I’ve been teaching JOUR150 at Kapiolani Community College, a freshman-level, introductory course that is formally known as “Press and Society.” Talk about a title that’s out of date. I prefer the subtitle of our textbook, “Media in Transition.”
This blog will become a repository for my thoughts about how changes in technology and social habits have upheaved the entire journalism profession.
In recent weeks we’ve met with two people from Civil Beat, Honolulu’s own experiment with new media. John Temple, a veteran of print journalism — previously editor of the now- defunct Rocky Mountain News — spoke by Skype. He certainly has the life experience that powers the drive for innovation. A week or so later, we brought in Katherine Poythress, its young education writer. She’s got the energy and the talent — it remains to be seen what form of journalism can sustainably employ the journalists of the future.
This week: Sandra Oshiro, on the hyperlocal trend, the community journalism network of news sites known as Patch.com.
It occurs to me that his blog would be a good repository for materials I’m gathering for an online version of this course. So watch this space.
Sep 10
26
I may be back to comment on some of the particulars of this roundup, but I wanted quickly to point readers to an interesting piece by Vadim Lavrusik, a new media student at Columbia. In the overview portion, Lavrusik has this observation:
Those who think there is one silver bullet to fix the newspaper business are mistaken. Newspapers have almost always had multiple streams of revenue to support themselves and the future will likely not be any different. That doesn’t mean, however, that the money-making models newspapers will use on the web will look the same as the ones they have used for print.
I think he’s right. Newspapers should be reshaped, Lavrusik says, rather than merely paired with a distribution or payment model that “works.” I think I’ll check out this writer on his blog and Twitter feed, too.
One of my daily routines is to check the performance of my little Gannett stock cache, which remains in the doldrums though not at historic lows — yet. Usually there are some relevant news headlines to go with the sad little ticker reading, and today the following caught my eye:
Denver-based newspaper chain MediaNews Group Inc. has signed a deal with PaperG, an online advertising platform that offers ads in a “virtual bulletin board” format, according to a news report.
The technology news website Tech Crunch reports that privately held MediaNews — publisher of The Denver Post, Boulder Camera and dozens of other newspapers — is among several newspaper groups to sign recently with San Francisco-based PaperG to provide ad platforms for their websites.
Another is Gannett Co. Inc., parent of the Fort Collins Coloradoan as well as Denver television stations KUSA-Channel 9 and KTVD-Channel 20. And others include Lee Enterprises, Sun Times Media Group and the Los Angeles Times, TechCrunch reports.
Many daily-newspaper companies are struggling to find ways to boost online revenue amid steep declines in print advertising dollars. MediaNews executives have talked of a “pay wall” system to charge users for some content offered by its newspaper-related websites.
PaperG’s “Flyerboard” product presents digital ads as if they were flyers posted on a cork bulletin board. Clicking on the ads makes them bigger, and a user can then distribute the flyers to friends via Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, or email them.
Terms of MediaNews’ and Gannett’s deals with PaperG were not announced. But TechCrunch said that PaperG typically gets 20 percent to 30 percent of a publisher’s revenue from Flyerboard ads. It said the Houston Chronicle, which introduced Flyerboard last year, reported $100,000 in new sales in the first month.
The PaperG product is adaptable for “hyperlocal” sites — those that are customized to serve small, local audiences.
I checked out the example of Flyerboard on the Boston Globe site, and it’s pretty cool. There’s a bulletin board image, with a list of smaller local communities down the side, and when you click the check box, it shows you the ads for your community. The smart idea here is that the advertiser is leveraging the simple exposure to their ad by inviting viewers to share them through social media. I can imagine seeing a coupon or other item that is attractive enough that I’d want my friends to see it.
It seems smart to me, anyway. We’ll see how this plays out — whether it affects Gannett stock, for example. Not everyone is willing to give up on the advertising model, it seems.
Should news sites move behind a paywall? Currently the Wall Street Journal is one of the very few major players to stick to its resolve to make readers pay for some of its services.
Many people have said the mistake made by the news industry was in giving away its product online. I remember when The Honolulu Advertiser launched its website and the key metric of success was the tally of unique visitors. The standard approach by the ” big boys” of online journalism — the national press — was to lure visitors with free access to its proprietary product.
In the years since then I have many friends tell me they dropped their subscription, a cutback in household budgeting that has become increasingly popular since the recession started. The connection is obvious.
Now the big boys such as The Times in the U.K. and The New York Times are starting to reverse course. The Times, according to multiple reports, it already has lost 1.2 million readers. The New York Times across the Atlantic is watching carefully because NYT Co. plans to launch a somewhat less restrictive model on its flagship next year. Its trial balloon went up last week with the paywall at the Worcester, Mass., Telegram & Gazette. I’ll be checking that out separately.
In a BBC interview, the top brass at The Times says it expected this drop in readership and argues that the site needs to be profitable more than it needs to be universally read. That seems to be the more sensible calculation to make, and I hope The Times sticks to it, at least in large part.
The current reaction to the idea of a paywall, however, is probably deterring most sites from jumping into the pond. I took the informal poll up on the Huffington Post article on the topic, asking whether readers would be willing to pay for content on the New York Times site. As of today, the response was: 27.74 percent said yes, 72.26 percent said no. If people don’t want to pay for The Gray Lady, what would they pay for?
Aug 10
21
Just to make sure I don’t overstep any boundaries to get me in Dutch with my employer, I am rethinking the purpose of this blog.
I work in a profession that’s in the process of evolution. The news business is in search of a business model. In the meantime, what seems to be happening is frenetic competition for diminishing returns from the current, advertising-based model.
The result has been a decline in resources devoted to news gathering nationwide and a struggle to maintain standards in the accuracy and quality of the information.
I am interested in stories from the industry worldwide and across the blogosphere on encouraging developments — the discouraging ones, too — and generally how the news business is fulfilling its purpose. The world can’t survive without that purpose being filled. At least, I hope it can’t.
Might as well just cut to the chase here: I originally envisioned this blog as a place to provide and share links to public records that can be hard to find.
I’ve decided to leave the public affairs, op-ed-type issues to my day job as an opinion writer and return to the original purpose: as a repository for public information, sans comment.
Happy to hear about any discoveries any of my visitors might have, or their wish lists. I might not be able to find things easily online, but finding out who to call should be easy enough, and I can share that.
It’s too soon to know what will be the deciding factor in the gubernatorial race. But I have to believe the just-past experience with teacher furloughs has raised the profile of the public education issue in the mind of the voters. As a voter, I certainly will be waiting to hear what each candidate has to say on this score.
Neil Abercrombie may be the first off this particular mark, at least in any high-profile way. He’s got ads running for his Hawaii’s Children 1st plan. It sounds reminiscent of Linda Lingle’s general approach of decentralizing the bureaucracy and making the governor more personally accountable for success or failure. But his version of decentralization seems to be placing responsibility on principals, rather than department or district officials.
Such a school-centered vision has been proposed before. My question is, if principals are to become like CEOs, as Abercrombie suggests, shouldn’t this mean that, at long last, they come out from under union protection?
The other two leading candidates have some language about education on their sites, but in more general terms. Mufi Hannemann talks about better workforce preparation for children; Duke Aiona wants more spending at the school level and expanded family and community involvement in schools.
Presumably, the blueprints are forthcoming. On an issue such as education, a fully fleshed-out plan is required.
The governor has signed a state law allowing counties to come up with their own regulations on consumer fireworks, as strict as they like.
On this island, at least, that means a proposal for a total ban, already submitted to the City Council, will start moving.
The question is, how far will it move? The lobbyists against a ban include Richard Botti, who said there are already legal tools to aid in enforcing the current laws — including the existing ban on aerial fireworks. Botti said those who deal in fireworks without a license or who deal in contraband items can forfeit whatever property is associated with the illegal activity.
A reward system for tipsters is needed, he said, one that could help drive more informants to give a boost to enforcement.
Another proposal he favors would be a system of citation to homeowners who have spent illegal fireworks on their property; they could be cited whether or not they’re caught setting off the thing.
Botti said the real problem is that police simply aren’t interested in enforcement because of the effort required, so that’s why they favor a ban. I’ll be asking police and fire officials for their thoughts on this assertion, as well as on proposed alternatives.
Setting aside the question of whether police really want to enforce existing law, I’m not sure I understand how the citation system would work. Seems that all a consumer would need to do is to set the evidence in the middle of the public street, which is where most people set off aerials, anyway.
If anyone has further ideas on controlling fireworks short of a total ban, I’m all ears.
I’ve been looking into the passage of Senate Bill 2045, which deals with strengthening the penalties for human trafficking.
Proponents believe that a law that defines human trafficking as a specific crime is needed because, among other reasons, too many cases otherwise slip between the cracks.
They’re undoubtedly right. But the AG’s office points tp numerous drafting errors in the final draft that make it hard to argue against a veto. It was one of the bills on Gov. Lingle’s potential veto list.
Mark Bennett sent some notes on his objections. The following example stood out for me:
Proposed section 707-B (Sexual Human Trafficking in the First Degree) refers to advancing or profiting from prostitution of a minor. This is already prohibited by section 712-1202, Hawaii Revised Statutes (Promoting Prostitution in the First Degree). Under section 712-1202, the State need only prove that: (1) the actor knowingly advances or profits from prostitution, and (2) the prostituted person is less than eighteen years old. (The age was raised from 16 to 18 years in 2008 at the recommendation of the Hawaii Anti-Trafficking Task Force. See Act 147, SLH 2008.) In contrast, proposed section 707-B would impose additional elements (enticement, fraud, or coercion; maintenance, management, supervision, or control; and transportation) that prosecutors would have to prove. This would make it more difficult to obtain convictions in cases involving prostitution of minors. There is no logical reason to add elements.
I’m still researching this one. I know some of the advocates think that protecting victims of coerced prostitution isn’t on top of the AG’s and prosecutor’s to-do lists.
And the problem is bad, and getting worse, according to the FBI. Late in the day, state Rep. Marilyn Lee, who’s been on this issue for a long time, e-mailed me the following:
Just today, some members of the Women’s Caucus met with some FBI personnel who are quite concerned with the problem of child prostitution in Hawaii. Apparently we are one of the top five destinations in the nation where this is a big problem. Part of the problem is finding an appropriate place to house girls who voluntarily leave the trade and have no parental support.
But I’m wondering whether the legislative process, with it’s propensity for last-minute changes, failed us here. The conference draft was a rewrite done quickly, Conference chairs Brian Taniguchi and Jon Riki Karamatsu said the effort was aimed at making the bill more focused to win over the critics, but some lawmakers voted for it without realizing it had changed so much in conference. Lee said she doubts there are votes to overcome a veto.
The push for human trafficking legislation has been years in the making. I don’t understand how all that time and effort produces this result.
My husband went to Safeway this morning to buy coffee for his own Father’s Day breakfast, and if that wasn’t bad enough, he was set upon by the cashiers to try the store’s new online shopper-loyalty program, “Just for U.”
So I figured the least I could do (besides making the waffles) was to try the thing out.
It turns out that Hawaii is the test market, according to the industry trade publication Supermarket News. Here’s a piece of it:
“Everything is organized by your purchase history, so you can save more on what you actually use,” Safeway writes in promotional materials. For instance, if a shopper frequently buys strawberries, they may get an offer for a discount on strawberries. The email will also compare the offer to competitor pricing. Shoppers can then select and load the offers to their loyalty card.
I assume that I will still get the card discounts when I shop at the store, whether or not I select them online. There’s no way that compelling me to go online before I do a shop is a good idea.
As for the manufacturer e-coupons and the additional, user-specific deals that are being offered: I can see why I would need to select them online to get the discounts. Supposedly these individualized specials are based on frequency of purchase and are deeper discounts.
Between now and Aug. 31, the scheduled end date for the test pilot, I want to figure out what Safeway is gaining from this. Are they trying to track my other meanderings across the Web? Hope not. I’ll have to check my cookies, and I don’t mean the ones on sale at the supermarket.
I’m not paranoid about the personal information I place online — I don’t think I gave Safeway anything they don’t already have through my loyalty card membership — but I do want to be cautious. So I created a special Gmail account specifically for this program. Let’s see if I get spammed by any of the manufacturers whose e-coupons I chose.
And I’ll go back and read the privacy statement that I SHOULD have read before clicking “submit.”