Too often we conflate our own objectives with that of an organisation. Recently, I've noticed this happening with audience engagement and audience first-thinking. While extremely important, it is still a means to an end, a methodology that we must try to embody. It isn't an end point. So, here is a flow chart:
Facebook wants Live Video to be the future, paying close to $50mn to celebrities and publishers to create live video and prioritizing it in their newsfeed algorithm. While Facebook may be making the most headlines right now, it’s not the only company putting the spotlight on live video. In the last year Meerkat (now pivoted), Periscope (now owned by Twitter), YouNow and most recently YouTube and tumblr launched live streaming.
So, why is Facebook prioritizing streaming video? Because it “is looking to compete for television advertising... [and] is anxious about the future. People are sharing less about themselves, which slows Facebook’s growth and cuts at the heart of its most profitable product, the News Feed…[this] is one attempt to solve that problem.”
Live streaming may very well be a Facebook driven play for revenue and relevance, and not necessarily a question of demand. For instance, this recent Reuters study reports that over 3/4ths of people rely on text for their news, finding it faster and more convenient than video. What’s more, these findings apply to video at large -- not just live video; a majority of people prefer text to any type of video when getting their news.
Here, we look at different video formats:
An imperfect comparison, but there are certainly some similarities. Not to mention the same problems -- developing new audiences, convincing those audiences to give them money, running on tight margins, creating sustainable businesses.
We could probably work together more.
My desk at the FT faces a number of historical front pages chosen to document major world events. Interestingly, these pages reveal more than just the news of that day. There is a trend that emerges when you look at them chronologically: the increasing use of bylines over time.
Zvi Reich looked into how and why bylines developed in his 2010 article "Constrained authors: Bylines and authorship in news reporting." According to Reich's research, the development of regular bylining was a four stage process that extended throughout the 20th century. The stages:
Reich wrote that universal bylining gave the reporters more power and enabled journalists' "ascent to stardom." This, in turn, gave journalists more power. Indeed, when news is widely available -- as it has increasingly become since the internet -- the journalists and their unique way of telling a story and interpreting an event become an important factor in driving consistent readership.
Interestingly, this power of a byline is likely to become even more true. We now have algorithms and bots which can write a news story. The incorporation of these systems into reporting makes differentiating between the human and the bot more important. Similarly, third party platforms like Twitter and Facebook enable more direct contact with audiences and also help with discovery and the power that journalists --- through their names -- espouse.
This power can be seen in journalists' use of their own names as leverage to develop a new, separate media outlets from where the personality gained his or her following. For instance, consider Ezra Klein and Vox, Nate Silver and 538, Kara Swisher & Walt Mossberg and Re/Code, etc.
This trend, however, is not consistent across the board. Editorials and homepages offer counterpoints.
Editorials -- the publisher's view or take on the news of the day -- are typically unsigned. Yet even here we find the lack of byline is less true than it once was. Most recently, the New York Times has published signed editorials. Here, the Public Editor cites Andrew Rosenthal about the choice:
It seemed to make sense to try signed editorials when they are not really a declaration of policy, but more of an essay, especially on subjects we have covered a great deal... signed ones won’t take positions that contradict those of the editorial board. But we also want to keep looking and moving forward.
This hearkens back to the first stage -- authoritative voice -- but is slowly changing and may follow a different trajectory.
Secondly, this same bylining trend is only partially true online. In the case of the NYT Reich states that "there were substantially more bylines on the front page than on the inner pages." Yet, on the homepage we only see brand journalists and authors -- more similar to the third stage -- but without stage one or two coming first. With the homepage becoming less important, and article pages more important, it will be interesting to see how this changes.
Screenshot taken May 26, 2016 at 2pm mountain time.
According to Digiday, “Publishers' on-again, off-again relationship with apps is back on.” In the past several weeks alone we’ve seen launches from Quartz, the London Times and Refinery29. If we look further back to Q4 2016, we can include the WSJ city app in this list as well (worth noting also that the WSJ has plans for two more launches in 2016).
Despite these new apps coming to market, the expanding ecosystem with which to get content to users (social media, chat apps, push notification apps like Facebook’s Notify, etc) brings up the question: do apps still matter? If so, for how long?
The greatest challenge is just getting people to download an app, even if the promise of a good experience is great. The Strategy of this latest latest bunch seems to be targeting audience segments or experiences, an idea that often works on social (Digiday). Could this be the solution?