anymore. Having audience return daily is a nice-to-have — a “supporting statistic” on a page of a PowerPoint media kit — while almighty reach drives ascent through the comScore reports. Given the opportunity, publishers would gladly double their reach while halving their engagement; then they’d wonder why no one came back. Customers today are met for a moment, and then discarded — then publishers go out and acquire all new viewers the next month. And, to fill this hole, publishers too often appease Google’s search algorithm as their evergreen source of new eyeballs.

But as publishers get on the customer acquisition treadmill, an increasingly smaller percentage of their consumers connect to their greater collection or brand. Instead, a user comes for one piece and, more often than not, leaves right after. The whole process is all about churn-and-burn, rather than relationship building.

Once you accept this digital advertising dynamic and how it has shaped publishing behavior, you realize some pretty interesting things about your online audience.

First, there’s the inner-circle audience that has a strong branded, destination relationship. These people come back frequently — several times a month to every day. They type the URL into the browser bar, or use a bookmark, or type your brand name into their favorite search engine, or maybe they have “liked” you enough to add you to their Facebook feed. You are a habit to them, and they are your loyalists. These folks know you well. They have a relationship with you. And they come back over and over for your collection — for the entirety of what you have to offer, all wrapped up together and labeled with your brand name.

Then there’s the outer-circle audience. These people don’t visit for the collection at all. They might know your brand well and, if so, that might have helped them make a decision to click. But they aren’t here for you; they are here for your content. And when they are done with that content, they’ll leave.

Gut instinct would say that those loyal inner-circle users are the ones who should be prized most highly. After all, the outer-circle users, who come for one short visit once a month, at most for a page view or two, should pale in value to a loyal user.

But the real problem is that publishers are rewarded by advertisers for the combined size of the two circles. The No.1 driver of ad revenues is unique users, and it is totally dominated by the outer circle. Given this reward system, no matter what the buzz might say, “engagement” obviously isn’t valued by advertisers with any sincerity these days.

And yet my view is that digital media companies must now — more than ever — convert customers to loyal, brand-loving audience. In the long term, these readers are the ones that an advertiser has the greatest ability to impact, since they can leverage a real — rather than fleeting — relationship with the publishers.

It might be difficult and daunting, but that’s the only true path to sustained publishing prosperity. The current advertising model is broken, and it must be fixed.

by Ben Elowitz

I have a question for Jonathan Tasini, who is leading a $105 million lawsuit on behalf of thousands of uncompensated bloggers against The Huffington Post.

If you and your litigious colleagues are so good, so valuable, and so organized, why don’t you launch your own online media venture to out-compete HuffPo?

I’m sure you have your reasons – and, of course, initiating a lawsuit is so much easier than starting a digital publishing site from scratch.

But, let’s get real.

Blogging isn’t free-lancing, and it’s hard to imagine that any of the contributors who sent their material to HuffPo ever thought it was. As I wrote several weeks ago, every contributor knew the basis of the transaction: write what you have to say in exchange for being publicized. As always, the prime currency of blogging was fame – not fortune.

So who’s trying to cash in now?

On a broader, more global note: I feel sad for the desperate bloggers who are trying to shake down HuffPo; and I’m deeply sensitive to the fact that  the media world is under pressure and steadily shrinking. But Tasini and his fellow litigants look like starving dogs scrapping for a shred of meat. It’s unseemly and unproductive.

What’s next?

Will Tasini respresent a class action suit against Endemol on behalf of all American Idol contestants, who were totally exploited as they sought super-stardom?

Or will he represent the tens of millions of users in a suit against Facebook, for advertising against their status and Farmville activities?

Both legal moves would make for entertaining blog posts, and I look forward to the juicy reading!

Going Long on the Web

11 Apr
2011

by Ben Elowitz

One of the supreme ironies in digital publishing today is that there’s infinite online space, and a desire to read rich and substantive content on mobile devices such as the iPhone or iPad; and yet, there’s still limited long-form multimedia journalism available on the Web.

That’s the subject of a fascinating feature in The New York Times by David Carr.

Always incisive, David focuses on The Atavist, which he describes as “a tiny curio of a business that looks for new ways to present long-form content for the digital age. All the richness of the Web — links to more information, videos, casts of characters — is right there in an app displaying an article, but with a swipe of the finger, the presentation reverts to clean text that can be scrolled by merely tilting the device.”

Since January, The Atavist has had over 40,000 downloads of its app; and it’s also begun conversations with publishers about the possibility of adding nonfiction books to the eclectic mix of stories it now presents.

This nascent success reinforces what I’ve been saying for a long time – give people an enhanced digital content experience, something that’s very special, and they’ll be willing to pay for it.

Good luck to The Atavist, which has the right business model, and the best of reading to all of us.


top