The New York Times is bankrupt. Gawker growth is flat. Digg, the next big thing, is stumbling and changing. Meanwhile, Mashable might get bought up by AOL (or is it Aol?). The Huffington Post became a legit source of news. And the iPad is going to solve everything. The new media is replacing the old media, and it’s getting its ass kicked by the new, new media. What the hell is going on? Well, let’s look.
Online, it’s best to be female
Over the last year, Huffington Post traffic is up 118% and the Daily Beast’s is up 270% (check out compete.com for numbers). Conrad Black is in jail, Arthur Sulzberger is bankrupt (along with Sam Zell), and Rupert Murdoch has never surfed the information superhighway. Sex sells.
Technology doesn’t matter, even on your iPhone
Mashable uses WordPress; HuffPo uses Moveable Type. You don’t need to go custom to succeed. Reader’s don’t care how your content is organized; they only want to read it quickly and easily. In fact, it’s probably better to use a canned solution — save some money (just don’t spend it on an iPhone app).
Who has an awesome iPhone app? NYT, AP, Chicago Tribune … bankrupt, old-media newspapers. The Daily Beast doesn’t even have one. Mashable’s is odd and clunky. HuffPo has one that seems to be somewhat popular. Only the NYT is hoping for the iPad to save it. A simple mobile site is enough.
The future of mobile media isn’t a repackaged, miniaturized newspaper (or magazine, sorry Esquire). It needs more reach than that.
Social reach trumps mobile reach
Digg just realized that Facebook and Twitter matter. The web is real-time and you don’t need user effort to measure it. Look at BuzzFeed. They’re the Digg of today and nobody needs to vote to bubble things up — it just happens. Social networks make that possible — reading and sharing determine popularity.
Mashable focuses on Twitter and Facebook. Huff Po was an early Digg adopter, then moved to Facebook Connected social news (now including Yahoo, Google, and Twitter integration). The Daily Beast is heavily invested in email newsletters. All three have realized that integrating into another facet of a reader’s online life leads to increased readership. Sure, David Carr has 244,000 Twitter followers and the New York Times has 2.3M but Mashable has 2M too — and guess which company has lower overhead. Every story Mashable posts is a social home run. Successful sites are harnessing the power of user-generated traffic. The old boys are not.
The widget communitistas are dead
To each according to his patience, from each according to his widgets. Widgets were the future in 2008. “Customized” homepages, like those offered by Netvibes and PageFlakes, are impossible to differentiate, easy to replicate, and worthless. Customization isn’t the future. The future is filled with a site that fits everyone — given an infinite number of options, your dream site is likely out there waiting for you. Think about clothing — do you buy custom shirts? Nope, you get them from the Gap.
Conclusion
So that’s it: be female, don’t worry about tech, forget about apps, focus on social, and hit a niche without customization. Simple!



The Future Of Reading | What Beer Can Teach Us That Fortune Magazine Can’t
Fortune has an interesting article in this month’s issue about the future of reading. A few industry experts lend their opinions on where things are going in the media world and what will become of companies like The New York Times and Tribune Co. Many idealize the tablet, and much like a god-image, fantasize about their personalized ideal of what it may be. Like a deity, they expect it to bring salvation. Others take a more rational approach — the world is changing and the tablet isn’t a savior. I’ll take the beer goggle approach.
The Start Of The Microbrewery Revolution
The beer shake-up started around the 70s, when consumers started to revolt against the macrobreweries (Budweiser, Miller, Coors). These companies produced, and continue to produce, very inoffensive and inexpensive beer. And as the big boys grew, they bought and consolidated their competitors, centralizing production, cutting costs, and providing the catalyst for revolt. They followed the success of Coke and Pepsi — consolidation and uniformity were their selling points.
For many, there were few or no alternatives. However, globalization and tourism increased the exposure of alternative beers. “Why can’t I drink beer like the beer in Belgium?” consumers asked. Grumblings began. And technology stepped in to solve the problem — home-brew kits. Consumers, not driven by cost concerns, started to make their own beer.
The Growth Of The Market
Successful home-brewers started to expand. Their friends liked their beer. Their friends’ friends liked their beer. “Could they start to sell this beer?” they wondered, and they gave it a try. If you look at the big names in microbrewing — including Sprecher, Goose Island, Brooklyn — they all started around the same time. The incubation of this idea happened across the country.
Fast forward a few decades and I can get Brooklyn Brewery beer in Chicago. I can buy Colorado’s Fat Tire Amber Ale at the corner store. And new guys keep entering the market — in Chicago we have Metropolitan Brewery along with Half Acre now challenging the incumbent micro, Goose Island.
The Macros Respond
The growth in this consumer-driven market is where the action is and the big boys want a piece too. Budweiser released American Ale a few years ago to directly compete with microbrewery ales. In addition to new products, the macros are reintroducing long-dead names like Schlitz and Stroh. They’re making every attempt to appear de-centralized and non-homogenized. They’re flooding the market with brands, because the future is no longer a single beer — it’s a beer for every palate and region. It’s the wine model, not the cola model.
What Can The Media Industry Learn?
The media industry is going through a similar revolution. The future was once a single, centralized news source, but that’s no longer the case. Technology stepped in and unhappy consumers have mucked everything up. Like a home-brewer making his own stout instead of buying Guinness, anybody with $100 and a free weekend can become a media entity on the internet. The established companies don’t know how to respond.
One response is restricting content (tablets, apps, fee-based consuption) — and it’s a ridiculous idea as soon as you translate it into the beer equivalent — the Budweiser store experience, the only place you can enjoy the cool, crisp flavor of Bud Light, complete with specially-designed chairs and TVs to enhance the user experience.
Another response is to allow customization — tailor the CNN experience to fit YOU, send us your recipe and we’ll make your beer. But in a sea of infinite choices, my ideal news and beer flavor already exists (and I probably don’t even know what I like). The extreme example of this approach is to build a site entirely on the contributions of your readers — the Digg model. Have something we should read? Share it with the site’s community. But social sites like Facebook and Twitter have taken the need for ‘community’ out of the equation. I don’t need validation from faceless Digg readers; I can get that from my friends on Facebook.
The most promising is to de-centralize, or at least appear to de-centralize, so that you can more directly compete with your challengers — like the release of American Ale. This seems to be the way to go. AOL’s Engadget competes with both the NYT tech section and sites like BoyGeniusReport and Gizmodo. Nobody is directly challenging a big player — there’s no New New York Times — the challengers are going after the weak points. The Huffington Post is a great example: Your news not liberal enough? Get it here. Not conservative enough? Try Fox.
So that’s my pick on the future — the wine model — a flavor for every palate.