Kevin Morris and I hash out the state of the media... sort of
A couple of weeks ago I started talking about the changes at UBM which has opened up a torrent of comment and readership on this blog. Almost doubling the audience. That's good.
What's even better is that people are really talking about how journalism and
media is changing.
To be honest, most of the comment has been negative, mostly about UBM, and mostly from competitors and former employees. Little of that stuff was publishable and after contacting most of them, they all withdrew their comments (Yeah, I'm a nice guy). But there were some very productive responses and a couple were from Kevin Morris, editorial director of Tech Focus Media.
I emailed Kevin directly and we made a date to talk about it face to face at the Design West Conference in San Jose. I made my first Spreaker broadcast from it. And away we go...
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your talk with Kevin. I might add this to the conversation;
Recently I read a comment in your recent post on the UBM announcement of layoffs & restructuring that was trying to rationalize the mixing of media models with content coming from both credible editors and “with influential content from the community itself”.
Here’s the quote;
We are employing a really unique model at UBM that combines editorial that is quality, independent, credible third party content produced by editors of the likes of Brian Fuller, Alex Wolfe, Patrick Mannion with influential content from the community itself. We are not abandoning independent content. We are not just focused on events, we are bringing a proven 4 year community model to our industry leading brands and are 100% focused on what the audience finds useful. We are not in the media business we are in the community business, the audience business and if we get that right the advertisers, exhibitors etc will always want to reach the right people at the right time. What we are doing is similar to what Forbes.com is doing - combining credible third party quality content with peer-to-peer community generated content - it works for everyone and thats why I think its the future of BtoB media!”
The use of the contrasting term “influential” implies that such content is distinct from quality, credible, independent content; and that means that it is inherently non-credible, non-independent and in turn then non-quality.
It also begs the question what exactly does “community” mean? In this example it undoubtedly means advertisers; thus, in reality, this “influential” content is produced by vendors of products and services to “influence” potential customers. We used to stick a tag on these efforts called ADVERTORIAL but I guess UBM is trying to make the case that something has changed and that is no longer necessary. I don’t agree as I would argue that fundamentally you are fooling or tricking the reader vs. being upfront.
Let me be clear, I’m not saying advertisers content doesn’t have value as it certainly does, but I would argue the reader should know who it is coming from in order to make that judgment.
In addition the point was made that UBM is no longer a Media company but rather in the community/audience business.
What exactly is the difference? I would say it has to do with independence and credibility. Media has always been part of the community they cover, but have stayed off to the side as an objective third party observer & reporter. It is this standing apart that provides media with credibility. One can then argue that if UBM is no longer in the media business, then they are basically saying that they are not independent. And I am arguing that if you are deliberately mixing up the content as described prior and not letting the reader know, then you are not credible. Perhaps this is why you have seen the recent exodus of long time credible third party editors, Brian Fuller & Alex Wolfe?
Again, let me be clear, I believe in community content that can come from vendors and/or readers as well. All I’m arguing is that to mix it all up with third party editor’s content and present it as credible is disingenuous.
Bill, had a talk with Paul Miller about this late last week and will be writing something up soon. The name of the game is engagement, not credibility. I'll make the differentiation. Right now, however, I'm working on a white paper that will go into the changes happening that will be available on a limited basis. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteLou,
ReplyDeleteSorry to be so late with a reply but all I can say is WOW!!!
I'd have to argue that whether you are a media company or a marketing services company, credibility is still paramount for success.
Is that your words or a quote?
Bill, not my words, but the general consensus that I've found in the market. Credibility doesn't come from a particular practice but whether the audience believes you are credible. Credibility arises from engagement in todays media. If your audience isn't engaged, that means you are not credible...even if you have a large mailing list or circulation . Ask Seth Godin or Brian Solis about this.
ReplyDeleteHere's another salient point: People believe myth over fact, even when confronted with evidence. In the Sandy Hook massacre, MSNBC reported, without confirmation, that the killer's AR-15 was found in the trunk of the car. That is still being used by antigun control forces to negate gun control legislation... even though that report was refuted with evidence 48 hours later. The report was false, yet it was credible because it was engaging.
Credibility is not necessarily truthful. That's why it becomes an issue of personal integrity. The MSNBC crew valued being "first" with the news rather than being accurate. Multiple "credible" news organizations, including CNN and NBC picked up the errant report as well, rather than confirm it themselves. The report was published for weeks in multiple news organizations. But its was actually weeks and months after the reports that the truth became engaging enough to refute the original report. Credible news organizations which could have avoided this massive error if they had actually engaged with the truly credible sources of information, have lost a significant level of credibility.
Now let's apply this to our world of B2B information. The Gallup organization recently published results of the national confidence survey finding that in 2013, less than 15 percent of people have confidence that the print media is delivering credible content, essentially equal to corporations. However, confidence in corporations has been slowly rising over the past 10 years while confidence in media organizations has been dropping like a rock. The rise in corporate confidence over media confidence tracks with the trend o corporations to hire former journalists to run internal programs and with media companies decisions to reduce editorial investment. During this time we also find the rise of smaller non-traditional media sources, like EE journal and Extension Media that are actually growing and are developing a level of credibility greater than traditional media sources primarily because they are able to better engage with their much smaller audiences.
So I state again, the name of the game is engagement, not credibility... because the former creates the latter.
Lou, I’m sure it’s me as I’m over 50 and only State College educated but this is all very hard for me to follow.
ReplyDeleteOkay, assuming that is the case then how does one measure engagement? How much engagement constitutes credibility?
Is one media outlet that gets 3 comments from a story more credible than another who gets 2 from the same story? If the same guy comments 50 times in a month for a total of 50 “engagements” with one media outlet while 25 different people comment once on various subjects with another media outlet for a total of 25 “engagements” is company number one or two more credible?
When I was growing up I received some simple advice from my Dad; say what you are going to do, do what you said, and do the right thing. If you do those things you’ll have a good reputation, people will listen to you and you can sleep at night. I’ve tried to apply that in my organization as well and I think I’ll stick with this approach to maintain some credibility. As a result I believe folks will “engage” with us as well.
Hey, don't dis state colleges (San Jose State, class if '74. Go Spartans!).
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can measure credibility, but you can measure engagement and it comes on on all levels. As I've written before, Google and Facebook are boosting anything that is found to be "engaging." They measure that three ways: How much time was spent reading it (in other words anything more than 30 seconds, give or take); how many people commented on it (more than just likes which as Kevin pointed out doesn't mean you read it); and, most importantly, how many people shared the content. All of that boosts your ranking. Facebook goes a few step further giving greater importance to content shared that includes a graphic feature (photo or video); an appropriate link; and the popularity of the people liking or commenting on the content.
Going to your father's advice, the only way you know you are credible is if you know you are credible. And if you are personally walking in integrity, or even if you are not, you will be recognized for that, especially in this social world.
Bill, I am committed to walking in integrity, even to the point of publishing a statement of ethics. It is the most important aspect of my daily life. Anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about me. They can go ahead and talk to others about their doubts about me, but I know the truth. I believe you do the same. I am not prepared, however, to stand in judgement of others who decide to use a different mechanism for disseminating information and call it illegitimate only because it is different.. I am neither saying the old way of journalism is wrong or is obsolete, nor am I condemning emerging models. It is plain to see what is and isn't working, but some of the stuff is a little too new to make any judgement on it.
What I do know is corporations are finding that the traditional way of doing communications with their market is not working effectively. I applaud every company that decides to inject level of objectivity and independence into that process. It's what I urged companies to do when I was a PR practitioner and generally got shut down over. What I'm finding now is those same companies that shut me down then, are calling me back and asking, "OK, so how do we do this integrity thing?" That is a positive step forward. And I hope it is embraced by the traditional media as a means of making what they report on more credible, rather than rewriting press releases.
Credibility, objectivity, truthfulness, and integrity are all different things. I can write a credible, truthful sponsored article that is still in no way objective. I can be completely honest about the products or services of the company I'm paid to write about, but this is not journalism - it is still marketing.
ReplyDeleteSponsored content, by its very nature, cannot be objective. As I said in the interview, marketing done by journalists is still marketing. Journalism requires objectivity. Sponsored content - even when honest and credible - is usually not objective due to omission. The sponsor won't pay you to write about the weaknesses of their product, the relative strengths of their competitors, or to give an objective assessment of their performance. These are things the audience deserves to know in order to make their judgment on what to believe.
The audience also, absolutely, deserves to know when the content they are reading is written on behalf of a commercial interest. Sponsored content is useful and important, and can be honest and credible, but trying to pass it off as objective journalism is dishonest.
Looks like "The Onion" is on Lou's side, though:
http://onion.com/15TXRvq
Humbly offered by another state college grad (University of Oregon, '81 and '84): The journalistic community has experienced two great transformations in the past quarter century, and neither one is dependent on the media platform.
ReplyDeleteThe first transformation took us from the myth of objectivity to the reality that every journalist carries his or her own perceptions and life experience into every story. This should be obvious to us older journalists and communicators as we look back on our earlier years.
The second transformation took us from the power of truth to the reality of uncertainty. I'm not saying truth has no place. Of course it does. But who's truth? When Bush began attacking climate change theory by focusing on scientists' unwillingness to speak unequivocally, he opened the door to a strategy of manipulating public sentiment by turning uncertainty into fear. Political strategists on both sides of the isle have followed the example religiously.
Given this situation, where does credibility fall? The answer is, wherever you as an audience member choose to place it.
The job of those who are reporting on or creating the influential movements of the day is to tell the story in a way that creates empathy with the audience they are trying to connect with. Karl Rove isn't interested, for the most part, in connecting with liberals. He's after monied conservatives. He creates credibility with them when he speaks their language, defines their beliefs, and challenges them to take action.
Now, if Karl Rove (or Michelle Bachman or Barack Obama) didn't actually believe a word he was saying, then he would have no integrity, and his credibility would collapse. Integrity comes from within. Credibility is assigned by the audience or community. Truth lies in the hands of those who would question the assumptions and dig into the details. This is the realm of the investigative reporter, but it's also increasingly in the lair of the lone wolf who watches for wrongdoing and then blows the whistle on the entire movement.
Social media gives each of these actors a shot at the stage.
Wow, Dan. Something you and I completely agree on. ;)
ReplyDeleteKevin, what do you call publications (online and/or print) that the primary content is rewritten press releases? Objective journalism or marketing communications.
ReplyDeleteKinda interesting discussion. Basically what we are doing at UBM is inviting peer to peer content into the mix with independent editorial (I believe I'm right when I say that we have more independent editors on the payroll than anybody else in the Electronics space?)
ReplyDeleteMany media products in the electronics space have over 90% of content produced by freelancers and/or edited press releases and/or contributed content and have done for years...
We will continue to invest in independent content and invite influencers to the discussion and my prediction is that when people see what we are doing with EE Times, they be happy with the outcome. As far as integrity goes, I believe that its the most important asset of a media business and I always have/will.
There is no doubt that as next year the Internet is 20 years old {as far as media is concerned} we are dealing with the impact of software and technology on our business thats way beyond the demise of print - its about how people consume information, how they participate, how they discover and how it is personal - its beyond the magazine online - we need to embrace the change that is possible, isn't that what we talk about in the electronics media every day???
I'd call publications like that lame and completely useless. The only function they serve - and it's dubious at best - is curation and aggregation of press releases which are already readily available from dozens of other sources. Further, if this "rewriting" includes obscuring the fact that they're basically cutting and pasting company press releases, then they're doing a disservice - making a proprietary message look like independent editorial.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lou and Kevin for this very informative discussion. As someone who was a Journalism major and Advertising minor(Northern Arizona University '84 - GO JACKS!) and having spent the last 25 years selling trade media advertising first print now almost all online, I can't help but wonder how long before I am officially in the "Buggy Whip Business"? Or maybe it's just "whistling past the graveyard" to use another cliched term.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Lou and Paul the way information is obtained and consumed has changed dramatically in the past 10 years, certainly the advertisers themselves are now driving the decisions UBM, Hearst and all other b2b media entities are making. If the new model is now for companies to generate their own content it will no doubt accelerate the shifts in budget away from traditional b2b media. I can't disagree with Lou's points about the value or "credibility" of this information, however the real question is will the advertisers be willing to support traditional b2b media sites like EE Times and EE Journal whose content is vetted and analyzed by journalists and experienced technical editors? Chuck Byers who I am certain you all know has said it was in the best interests of the entire electronics industry to keep these independent media outlets in business. The role news editors play in keeping the companies "honest" and technical editors play in vetting design and technology has help keep the industry competitive. In contrast Chuck points out the media in the auto industry who for years took large advertising programs from the Big Three manufactures and then gave them volumes of company generated content and articles on the executives that were in many cases "vanity press". The lack of any serious challenges from the media certainly didn't help the auto industry.
Selfishly I hope this is not the case - Hey I'd like to still be able to live and exist in Santa Cruz! All kidding aside the big loser in all of this will be the engineering community if the independent b2b media is no longer able to play the role they have in electronics industry in the past 60 years. Just the thoughts of someone who has made a good living from the content provided by these editors and on the IP of the design community that made all of this possible.
Lou, thanks for providing a forum for such a lively (and timely) debate. It’s particularly fascinating for me: I worked at CMP’s OEM group – both on the light and dark sides – for over two decades. That, however, was in a previous life, so I can’t weigh in on UBM strategy today.
ReplyDeleteBut, I do want to address – at a higher level of abstraction -- some of the comments you made earlier in this thread about credibility and engagement.
You say this: “Credibility arises from engagement in today’s media. If your audience isn't engaged, that means you are not credible...Ask Seth Godin or Brian Solis about this.”
So the “theorem’ is that engagement is the primary goal of a media property, because, ultimately, it is engagement that begets credibility? (And the corollary might be, “who cares about credibility anyway, when you can have engagement?”)
Godin and Solis get paid to spout pithy aphorisms; most are amusing, but this one (“credibility arises from engagement in today’s media”) is patently ridiculous. It reeks of British tabloid mentality.
As other commentators have pointed out, credibility may mean different things in different situations. To me, information is credible if I believe that it is not shaded by financial, political, ideological or vengeful considerations. A reputation for credibility is hard won, but is a fabric easily rent.
Defined as such, credibility is vital to engendering sustained engagement, not the other way around. Why, for example, would I continue to listen to (engage with?) a Rush Limbaugh, say, if I find him consistently non- credible?
Today, the purest expression of engagement-focus in all media is Reddit, the self-proclaimed front page of the Internet. Not far behind is BuzzFeed, which claims to have pioneered predictable virality. Both are staggeringly popular, but to consider either as a credible information source is laughable (Barack Obama’s Q&A on Reddit notwithstanding).
Reddit’s credibility – such it was – took a big hit in the wake of the Boston marathon bombing. According to the company, comments on the site “fueled online witch hunts and dangerous speculation, which spiraled into very negative consequences for innocent parties.“
Interestingly, some of the proponents of the “engagement-is-everything” school appear to be exploring more traditional paths to credibility. BuzzFeed, which found fame in numbers – “33 Startling Photos of Porn Stars With and Without Their Makeup On" -- recently hired a veteran New York Times reporter to “lead the site’s news coverage, manage a team of reporters and shape the site’s move into vigorously covering breaking news. “
In the end, it depends on who you aspire to be as media property. You can choose to be engagement focused -- even at the expense of credibility-- and rack up huge numbers on some engagement measures. Credibility may be elusive, but you may not even care.
(Actually, I’m somewhat mystified that there is a debate, at all, over which comes first. Why not aim for both? )
Your argument is not lost on me Girish. I used it myself for quite a while...until I realized it was no longer credible. What you argue for is the ideal. It is not the reality. And I am not saying I approve of the current environment, only that it is as it is.
ReplyDeleteCredibility has nothing to do with the truth, but that people believe it. Science has given ample evidence to climate change, but polls suggest that more than half the world's population (slightly less than half of the US) think it is bogus. Gallup's recent confidence poll suggests that approximately 80 percent of the country lacks confidence in the media's ability to tell them the truth. Fox News get's ratings orders of magnitude of PBS. Again, credibility has everything to do with what people believe, not what is actually true.
Since you brought up the "chicken/egg" analogy, I'd like to add the "Tree falling in the forest" concept to the mix. If an ethical journalist writes as story that no one reads, it may be true, but is it credible?
In the end, it is the responsibility of the professional journalist (and I make that distinction specifically) to work his craft with all integrity, regardless of who signs the checks.
Lou, I can't imagine what part of Girish's argument you don't find credible. I agree with him that "engagement" does not equal "credibility". Sometimes, it's even the opposite. There are many reasons people view pages on the internet - and pre-existing knowledge that the page comes from a credible source is probably not very high on the list.
ReplyDeleteNothing I can see in the current environment says anything about engineers no longer needing credible, truthful, and objective sources of information, however. Your example of science-denial is really not that applicable to engineers. We can believe all day long that some particular device will consume less than 1W, but when we design it into our circuit, the truth will make itself painfully clear.
For the past ten years, we've been running a profitable, growing online-only publication based on the traditional model of separating journalism/editorial from the commercial/sponsored/advertising side - but absolutely NOT on the traditional model of print-based distribution. We see no trend of your "tree falling in the forest" syndrome. Traffic to our pages grows significantly every year. Advertising revenues have grown steadily over the ten year period.
What you claim as the "ideal" and "not the reality" is in fact the reality I've observed firsthand for the past decade. Running an airline is not the same as running a railroad. You haul less coal. You build less track. You have to be faster, lighter, and more nimble. People still need to get from point A to point B reliably, safely, and ethically.
Kevin, I repeat: Credibility has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with believability. If no one came to your site to read your content, it doesn't matter how good and truthful it is. You have to ENGAGE with the readers before they will read your content. It is after the engagement and the continued to engagement that you become CREDIBLE. And that credibility has absolutely nothing to do with how you finance your operations. If Synopsys came to you and said they wanted to buy every single slot in your advertising/advertorial inventory I do not believe you would change how you report and cover industry news. That is what I believe about you. I also tend to believe that Brian Filler and Alex Wolfe and Mike Santarini and Ron Wilson currently and will continue to produce credible content, even though they get their paychecks from non-media corporations. And because they produce that content, those corporations they work for will grow in credibility among their audience. That's what is happening.
ReplyDeleteWe can conjecture whether the UBM communities are or will be credible in the new and distant future but based on their audience now, they are still a pretty damn big gorilla.
That is NOT to say that your model is on the way out. I think in the current environment there is a place for smaller, focused media properties to prosper. However, I do also do NOT think that your is the ONLY way to produce content that is credible. Idealism may say the opposite, but reality seems to be on my side right now.