Digital Journalism Study 2010: http://bit.ly/9tpUZV (by @baekdal ).Every year, Oriella PR is doing a study among journalists on how they see the future of media, and what they focus on.
This year's study, among 770 journalists in 15 countries, is very interesting. Clearly people are starting to "get it." In change management terms, we have moved from a period of denial to a new period of acceptance.
Journalists are more optimistic, and the financial crisis is less dominant.
But, there is also a very clear trend against traditional media. 53% thinks print will be taken off the market, up from 32% last year. More people think the future is digital only (but still at 14%), and only 25% now thinks that people "will return," down from 42% last year.
However, only 44% thinks that print will shrink dramatically, down from 59%. This is quite a conflicting trend. More people think that print will be taken off the market, but fewer people think that print will shrink.
To me this indicates the split we see in the media industry. One group embrace the change; another group does not believe the change is real.
It's the Netflix vs. Blockbuster all over again. Netflix believes that DVD renting will disappear and focus on digital streaming. Blockbuster focus their efforts on their brick and mortar business, and their digital content strategy is almost nonexistent.
everyone agrees that the new media changes will result in a loss of readers and advertising income.
Social media adoption is also interesting. Social media newsrooms are up by 90%, while almost all other channels are down by 20-30%. But the traditional communication channels still dominate.
The media industry is still largely stuck in the traditional world. There is still a lot of uncertainty, and the new channels are growing but not yet dominating. The 30% still believes that new sources of revenue can come via "free access to online content for print subscribers" - good luck with that.
But the media is changing, and there is hope in the horizon.
For a more detailed summary, take a look at the video below. You can also download the full report from here.
And, let me know your interpretations in the comments.
The crap the old media people put out is simply staggering, especially from the constant barrage from people trying to save the newspapers. The latest is this version of "We need to change copyright laws to save newspapers."
In the midst of the media's frantic search for a viable business model, we often hear media executives telling us that people *want* to see ads in traditional magazines. And it's true. In traditional magazines, ads actually work.
As much as I like the views of Jeff Jarvis, I do not like his views on monetization. He basically says that content has to operated at a loss.
There was a great comment in my article "How to really stop piracy" from Paulius, who commented on another commenters suggestions that movies should only cost $1.
Admit all the changes faced by news organizations, like the lack of monopoly, real-time reporting, creating original content, and the disappearance of print, there seems to be one element that most news people still do not understand. There is no distribution market on the internet - it's a link economy.
Yesterday, I updated to iOS 4 on my iPhone (like everyone else), and downloaded iBooks. The iOS 4 is nice, pretty fast, and a welcome upgrade. But iBook was a disaster.
I have been playing around with my iPad for a few days, and I noticed the Reuters App. It is a very well-made news app, which gives you a quick look at the latest headlines. And it extends to be a kind of mini Bloomberg market and stock watch.
The iPad has arrived, and the media industry is saved. Of course, when I say it has arrived, what I really mean is that it is now available in the US. And when I say that the media industry is saved, I really mean they think they are saved.
The social web is starting to sound more and more like the dot.com days. We are in the middle of a transition. The ways we do things are radically different. What works and doesn't work seems new. And many people are getting very excited about numbers, but not the right ones.
Several blogs and media outlets reports that the NY Times will start to charge money for reading their newspaper online.
Subscribe