Will YouTube be the USAToday or Wall Street Journal or New York Times of 2015 or 2020? According to Mediapost.com "YouTubes Secret Citizen Journalism Plot Exposed." Referring to a SFWeekly article by Eve Batey "YouTube Explains Top Secret 'News Experiment' to Local Media, But Doesn't Really" the reporting is that YouTube plans to hire groups of citizens in major cities, starting in San Francisco, to report news events via YouTube. Could this replace the local newspaper? Or maybe even the local evening news?
Americans are so used to freedom of speech that it's easy to forget what the concept launched in the USA. 200 years ago anybody who could access a printing press, of any size, could produce a newspaper. That as revolutionary. "Citizen journalism" was the norm, and there were literally thousands of newspapers. That situation remained very true well into the 1900s. Eventually acquisitions led to consolidation and a dramatic reduction in the number of newspapers.
The decline in the number of newspapers was aided by consumer journalism preferences shifting, in part, to radio and television. As radio and television journalism was born the limitation was "bandwidth" and therefore access. Thus, from the beginning there was government control over the number of stations. That scenario very different from the founding of newspapers, as there were limited channels from the beginning. But that didn't mean that the desire for video journalism was lower.
What will journalism be in 2020? We know that most major city newspapers are on the brink of failure, with bankruptcies (such as Tribune Corporation, owner of The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Tkimes as well as others) not uncommon. As newspaper pages have shrunk, the internet has allowed the return of "citizen journalism" as bloggers and reporters have emerged able to tell a story, and with very low cost access to potential readers. Having internet access is possibly cheaper, and certainly easier, than operating a printing press in the era of Benjamin Franklin, or even a local newspaper of 1900. By numbers there is no doubt many more "citizen journalists" than "professional journalists" working at American newspapers today.
So why couldn't YouTube take advantage of a preference for video, and link together the armies of independent "journalists?"
I can't help but recall the television program Max Headroom from 20 years ago – where it was perceived that real-time information on practically all topics would be reported on millions of televisions everywhere – televisions which could not be turned off by law. Wasn't Max simply an avatar, running around what we could now consider the web, popping up on computer – rather than television – screens? Today I can create my own Max Headroom avatar to search the web for real-time content – mostly text. Why couldn't YouTube give me a tool to do the same thing with video?
Many people are bemoaning the decline of traditional journalism. But is this a bad thing? Given all the screaming about today's "media bias" it would seem that citizen journalism could become a great equalizer. If YouTube and Google can help give me the tools to search for what's interesting to me that would seem to be a very good thing. And if in the process they sell some ads so that the content can grow, that doesn't seem like a bad thing either.
In the movie Network, made some 30 years ago, the thesis was put forward that news would become entertainment – and less "news". With the growth of Fox News, MSNBC News and the number of broadcast minutes given to television news magazines like Nightline, one could reasonably claim that the movie was surprisingly foretelling. Today, getting up to the minute news is even hard on a channel like CNN. It's not at all unclear that providing a platform for citizen journalists, via YouTube and Google searches of the web, is a bad thing at all.
Are you prepared? Are you learning how to use these new tools? Are you prepared to change your learning behavior? Your advertising programs? Could you be a citizen journalist? It certainly looks clearer every year that journalism in 2020 will look substantially different than it does in 2010.
Most people misunderstand evolution. They think that changes happen slowly. Imagine an animal with a 12 inch tail. Every generation or so it's imagined that the tail gets a little shorter, then a little shorter, then a little shorter until after some very long time it simply disappears. But that's not at all how evolution works.
Instead, most of the animals have a long tail. Some small number of animals are born each year with very short or no tails. For the most part, this matters little. If the tail is valuable – say for warding off parasites – those without tails may suffer and die off quickly. And that's the way things are, largely unchanged, for decades. But then, something happens in the environment. Perhaps the emergence of a predator able to catch these animals by the tail and hold them in place to let the pack kill it. Within one generation almost all of the tailed animals are killed by the predator, and only the no-tail animals survive. Some of these have developed an immunity to the parasite. So then this "evolved" animal becomes dominant. No-tail animals replace the tailed animals. That's how evolution really works. It happens fast, with drastic change (and this time of change is referred to as a punctuated equilibrium.)
Once we know how evolution really works, we can start to better understand business competition. A Success Formula works for a really long time, until something changes in the marketplace. Suddenly, the old Success Formula has far poorer results. And a replacement takes over.
Consider newspapers. They played a very important role in society for at least 100 years (maybe 200 or 300 hundred years.) But with the advent of the internet, their role is no longer viable. Printing and delivering a daily paper is too expensive for the value it can provide. So think of newspapers as the long-tail animal. And digital news delivery is a short-tail animal. The internet is the attack pack that kills the newspapers. And within short order, the world is a different place – in a new equilibrium. And everything about the surrounding environment is shifted. Regardless of how much you enjoyed newspapers, they simply cannot compete and new competitors are a better fit in the new marketplace.
Now consider Netflix. Netflix played a major influence in obsoleting traditional movie rental shops – like Blockbuster. Netflix was a winner. But markets – new attack packs – keep emerging. And the latest shift are products like the Kindle and Apple Tablet (as well as other tablet PCs.) These products make Hulu and YouTube a lot more viable. Suddenly, Netflix is the long-tail animal, and the short-tail animals are doing relatively better.
According to The Wall Street Journal, in "Apple Sees New Money in Old Media" Apple is close to a deal with several newspapers to deliver their content to readers via their internet device. They also are negotiating rights to deliver movies and television (small format) entertainment. Simultaneously, Amazon keeps marching forward as MediaPost.com reports in "Take That Apple: Kindle Introduces Apps." We see that there are a LOT of potential different versions of the short-tail animal. Tablets, phones, netbooks, etc. Which will be the biggest winners? Not clear. But what is clear is that the old long-tail competitors (newspapers, print magazines, network television, traditional PCs) are not going to flourish as they once did. The market has permanently shifted. Those competitors are in the back end of their lifecycle.
Simultaneously, this market shift causes ripple effects through the environment. The market shift affects ALL players – not just the one most visibly being attacked. So, as SiliconBeat.com reports in "Looks Like Netflix is Dead, Again" this change suddenly imperils Netflix which has mostly counted on postal delivery rather than digital. And it provides a boost to short-tail players like Hulu and YouTube which could see much larger revenue given their digital-based delivery models.
And this affects you. What do you print, or say, that could be better handled on a mobile device? Could you deliver user instructions via an iPhone or Kindle app? If so, why aren't you doing it? Are you still working on traditional web pages, with embedded text in graphics that can't be seen by a mobile phone, when most people are likely to find you first on their mobile device? Are you busy working on your web site, while ignoring having a Linked-in or Facebook account? Are you advertising on television, or in newspapers, and ignoring Facebook ads – or YouTube links? Do you have a YouTube channel with short clips to instruct users on your product, or how to install an upgrade, or even why to buy? Are you still competing with a long tail, while the pack is rapidly killing off the long-tail species?
Market shifts are happening fast today. If you don't react, you just may find yourself deep into the pack with declining results. Or you can shift with the market to keep your business competitive.
Over the last week everyone has heard stories about how Facebook, and Twitter, became primary communication conduits for people with connections in Haiti. Telephone and slower communication vehicles simply have not been able to connect family and friends in this crisis like Facebook. When shift happens, it accelerates as new uses come to the forefront quickly. For everyone trying to connect with employment candidates, suppliers and customers this shift has immediate and important impact on behavior.
For advertisers, the impact is significant. Where should ad dollars be placed? On a traditional home page and search site – like Yahoo! – or on Facebook?
And it's not just the sites themselves, but how long people are on these sites. From an advertising point of view, you can start to think about Facebook – and YouTube – almost like a "channel" from early television days. Where the audience comes back again and again – offering you not only a large audience, but more opportunities to reach them more often. Facebook and YouTube are beginning to dominate the "user views."
Of course, the impact isn't just regarding the web, but how any business would use media to reach a target audience. Most advertising agencies, and ad people, are still focused on traditional media. But, as we can see, that WILL shift — even more than it traditionally has.
Anybody investing in newspapers, expecting a resurgence in value, is pretty foolish. Newspapers are going to lose ad dollars – not gain. Relatively, newspapers already are getting too much of the ad spend. Talk radio has growth. And clearly the web. Since we can expect that newspaper and magazine readership will continue recent downward trends, and television is fragmenting as well as stalling, the big growth is on the internet.
The market shift is really pretty clear. We aren't speculating about the market direction with this data. The question becomes, will you be an early adopter of these new media channels or not? Given that the web and mobile have the lowest ad rates of all media, why wouldn't you? Over the last 2 months Pepsi has decided to NOT advertise on the Super Bowl, instead putting the money into social media. And after introducing the Granite Concept car at the Detroit auto show, even behind-the-times GM is now considering a launch of this vehicle, intended for buyers under 35, using only web advertising.
So what are your plans? Do you have scenarios where Facebook and YouTube are integral to your marketing? Do you have pages, groups and channels on these sites? Do you post content? Are you using them to interact with potential customers, vendors and employees? If not – what are you waiting on? Do you need a Disruption to create some White Space and get started? If so – isn't it time to get going?
The business media get really excited about acquisitions. And it is clear that many executives still think acquisitions are a good way to grow – especially when wanting to enter new markets. Even though all the academic research says that acquirers inevitably overpay, and that almost all acquisitions don't really have "synergy." In fact, most acquisitions significantly reduce shareholder value. While this doesn't keep execs from going forward, if we understand why acquisitions go badly better performance can be obtained.
As reported at Financial Times in "The Rise and Fall of MySpace" the problem with acquisitions is very tied to the "owner and acquired" thinking that emerges. NewsCorp wanted to get into social media, so it moved early. And the investment looked brilliant when a quick deal with Google appeared to make payback a year from new ad revenues. MySpace was an early social media winner, and it looked to be potentially transformative for NewsCorp.
Until NewsCorp decided that things were too undisciplined at MySpace. NewsCorp thought, like almost all acquirers, that it was more "disciplined" and "structured" and could apply its "better management" to the growth at MySpace. Of course, all of this is code for pushing the NewsCorp Success Formula onto MySpace. What was acquired as White Space was quickly turned into another NewsCorp division – with the decision-making processes and overhead costs that NewsCorp had. Quickly Behavioral and Structural Lock-ins that were prevalent in NewsCorp were applied to MySpace in management's effort to "improve" the acquisition.
But applying the acquirer's Success Formula to an acquisition soon removes it from White Space. Even though NewsCorp felt sure that it's higher caliber IT staff, big budgets and strong management team would "help" MySpace, it was robbing MySpace of its tight link to a rapidly shifting/evolving marketplace and replacing that with "NewsCorp think." Quickly, competitors started to take advantage of market shifts. Facebook took advantage of the now weighted-down MySpace to rapidly bring on more users, while the additional ads on MySpace simply frustrated formerly happy customers more than willing to trade platforms.
Scott Anthony on the Harvard Business Review blog "MySpace's Disruption, Disrupted" points out how in just 4years MySpace went from market leader to almost irrelevant. MySpace lost its position as market disruptor as it increasingly conformed to demands of NewsCorp. As the NewsCorp Success Formula overwhelmed MySpace it stopped being a market sensing project that could lead NewsCorp forward, and instead became a now money-losing division of a newspaper and TV company. NewsCorp started trying to make MySpace into a traditional media company – rather than MySpace turning NewsCorp into the next Amazon, Apple or Google.
If a company wants to acquire a company for new market entry, that acquisition has to be kept in White Space. It has to be given permission to remain outside the acquirer's Lock-ins and separate from the Success Formula. It has to be allowed to use its resources to develop a new Success Formula toward which the acquirer with migrate – not "brought into the fold."
Unfortunately, acquirers tend to think like previous century conquerers. In Gengis Khan fashion they almost always end up moving to change the acquired. Often in the name of "discipline" or "good management practices." And that's too bad, because the result is a loss of shareholder value as the investment premium is dissipated when the acquisition fails to reach objectives. Acquisitions can be good, but they have to be kept in White Space — like we see Google doing with Facebook!
"Rupert Murdoch to remove News Corp's content from Google in months" is the London Telegraph headline. Claiming that Google gets a "free ride" on the newspaper content, the News Corp. Chairman claims he can block Google from referring his content – and that the conclusion will be bad for Google because it will hurt the search engine's ability to add value. He also expects that his newspaper and its website will do fine without Google, including doing fine without any Google-placed ads on the newspapers' web sites.
Really.
Ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It means that you get so mad at something, or someone, that you take a stupid action just trying to get even. Given the gruffness of Mr. Murdoch, I mashed that phrase up into my own explanation of his threat – that he's trying to bite off his own nose.
There is no changing the shift to on-line news readership. People will never again return to reading print-format newspapers. Print demand will continue to decline. Simultaneously, nobody will revert to searching for news on their own – such as by browsing around any particular web site. Users now know they can find news with the aid of powerful search engines, like Google, that deliver them directly to the page that tells them what they want to know. And advertisers now know that they must use services like Google to deliver ads to the pages that present their most likely targets. Advertisers are not willing to accept "views" alone, now knowing that ads can be targeted to specific readers associated with specific page content. Those shifts have happened, and are now trends moving forward. No hoping for "the good old days" will change these shifts.
Google doesn't need the News Corp. newspaper output to succeed as a search engine nor News Corp's pages for its ad placement business. There is so much access to news, from press releases (source news) to bloggers to other newspapers that any individual news source is relatively irrelevant. And Google can place all of its advertisers' ads – whether News Corp. makes its pages available to Google or not.
Simply, News Corp. needs Google. Without Google page referrals, visitors will drop. Lower visitors means fewer ad views means lower revenue. No news organization can stand lower revenues. Simultaneously, News Corp. needs as many advertisers competing for its ad space as possible. To turn down any ad placement service will only hurt revenues further.
Mr. Murdoch said in the article "I don’t believe the media industry can continue to exist in this way." He's right. Media companies are going through a major market shift. But trying to walk away from the #1 search engine and #1 ad placement company is —– foolish. And Mr. Murdoch knows this – because News Corp. owns MySpace and other internet properties. Google may not need News Corp., but News Corp. definitely needs Google
