Mostly True

Watch Out Honey

The editorial publishers of the world are starting to act like they're serious about placing firewalls around their online content and developing a way to distribute their product that doesn't rely on paper. Sadly, I don't think either of these things will cure their ills.

The firewall idea seems like a no-brainer.

Lock up the content and then sell it to your audience. That should work, until you stop to consider that the audience has never paid for content.

That's why publishers decided to give it away on the internet in the first place, right?

Network television, as long as you had a TV set and continued to make your electricity payments, equals free content.

Magazines and newspapers same deal. The subscription rate or cover price barely covers the costs of printing and delivery (not to mention the cut the newsstand guy made). Consumers just pay for the delivery, not the content.

In the past, publishers used content to attract readers and then rent those reader's eyeballs to those who could afford to buy advertising in their publications.

That's how it works. Content brings readers and readers bring advertising dollars.

Well, that's how it worked until Google stepped in and swiped the lion's share of advertising revenue away from the publishers. 

The exception of course, is cable television. From what I can tell, it works. Consumers buy the TV, pay for the electricity, pay for the delivery, and they pay for the content, plus there's advertising! This is why the major editorial publishers are working together to create a Hulu type of system for delivering their content. Here's today's press release.

At first glance, this seems like a great idea, even this imaginary version of Sports Illustrated looks interesting, but only at first glance.

You can see that a lot of hope and effort has been thrown into this lifeboat, but it is so far off target that I have to make some comments. Remember, this is also just a computer generated mock-up. We have no idea what they actually have. We can however, assume that this demo represents their ideal.

I'm not really interested in the technical problems, so I'm only going to mention one.

Trying to support multiple platforms is a huge mistake. You don't need to work on every delivery system, just the best. Concentrate on whatever Apple and Sony are building. Apple will win this contest, if the actually release one. If not, Sony will be the winner.

I don't need or want to see video of the football game from Sports Illustrated. I can get that from ESPN online for free. I can even see the complete game via ESPN 360. You will never complete with them by becoming TV-lite, and if you do, you haven't licensed the ability to do so. CBS just spent about a billion dollars licensing the broadcast rights to the SEC. Why would anyone let you do it for free? In fact, every game is tied up in someway, by companies that already have a recipe to capture, deliver and get paid for delivering the game(s) to their customers. ESPN/ABC has their own sports magazine. Do you think they're going to let you throw some video up? In fact, how long before they wrap the still rights into the broadcast rights and shut you out completely?

Even if you are allowed to use seven or eight seconds of video that morphs out of a still image, where are you going to get it? This is a real problem. Not only will your photographers be standing behind whomever paid for the broadcast rights, you're going to start asking them to do both stills and video now? Maybe shoot the whole game on video? Who's going to edit the stuff, let alone shoot it? It's won't happen.

Maybe license a little HDTV and clip all of your moving and still image needs from that? That could technically work, but then why would a consumer pay for stale content that they've already seen on the web/TV a dozen different ways? Because of your editing skills, maybe your brand? Please, the best editors in the world couldn't add that amount of value, and whereas Sports Illustrated may still have some value as a brand, that doesn't hold true for the rest of the Time Inc. stable.

The demo shows me how great content can look on a digital platform, but where will this content come from? I think the real problem is that all of the Time Inc. magazines seem to have forgotten who they are, and Sports Illustrated is no exception.

At one point, before cable TV and the internet, having Sports Illustrated cover a football game was a big deal. They'd produce content that you couldn't get anywhere else. They'd come into town and beat the locals, not just because it was in color, but because the pictures were better. Sure, better glass, faster motors and autofocus raised the quality of sports photography in general, but that just makes the elite images so much better. I don't see a commitment from any editors or publishers to keep reaching for that higher level, and it's the only thing that will allow them to compete. It's the only thing that they might be able to get people to purchase.

It is no longer a big deal to have Sports Illustrated or Time show up in your town. They need to recapture that prestige, but they've wasted their reputation, and soiled their brand by publishing less than great content.

At some point in the not so distant future SID's (Sports Information Directors) will realize they can just as easily hire their own sports photographers, not the grip and grin guys they've always had, but real sports shooters that have lost their newspaper jobs.

How can you compete with them? How can you compete with TV and the internet? You can't, so don't. Magazines need to remember what they do, and then do it better than anyone else.

Modern technology gave us the ability to watch Iggy and Tom having a conversation on this blog, but the delivery system is not what makes it interesting or informative (well, I find it interesting and informative). Their thoughts and ideas are what make it compelling, not the fact that it's available on Youtube.

Publishers, there is one thing (besides amazing content) that could make this digital version of Sports Illustrated successful. If you could somehow make the game playing while watching a sporting event, an interactive play-by-play gambling system. Will he pass the ball, or run a draw? Then, I think you've got something. It goes right along with the swimsuit issue too!

Hey, don't laugh. Hire some lobbyists. You think the politicians wouldn't love to tax this? Responsible gaming the whole family can enjoy, from the comfort of your own home! We've got to pay our bills somehow (unexpectedly, the good senator from Nevada sours on healthcare reform).

Manhattan Project to Produce Another Bomb

Putting together a winning team is tricky. Take the original Manhattan Project, remove two or three key players and you probably end up without a bomb. A sports team, same deal. One year you win the Super Bowl, the next you don't even make the playoffs.

Magazines work in much the same way.

To put together a great team (on the editorial side) you need...

Grunts - People with good organizational skills that know how to get things done, and make things work. They usually have some kind of love for journalism, but could just as easily be working in a bank. Grunts make up the majority of your staff.

Talent - Not in the broadcast way, but people who actually have amazing journalistic chops, whether they're editors, writers, photographers, fixers, artists or whatever. They produce the majority of the content and do the majority of work. Talents make up about 10% of your team.

Wild Cards - These are the goofy people who shouldn't be employed anywhere that doesn't serve fries. In truth, they probably don't have any marketable skills. You need the real deal.  (Be careful that you don't end up with a con artist who is just posing as a Wild Card. It happens.) Someone who will see things completely differently then everyone else on both your staff and your competitor's staff. Somebody that brings the special to your magazine. It's hard to say how many you should have. How much crazy do you need to achieve brilliance?

Whether it's a sports team or an editorial staff you need the right mix. The problem is, true Wild Cards are rare and expensive, and what they contribute to a team is hard to quantify. When money gets tight, they're the first to go. Think of a sports team that doesn't really care (or need to) win. As soon as they stumble across a true Wild Card, they get rid of them.

The Talent is the next to go, but only the older more experienced ones. The young Talent is still cheap enough to keep around, but without the Wild Cards or the experience of the older Talent, they'll probably end up ruined pretty quick. Talents need to be nurtured.

You've still got the Grunts, but let's face it, once you've stripped journalism of the fun, crazy and money, the Grunts are going to find a job somewhere else.

This is how things like this photoshop creation end up in once important magazines like TIME.

Somebody at TIME thought this was a good idea. You can read about it here.

You see, the word TIME was magic. It would knock down doors that abacadabra couldn't even budge. The catch was, that if a person didn't get some treasure out of the cave after using the word, the cave would be sealed forever. At this point, the magic word has all but lost its power in Washington D.C. (and much of the rest of the world). 

(The same is true for the word NEWSWEEK, of course.)

So the Mary Landrieu thing is a past mistake, but what about the future? How do you create something lasting and monumental when you've gotten rid of the Wild Cards and most of the Talents on your team?

How do you recapture the greatness, or the magic that you once had?

Unfortunately, you don't. At least if this report is accurate.

I've been following the progress of this new Manhattan Project... yes, the name alone gives one cause for concern, the idea is to republish the magazine content on various electronic reader type of devices, and all I can ask is why?

While I don't agree with some of the points Jesus Diaz makes in the Gizmodo piece (it's getting the right readers, not the most), I must say it's stunning to think the Powers of Time Inc. seem to think the problem with their magazines is the paper.

The sad truth is the Time Inc. give us absolutely no reason to browse their product, regardless of the platform. There's nothing there. That's why you get photoshopped little puns on Halperin's TIME blog instead of useful insight into the Healthcare debate.

The caves are sealed.

Listen, I'm not sure exactly how great TIME ever was. I don't think it was ever as great as it should have or could have been. Without exception I was always a little disappointed on Monday morning (when the mag came out). But isn't that how you become a winning team, by never being satisfied?

Winning programs don't go down the drain overnight. At some point everyone kind of realizes that going to a bowl game every year isn't a forgone conclusion. I wonder if the management realizes that they need to start recruiting again? They need some Wild Cards, and some Talent.

Time Inc. you aren't the Chicago Cubs. People aren't going to look at your magazine if you're not winning.

Does anyone remember this? If the Manhattan Project is another Pathfinder (and it sure sounds like it is) these guys are toast.

Towards Thoughtful Enterprise

Christopher Kimball, a publisher of some note, writes in the New York Times,

"To survive, those of us who believe that inexperience rarely leads to wisdom need to swim against the tide, better define our brands, prove our worth, ask to be paid for what we do, and refuse to climb aboard this ship of fools, the one where everyone has an equal voice. Google “broccoli casserole” and make the first recipe you find. I guarantee it will be disappointing. The world needs fewer opinions and more thoughtful expertise — the kind that comes from real experience, the hard-won blood-on-the-floor kind. I like my reporters, my pilots, my pundits, my doctors, my teachers and my cooking instructors to have graduated from the school of hard knocks."

Words to live by - these.