One of the most fascinating things about being a media analyst is that every media company is different. Your market is different, your potential is different, your optimal purpose is different (and most people also don't know what that is), your value is different and your ability to convert that value into something people need is different.
This is most noticeable for me when I'm writing a strategic review for a client. I have yet to write one that mirrors the same overall strategy.
Obviously, there are some elements that are common to all, simply because of 'the shift'. Everyone has the same problem with a business model and a culture that is based on the limitations of print distribution. The shift from being able to publish anytime you want, compared to being forced to only publish once per day, requires a different editorial plan.
Similarly, everyone is struggling to separate their business models from the limitations of print. Traditional publishers still insist on building monthly or weekly issues, a concept that doesn't even cross the minds of digital natives.
There's also the problem that anyone is now a journalist. We see this clearly during events like Ferguson, where most of our information is actually coming from thousands of people posting their own views for anyone to see.
The media has so far tried to capitalize on this by embedding many of these tweets into their articles. And that's kind of useful, but you also quickly realize that you don't have to be an educated journalist working for a newspaper to do that. Anyone can curate a bunch a tweets into an article.
In fact, go to Flipboard and search for 'Ferguson', and you will find thousands of user-made magazines with links to content from around the web about just that one topic.
So, when it comes to all these transitional changes, most media companies share the same problems. But when you look at the future, you see all these wonderful individual paths. The problems of the past might be the same, but the opportunities for the futures are unique for each media company.
I have noticed a very disturbing trend over the past couple of years, which today has reached a point where I would define it as directly damaging for those trying to define the future strategy for news.
I call it the Silicon Valley Syndrome. And just like the Stockholm syndrome, it confused people into thinking that just one model is their only path forward. Even though the model hasn't yet been proved, everyone seems to be excited about it.
This Baekdal/Executive article can only accessed bysubscribing to Baekdal/Executive (which also gives you full access to our full archieve of executive reports)
Baekdal is a magazine for media professionals, focusing on media analysis, trends, patterns, strategy, journalistic focus, and newsroom optimization. Since 2010, it has helped publishers in more than 40 countries, including big and small publishers like Condé Nast, Bonnier, Schibsted, NRC, and others, as well as companies like Google and Microsoft.
Baekdal comes in three tiers:
Free weekly newsletters for media professionals, focusing on news, trends, and quick insights.
Weekly media insights and analysis for journalists, editors, and business managers, helping you focus and optimize your newsroom and audience engagement.
In-depth media reports for editors-in-chief, executives, and other decision makers, helping you understand the future of media, trends, patterns, monetization, data, and strategies.
Founder, media analyst, author, and publisher. Follow on Twitter
"Thomas Baekdal is one of Scandinavia's most sought-after experts in the digitization of media companies. He has made himself known for his analysis of how digitization has changed the way we consume media."
Swedish business magazine, Resumé