Will the Web Have A Past?

Stone Tablet

Photo by Jennifer Dickert

Though Wired has declared it dead, I think the Web has a future. I’m not so sure it will have a past.

A while back, I spent a few idle hours trying to explore the archives of Jeff Jarvis’s BuzzMachine blog, in search of some legendary Dell Hell and early insights from the master. As you pass backward through the abysm of time, all’s well until July 2005, when the monthly navigational links give out, and you have to keep pressing “older” over and over. (I know, Jeff, we’re all aging, but do you have to remind us so remorselessly?) And then you bang up against the immovable doors of July 1, 2005, and there’s no going further.

Unless you happen to have the key that opens them.

But then, as you dig downward in time, things start to get pretty ugly. The surprisingly bad design has a charm of sorts, but the spam links at the end of every paragraph do not. And when you get to the very bottom, there’s no design at all—just raw code.

When he switched to WordPress in July 2005, Jarvis promised he would preserve his site’s past:

“I plan to leave the old Buzzmachine (ugly design, extra colons, and all) in place just as it is, though I’ll cut off the ability to post comments there in a few days. From June 2005 back to the beginning, the old site and its permalinks will stay intact.”

True to his word so far, the BuzzMachine past is still there—but it’s fading.  Would anyone be surprised if one day it just quietly disappeared?

Last month there was a flurry of declarations from the likes of Paul Carr and Leo Laporte that microblogging on the ephemeral canvases of Twitter and Buzz was robbing them of their pasts. As Laporte put it, and Carr quoted sympathetically,

“I should have been posting [on his blog] all along. Had I been doing so I’d have something to show for it. A record of my life for the last few years at the very least. But I ignored my blog and ran off with the sexy, shiny microblogs.”

Both have resolved to go back to their blogs, with the expectation that all will be preserved for posterity. But can even blogs reliably preserve the past? It all depends on the owners, and while they may remain steadfast until death, what happens then?

And all this assumes that someone who cares is in charge of your history, and not some corporate entity with no interest in remembering its past. I once worked for such a corporation, and to my dismay, though for no doubt perfectly valid reasons, it recently zapped the pioneering Web site I cofounded and spent years building.

Now, my patient and clever reader, I know you’ve been restlessly bouncing up and down on your chair for the last few minutes, interjecting, “What about the Internet Archive?”

You are correct. It is an extraordinary resource we should all be grateful for. You can find there clean, well-lighted versions of BuzzMachine and my late lamented site. But the Web is still a teenager, and this is a slender reed on which to rest the coming century of Web content. Can we count on the Internet Archive to grow and prosper, and keep our pasts intact? I hope so, but I lack some, if not all, conviction.

Perhaps this is why, as Dwight Silverman noted on Laporte’s This Week in Tech a few weeks ago, the digerati love to see their names in print:

“What’s funny is digital people who are really into using the Web and apps to get their news, when their name appears in the newspaper, they go crazy!  So print still carries some power.”

As fellow panelist Robert Scoble added, it’s the permanence of print that gives it such power:

“It’s still fun to have a newspaper with your name in it and keep that for your family. It’s something permanent. In fact, when I was [quoted] in The Economist, I had it framed up here.”

This heartfelt appreciation for the durability of print on paper is ironic in the context of the history of media formats. As Tim Carmody wrote last month in The Atlantic in an article on “10 Reading Revolutions Before E-Books,” paper has not always seemed so permanent.

“Communications legend Harold Innis suggested that the history of culture itself was characterized by a balance between media that persisted in time—think stone inscriptions and heavy parchment books—and those offering the greatest portability across space, like paper, radio, and television. Not only does this offer a grand scheme to think about media, it also suggested (for Innis at least) that modernity, for good or ill, had tipped the balance toward the ephemeral-but-portable.”

But in the aftermath of the Web, it seems, paper has become the new stone.

Let’s face it, the Internet is all about currency, not permanency; about now, not then.

Maybe that’s one reason why Jarvis is hard at work on his second book. And I don’t know about you, but personally, I have my chisel in hand, and am off to find a nice slab of granite for next week’s post.

Managing Your Career in the Social Media Era: Sources

As part of a webinar for B2B editors on September 23, 2010, I’m speaking on “Managing Your Career in the Social Media Era.” (The webinar, “Enhancing Your Career in the B2B Press,” is sponsored by the American Society of Business Press Editors.)

Since the webinar format isn’t particularly conducive to embedded links, I’ve listed here the main sources cited in my talk. I’ve included key quotes from most of the sources below in the hopes that even if you haven’t heard my presentation, you’ll be interested in exploring the originals on your own.

Future of news: Insider Dave Morgan touts new media

“Tomorrow’s companies will build empires based on the value that they deliver to their users and advertisers every day, not on their ability to finance and manage scarce bandwidth or expensive printing presses or exclusive distribution networks.”

“No longer is the media world one of a publishers-top editor-section editor-subeditor-journalist hierarchy. Today, audiences are in charge and they want direct access to, and interaction with, journalists.”

What Would Google Do?, by Jeff Jarvis

“Even if the Wall Street Journal reports a scoop behind its paywall, once that information comes out—quoted, linked, blogged, aggregated, remixed, and e-mailed all over—it’s no longer exclusive and rare.”

Gary Hamel: Hierarchy of Employee Traits for the Creative Economy

In discussing the employee traits valued by old media and new media respectively, I invoke Hamel’s “commodity” traits of obedience, diligence, and intellect and his “creative economy” traits of initiative, creativity, and passion.

The Answer Factory: Demand Media and the Fast, Disposable, and Profitable as Hell Media Model

“‘You can take something that is thought of as a creative process and turn it into a manufacturing process.’”

Can Robots Run the News?

“To the chagrin of sports reporters everywhere, a team from Northwestern University’s engineering and journalism schools has created a program that automatically generates sports news stories. Stats Monkey uses the box score and play-by-play—even quotes, if they’re available online—to compile articles that follow one of the system’s pre-defined narrative arcs.”

Paul Conley: The seasons, they go round and round

“My working life is now completely consumed by content marketing. As recently as December, most of my income derived from traditional publishers practicing traditional B2B journalism (although mostly on the Web, rather than print.) That is no longer true.”

Crush It!, by Gary Vaynerchuk.

“Everyone—EVERYONE—needs to start thinking of themselves as a brand. It is no longer an option; it is a necessity.” “Your latest tweet and comment on Facebook and most recent blog post? That’s your résumé now.”

Joe Pulizzi’s Blog: Seven Ways to Position Yourself for Unlimited Work

“I don’t hire anyone that doesn’t blog.”

A Brief Guide to World Domination, by Chris Guillebeau (PDF here)

I cited Guillebeau’s personal manifesto as an example of one kind of e-book B2B editors could aspire to.

Book Notes: An Interview with Seth Godin.  (On the publication of Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?.)

“Cogs see a job, linchpins see a platform. Every interaction, every assignment is a chance to make a change, a chance to delight or surprise or to touch someone.”

Start-Up Briefing Media Ltd. Blends Old with New

Rory Brown: No more holidays.

Rory Brown

It’s almost a new-media axiom that traditional publishers can’t move forward effectively online because they have too much skin in the old-media game. While these B2B publishers have a highly evolved understanding of their markets, their inability to sacrifice the “cash cow in the coal mine” keeps them mired in the past.

Logically, then, the most exciting and successful advances in B2B media should come from those with an understanding of B2B markets but without the old-media burdens. This makes UK-based Briefing Media Ltd., the new start-up recently announced by Rory Brown and Neil Thackray, worth watching.  Both bring years of B2B publishing experience to the task, but without what Brown calls “the legacy issues that many traditional publishers face.” They expect to unveil the first in a series of niche B2B sites later this month.

Neil Thackray

Neil Thackray

A hallmark of Briefing Media’s approach appears to be a blending of old and new, the tried-and-true with the innovative. Thackray describes its method as combining “the latest technology and good old-fashioned market knowledge” to create a mix of aggregated, curated, and original content, organized by semantic algorithms and overseen by an editor.

As one who has worried about the inadequacies of algorithms alone, I’m heartened that Brown and Thackray will be pairing theirs with expert editors. (The first of those editors will be Patrick Smith, aka Psmith, Journalist.) Similarly, I think they’re wise to match their curated third-party content with original work.

I asked Brown by e-mail whether he could answer a few questions about Briefing Media’s strategy.  He was kind enough to supply the following details:

Why do you feel it would be so much harder for legacy publishers to succeed at what you and Neil are undertaking?

This is the classic “I wouldn’t start from here” problem. Traditional publishers generally have a wide range of revenue streams, business models, technology platforms and staff that were established in a very different era of media. They know the world has changed but it is often a difficult and time-consuming process to adjust. New entrants don’t have to deal with most of this legacy.

Neil’s description of this venture suggests that you’re looking to develop multiple and diverse revenue streams. Is that a significant part of the strategy? Do you expect either advertising or subscriptions to play a role? Will one particular source of revenue dominate either initially or long term?

I remember someone saying recently in relation to a future for newspapers that “no one thing will work but lots of things might”. I think this sums up an approach that all media companies need to employ. Initially our sites will concentrate on selling sponsorship, delegate-led events, and high-end research. However, as the business progresses there will be a greater emphasis on subscription content, advertising and lead generation, training, reports, and consultancy. Over time one of those revenue streams might rise to be dominant, but during my whole career in B2B media the most successful brands I have worked on have made money in many diverse ways—whatever the customer needs.

How are you financing this venture?

Neil and myself are the sole investors. Our whole philosophy is to run things as tightly as possible as we establish the business.

What kind of milestones will you use to gauge your progress?

The main metric we will be monitoring in the initial phase is the level of customer registration on our sites. We plan to offer a lot of value for free but will exchange value-add services for customer demographics.

As I understand it, the content for each vertical site will be a blend of curated and original content. Do you have a particular strategy for how the original content will stand out from or enhance the third-party content?

This is an important balance that we have to get right for each site. Hundreds of hours of work goes into building our content sets to ensure that the very best information is sorted and categorized.

Over this base we train our semantic algorithms to provide relevant context and linkages between those pieces of content.

Alongside that base layer we want each of our sites to have a clear voice. A key part of the editor’s role is to find and commission a combination of regular columnists and thought leaders from that industry to write for us. Often these columnists are not journalists but people who work in senior strategic positions within the industries we serve. The expert columns and in-depth, bespoke research reports are a major point of differentiation for us from other trade media.

Each vertical will have one dedicated analyst who “updates and improves the taxonomy and content.” Will that person typically create content as well, or just curate and commission it?

These positions are key hires in each vertical. We look for analysts with deep connections and an in-depth understanding of the major issues faced in their markets. We want people who are also not scared to express a strong opinion or rant occasionally.

Is there any particular model for contributor payment (i.e., are you looking for free content as so many B2B books have done, paying typical freelancer rates, or doing a Demand Media content-marketplace kind of approach)?

This depends on the nature of the content commissioned and the people who are undertaking those tasks. For high-end research we would generally pay for specialist expertise. When we solicit columns from people who are employed in another capacity, then these contributions are not paid for—although those people will join our “faculty” of experts, and we plan to offer a variety of exclusive site benefits as time progresses.

Neil’s description of the triangular semantic technology you’ll use is a bit mysterious, perhaps deliberately so. Is a hypothetical example of how it works possible?

You will probably be familiar with a variety of semantic analysis systems which tag content and provide metadata to add context. We have looked at a few of these in isolation and been generally unimpressed by their results over time. The secret sauce we are using is to have multiple semantic engines configured together and trained over time by industry experts. This provides much greater accuracy of results and makes the system impossible to replicate.

Neil’s analogy of triangulation is taken from his passion for sailing. If you are lost at sea and can see one lighthouse from your boat you know you are somewhere along a line. Two gives you a range of possible intersection points. It is only when you have three or more that you can glean a precise location.

I’m guessing the technology is not homegrown but outsourced. If you do use a provider, can you disclose who it is?

Not at this moment.

Is there a significant element of personalization or social input in the technology?

At the moment no, but as we tag content and build user demographics, the system provides a lot of possibilities for personalization. We can see many future ways of expanding the product offerings over time.

How did you and Neil get together on this venture? Did you meet him initially via work, industry associations, social media?

The business media industry is a fairly small world. I had known of Neil and his various previous companies for many years before we met. We are also both relatively “visible” with blogs about the business media sector and affiliations with trade associations.

In my last year at Incisive Media we both attended an Outsell Leadership Forum and it was clear that we shared a lot of similar views about both the challenges business media would face over the coming years and the opportunities that might provide. Then, when I left Incisive and Neil sold the remaining parts of Nexus Business Media our paths kept crossing as we independently tried to buy our own media assets. We both compared notes about some of the deals we were trying to do and agreed to set up a side project to look at launch ideas. From that Briefing Media Ltd. was born.

Another Nail in the RSS Coffin

The default Paper.li view

The default Paper.li view (click to enlarge)

When I first saw the details on the Flipboard iPad app (via Rexblog, I believe), I figured my days of using NetNewsWire on a daily basis were numbered. By creating a newspaper out of the Twitter users you follow, Flipboard offers an incredibly convenient way of reading what they recommend. But since I’ve been holding out for gen 2 of the iPad, the death of my RSS habit was strictly theoretical.

Now that I’ve seen Paper.li, a new Web-based product similar to Flipboard, I think I can hear the nail being firmly hammered into NNW’s coffin. (Yes, I know that the underlying technology of RSS is alive and well; I’m just talking about my use of an RSS reader.)

By drawing its content from a Twitter feed, Paper.li applies a personally meaningful filter to my reading. Rather than subscribing to unmoderated streams of content from sites that only sometimes have articles that interest me, I can now directly read what the Twitter users I follow write or recommend.

The site does a reasonably good job of categorizing the Twittered recommendations into content-based buckets (technology, education, arts & entertainment, business) and types of media (video, stories). It also picks up hashtags like #prodmgmt, adding an invitation to read a paper based on that tag. Since hashtags are, for me, hit or miss, I’m not too impressed—but that could change.

The Paper.li list view

The Paper.li list view (click to enlarge)

Wisely, the site also allows you to view all your articles in a list format, which looks less interesting but offers quicker access to linked content. I have a feeling I’ll tend to favor this view over the default one.

You don’t even need a Twitter account to use Paper.li. You can enter the user name of your favorite Twitterer, like Jeff Jarvis or Mark Schaeffer, to see a newspaper based on their feeds.

The site is supported by Google display ads, which to my eye fit in fairly well with the content. In theory, the ads should be related to content, but my particular Twitterfeed seems to be too ill-defined to produce ads I might actually click on (although I wonder if it is just coincidence that the EasyCloset ad showed up a day after I visited the site).

Since this is my first look at Paper.li (I only learned of it today as I listened to Net@Night while treadmilling), it may turn out to be one of those flash-in-the-pan nice ideas that I quickly abandon. But for the moment, it looks like the real thing.