Friday, September 15, 2006
A bold move, but some tactical flaws are obvious already
You have to hand it to Will Lewis at The Daily Telegraph – its multimedia relaunch (as reported in Press Gazette last Friday and today) is a pretty bold move and seems fairly well thought-out.
Its new 24/7 publishing model in several media supposedly allows readers to have which medium suits them best at each time of day, based on research. But by concentrating on what the majority want at each output time point, they’re missing most of The Long Tail of media use at each point! In plain English, they’re only offering readers a vodcast or web page for new content at set times which suit the largest number, but not all. And Chris Andersen’s Long Tail idea would suggest that means most potential readers will be left out.
The model is good in that it will allow for tweaking the presentation of stories in each medium to suit the demographics of the groups most likely to use it (e.g. office workers checking the website at lunchtime), but why are they only offering one ‘table d’hote’ click-and-print PDF?
Surely this puts the traditional Publishing 1.0 notion of Editors being the most expert person to choose what all pesky readers should have to read before the more modern Web 2.0 notion that the consumer chooses what they want as it’s meant to be a conversation now. Seems it’s a pretty one-sided one at the Telegraph.
Instead why don’t they make it a la carte – self-service? (I’m sure their techies could do this) – allowing readers to choose what items to include in their PDF and print off only what they want, not what they’re being forced to have. Isn’t that just a barrier to using it at all??
Final thing is the presumption that all journalists, after the supplied training, will be able to be as good at producing video packages as articles.
Sorry, but all my experience in broadcast and print media tells me this just isn’t going to be the case. Some people are natural multi-skilled video makers, but others will never even be ok. The worst thing the paper can do is inflict amateur You’ve Been Framed-type attempts at video reports on its audience by good print journalists who are, frankly, hopeless broadcasters.
It’s exactly the same as when subbing and page design was merged in some papers and the assumption was made that if you could do one you could do the other adequately. If only it were so! There are still people I know who are great subs but shouldn’t be let anywhere near a QuarkXpress page, and vice versa.
Message to Will Lewis – if some reporters are good at doing video, let them. For the rest, place an ad for a news reader or voiceover artist to read their well-written report. Concentrate on competences, don’t focus on incompetences.
Its new 24/7 publishing model in several media supposedly allows readers to have which medium suits them best at each time of day, based on research. But by concentrating on what the majority want at each output time point, they’re missing most of The Long Tail of media use at each point! In plain English, they’re only offering readers a vodcast or web page for new content at set times which suit the largest number, but not all. And Chris Andersen’s Long Tail idea would suggest that means most potential readers will be left out.
The model is good in that it will allow for tweaking the presentation of stories in each medium to suit the demographics of the groups most likely to use it (e.g. office workers checking the website at lunchtime), but why are they only offering one ‘table d’hote’ click-and-print PDF?
Surely this puts the traditional Publishing 1.0 notion of Editors being the most expert person to choose what all pesky readers should have to read before the more modern Web 2.0 notion that the consumer chooses what they want as it’s meant to be a conversation now. Seems it’s a pretty one-sided one at the Telegraph.
Instead why don’t they make it a la carte – self-service? (I’m sure their techies could do this) – allowing readers to choose what items to include in their PDF and print off only what they want, not what they’re being forced to have. Isn’t that just a barrier to using it at all??
Final thing is the presumption that all journalists, after the supplied training, will be able to be as good at producing video packages as articles.
Sorry, but all my experience in broadcast and print media tells me this just isn’t going to be the case. Some people are natural multi-skilled video makers, but others will never even be ok. The worst thing the paper can do is inflict amateur You’ve Been Framed-type attempts at video reports on its audience by good print journalists who are, frankly, hopeless broadcasters.
It’s exactly the same as when subbing and page design was merged in some papers and the assumption was made that if you could do one you could do the other adequately. If only it were so! There are still people I know who are great subs but shouldn’t be let anywhere near a QuarkXpress page, and vice versa.
Message to Will Lewis – if some reporters are good at doing video, let them. For the rest, place an ad for a news reader or voiceover artist to read their well-written report. Concentrate on competences, don’t focus on incompetences.
