Comments on: Note to media: Serve your users, not your platform

By: Greg Ivanov

Greg Ivanov — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:04 +0000

Mathew, I think that’s a great example. I’ve always thought that a sense of completion, a product that’s finite, is a hugely importnat psychological effect when it comes to media consumption. I actually believe that’s *part* of the reason why people pay for content online – it’s kind of a pre-commitment that says ‘I’ve chosen what I want to read, and since I’ve paid for it I’ll actually make sure I read it’. It might sound funny, but I genuinely think people are/will be prepared to pay for content online as a proxy for some sort of peace of mind. Print, I think, always worked along the same lines: http://mediarender.tumblr.com/post/7775952313/the-next-print-disruption.

And yet, there is still a long way to go to even fully embracing the psychological aspect of media consumption online, beyond, as you say, business models and platforms.

By: fgoodwin

fgoodwin — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:22:29 +0000

Yes it’s an interesting experiment but no different than every other aggregator in its essence: it depends on other legitimate news reporting operations.

It gathers a half dozen or so of the “most important” news stories of the day. In other words, it doesn’t write them. Which means it wouldn’t exist but for the existence of news articles that it can curate and summarize. Yes, NYT or WSJ could write a similar webpage, curating their own articles.

I’m not sure how that would help stem revenue & readership losses but at least they’d be tipping their hat to the “new media” who can’t seem to do any wrong, at least in the eyes of the other new media . . .

By: Ron Wodaski

Ron Wodaski — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:40:10 +0000

The problem here is that no one can distill anything for me that will fit my needs. I will always wonder what else was going on. What I would like is a tool that would let me do my own distillation – maybe learn from my reading habits (without a whole bunch of ratings; just watch how much time I spend on stuff). But I’m an old long-form foggie anyway; not sure I represent much of an audience with respect to numbers. In the end, I want to things: to be surprised by the unexpected, and to have access to enough information about whatever it is to actually learn something.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:04:00 +0000

The idea isn’t for newspapers to only publish six stories a day — it’s to think of smart ways to curate and filter what is produced for time-pressed readers. And we are always trying to think of ways to do that.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:02:49 +0000

That’s also a fair approach, Dan — I wasn’t saying this was the answer to everyone’s needs, simply that it was an interesting experiment. Thanks for the comment.

By: Diar

Diar — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:56:59 +0000

Gotcha. You can probably guess I’m a traditional print reporter (staying anonymous as to avoid speaking for my publication). I agree a different approach is needed, and many have been tried by us over the years, most with minimal success, but the ready-made solutions websites regularly offer for our woes wouldn’t do the trick either because the mandates are different. And many of the online properties that are taking a stab at covering communities in some of the manners you suggest are falling flat on their faces. They can publish fewer stories and less wordy snippets quick, sure, but then to get the full story out they’re doing 20 more bite-sized follow-ups (as to offer the appearance of your minimalist approach). It’s funny to watch a story with six, seven “updates” at the bottom of it. That said, I’d read Evening Edition if it had an RSS feed.

By: Diar

Diar — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:47:29 +0000

Better yet, try publishing just six stories an evening on GigaOm….then watch your readership numbers. And as a niche publication your mandate is a lot less narrow than a newspaper’s and you still won’t be able to do it. If this is a good lesson for newspapers why isn’t it one for your website?

By: Dan Holden

Dan Holden — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:46:47 +0000

You hooked me with your first paragraph and then dropped me when i realized this was just another news aggregation pitch. Even worse, it’s just five stories that trip the interest of one person. If you’re going to “give the reader something that serves their needs” beyond just being available at 5pm, why not study the user’s social graph and give them information that fits their individual profiles and interests?

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:46:29 +0000

That’s a fair point, Diar — and I’m not suggesting newspapers have to copy the format exactly. Although why couldn’t they provide similar roundups for different topics? In any case, my point was just to think about what that kind of format or offering provides for readers, and then figure out how to make use of it — not to suggest that it’s a solution for all of the newspaper industry’s problems. Thanks for the comment though.

By: gregory

gregory — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:46:03 +0000

this is why the only news any of us really need (outside our own domains of expertise) is the weekly roundup from The Economist.