A quick note. Google appears to be expanding its computer programs that do the work that journalists do.
These programs are called digital journalism tools, and the keywords here are digital and tool.
And once again, journalists and journalism organizations are helping Google take away their jobs.
Why do I suspect this - Google is offering journalists and journalism students a 10-week fellowship for $7,500 and $1,000 in travel funds. The price someone is willing to pay journalists for their labor is a key economic signal - it tells the journalists exactly how much they are worth to the company that is paying them.
That means at this moment Google and the foundations are willing to pay journalists about $8,500 for 10 weeks of work.
Google only makes $0.02 a search, so the journalism foundations listed in Google's press release are subsidizing the fellowships. (I'm not linking because the last thing I want to do is help Google).
The subsidy might be needed because at $0.02 a search, each journalist has to generate 425,000 searches before the work they do is worth any money.
The small amount of revenue generated by each search is the reason that Google must develop computer programs that are more efficient and capable than any human journalists can be. The programs at Google must compete with computer programs at other new media companies that are also learning to do the same jobs that journalists do.
What are these companies competing for? To drive traffic to websites where digital advertising tools are used to sell and deliver advertising. The keywords here are digital and advertising.
I wonder if the foundations financing this venture have offered to do it again next summer. Google will has every reason to keep working with the foundations so long as the fellowships help Google refine its digital journalism tools, making the tools better and better and faster and faster at doing jobs that used to be done by people.
Meanwhile, journalists at all the newspapers that recently abandoned their print editions are about to find themselves competing against computers that drive traffic to websites and sell advertising. And when people compete against machines, machines always win.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Newspapers will put themselves out of business if they take advice from commentators who are telling them to become “more like” new media
Subheads in this post:
1. Each newspaper should charge its readers because prices are a critical economic signal that newspapers need to survive
2. Why new media companies have not reached the point when they can began charging for access to their products
3.New media companies have a business model designed to automate journalism jobs
I started this series of posts because newspapers are finally starting to charge online readers for access to news and advertising.
So executives watch how prices change to figure out if they should hire journalists to produce news stories. If prices are going up, that’s a signal to produce more news stories and hire more journalists. If prices are going down, that’s a signal to stop producing news stories and stop hiring journalists.
At that point, the competition might look like something
like this:
1. Each newspaper should charge its readers because prices are a critical economic signal that newspapers need to survive
2. Why new media companies have not reached the point when they can began charging for access to their products
3.New media companies have a business model designed to automate journalism jobs
I started this series of posts because newspapers are finally starting to charge online readers for access to news and advertising.
Each newspaper should charge its readers because prices are a
critical economic signal that newspapers need to survive
The prices that readers pay tell each newspaper how much readers value that particular newspaper’s news and advertising. There is no other way that newspapers can figure this out.
The prices that readers pay tell each newspaper how much readers value that particular newspaper’s news and advertising. There is no other way that newspapers can figure this out.
Each newspaper must know before it creates a news story if
there will be enough revenue to cover the costs of producing that story. If the newspaper does not know how much
revenue the story will generate, it also does not know if it can pay the journalist who creates the story.
So executives watch how prices change to figure out if they should hire journalists to produce news stories. If prices are going up, that’s a signal to produce more news stories and hire more journalists. If prices are going down, that’s a signal to stop producing news stories and stop hiring journalists.
If the newspaper doesn’t charge readers anything at all, the
executives don’t have any way to tell how many journalists they should hire to
produce news stories. (It’s actually more complicated, but this is the basic
idea).
Of course, we are far past the point of fine adjustments in
the number of journalists a newspaper hires. Newspaper executives have been forced to lay off thousands of journalists
and other employees because they are being devastated by competition from new media
companies.
The fact that newspapers were not charging for online access
probably made the problem worse.
Executives had no way to tell how many journalists they would need tomorrow to
produce the news. All they knew was that prices for advertising – a
distant second best for detecting the value of a news story – kept going down.
So charging readers is a critical tool for executives
who are trying to make their business model work and keep their newspapers
alive. Those executives need every tool they can find because the competition
is so lopsided.
The newspaper executives are competing with new media
executives. As I explained in my
last post, the new media business model is completely different from the older media business model.
Why new media companies have not reached the point when they can began charging for access to their products
If new media companies charge for access they will hide the signals that they are looking for. The signals new media companies are finding are patterns in the jobs that journalists do each day.
If new media companies charge for access they will hide the signals that they are looking for. The signals new media companies are finding are patterns in the jobs that journalists do each day.
New media companies give all journalists free access because they are trying to record everything that all journalists do all day long. Once the new media company has recorded enough actions by enough journalists, it uses computers to find patterns in the jobs journalists do. Patterns are required so the company can automate journalism jobs.
New media companies have a business model designed to automate journalism jobs
Once a job is automated,
it becomes almost impossible for people to compete. A high speed computer can almost always do
the job faster, cheaper and better no matter how hard the person tries.
Here are some jobs done by people who work at newspapers that new media have
already automated – advertising salesperson,
advertising creator, advertising marketing researcher.
Many journalism jobs have also been automated. One example
is the police reporter’s job. The job
has 5 big steps:
1. go to police station. 2 find all police reports. 3. sort
through all police reports to see where and when different kinds of crimes were
committed. 4. go back to paper. 5. write story that tells readers about
a handful of crimes that happened in a handful of neighborhoods.
Automation eliminates two steps – 1. go to police
station, and 4. go back to paper.
Automation is faster and better at the remaining steps. Automation can tell readers about every crime that
happened in every neighborhood. All readers have to do is ask. Then the computer goes to work:
3. sort through all police reports to find the crimes committed in the neighborhood the reader asked about. 5. write a story that tells the reader exactly what they want to know.
You can try it yourself. Here is just one example of a computer hard
at work, doing its job as a police reporter.
Newspapers are competing for their economic life. Commentators who tell newspapers that they should
learn to be “more like” new media are
talking through their hats.
If newspapers become more like new media that will ensure that
new media win the competition. That
will also ensure there are even fewer jobs for the people that newspapers
employ.
When two products are similar, consumers usually select the
one that costs less. Consumers always select that one that costs less if it
is actually a better product. And the
best way to make a better product that costs less is to use automation.
So if newspapers want to become more like new media they
will also have to become experts at automation. Newspapers will have to learn to automate all of the jobs that they
currently hire people to do.
The best computer programmers in the world vs.
journalists trying to learn how to program computers
Who do you think will win?
Monday, December 10, 2012
Why new media can’t replace all the news and information created by old media
My last post mentioned that new media companies would
collapse if they had to produce original news and other information. This point
is often lost in the debate about newspapers and other pre-internet media companies
charging for access to news and information.
*print and digital
Based on company financial reports for 2011-12. Google searches from statisticsbrain.com.
If the new media companies were the same size as Belo, Google would have just $14,562 in annual revenue. Facebook’s annual revenue would be about $3 million.
So the much higher average revenue at the newspaper company appears to be an advantage. But this is misleading.
No.
Second, companies only hire workers who can help increase profits. So new media companies would only produce original information if those employees matched the productivity of computer programmers and technicians.
But even if the new media companies wanted to produce the information they require, they could not afford it. They could not even come close.
Older media companies should and do use many of the
cost-saving tools and techniques developed by new media companies. But this is
not a two-way street. New media companies cannot afford to begin producing
original news, advertising and other information.
All companies use the same business model: Revenue – Cost
= Profit. Another version of the model is
useful for understanding the differences between older and new media companies:
Average Revenue – Average Cost =
Average Profit
Google and Facebook are new media companies, and A.H. Belo
is an older media company. All three
companies are in the advertising and information business, but in very
different ways.
Google primarily produces free search results for internet
users around the globe. Google generates most of its revenue selling
advertising. Facebook offers free membership in a social media website for
internet users around the globe. Facebook generates revenue selling advertising
and virtual and digital products. Belo’s primary business publishes 4 daily newspapers
in U.S. metropolitan markets. Belo generates most of its revenue selling
subscriptions and advertising.
Each company illustrates the business model for the industry
where it operates.
|
|
Google
|
Facebook
|
A.H. Belo
|
Total
production
|
|
1,722,071,000,000
|
845,000,000
|
686,468
|
Unit
|
|
(searches)
|
(members)
|
(circulation)*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
revenue
|
|
$36,531,000,000
|
$3,711,000,000
|
$422,513,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue/unit
|
|
$0.02
|
$4.39
|
$615.49
|
Based on company financial reports for 2011-12. Google searches from statisticsbrain.com.
Total revenue and production at the new media companies
overshadow the newspaper company. But the
averages show the new media companies need very large production to generate their
billions in revenue.
If the new media companies were the same size as Belo, Google would have just $14,562 in annual revenue. Facebook’s annual revenue would be about $3 million.
So the much higher average revenue at the newspaper company appears to be an advantage. But this is misleading.
Low average revenue at the new media companies means they
must also keep production costs low. New media companies solve this problem with
automation. They are experts at using computers and high speed internet
connections to produce and deliver search results and social media pages. Employees
create or maintain the automatic processes (computer programs and hardware)
that do most of the work.
The production and delivery of original news and information
is much less amenable to automation. Each news story must be created by
employees who gather and format original information. Employees must work
continuously to create a steady stream of news. Production and delivery of printed
copies of a newspaper is also labor intensive.
|
|
Google
|
Facebook
|
A.H. Belo
|
Employees
|
|
32,467
|
3,539
|
2,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
revenue
|
|
$36,531,000,000
|
$3,711,000,000
|
$422,513,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue/employee
|
|
$1,125,173
|
$1,048,601
|
$201,196
|
The second table shows the advantages of automation. Revenue
per employee at the new media companies is more than four times larger than the
newspaper company.
Doesn’t higher productivity mean new media companies can hire employees to produce original news and information if the companies that produce information go out of business?
No.
First, these figures don’t account for the costs of
automation. New media companies have enormous
banks of computers scattered around the globe so they can deliver search
results and web pages in the blink of an eye.
Second, companies only hire workers who can help increase profits. So new media companies would only produce original information if those employees matched the productivity of computer programmers and technicians.
But employees who produce original news and information have
much lower productivity than employees who create or maintain automated
production processes. The last table shows what would happen if productivity at
the new media companies was as low as productivity at the newspaper company.
|
|
Google
|
Facebook
|
A.H. Belo
|
Production
per employee
|
|
53,040,657
|
238,768
|
327
|
unit
|
|
(searches)
|
(members)
|
(circulation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees
needed if each produces 327 units
|
|
5,266,272,171
|
2,584,098
|
2,100
|
If new media companies had the same productivity as the newspaper,
the search engine would need more than 5 billion employees and the social media
site would need more than 2.5 million employees. Obviously, the new media
companies cannot afford to produce all of the news and information that they
need to be successful.
New media companies are well aware of their dependence on free
access to an enormous variety of information. That is why they support free
expression and work to maintain free access to information created or
posted on the web sites that they own or index.
But even if the new media companies wanted to produce the information they require, they could not afford it. They could not even come close.
It would be helpful if more participants in the older vs.
new media debate understood the actual business models. Perhaps they could move
beyond the current unproductive discussion.
Perhaps they could focus on the best ways to ensure consumers have
continued access to the useful products that all of these firms provide.
(Employee totals at Google and
Belo include some who work in secondary businesses at these firms.)Friday, December 7, 2012
Newspaper paywalls are a rational response to competition - what took so long?
Sometimes it takes a long time, but in the end rationality will
have its say. This appears to be the
case for some prominent members of the newspaper industry, which has struggled
to adapt to competition from the internet.
The steady stream of reports that more and more newspaper companies
like the New York Times, Gannett, and E.W. Scripps are beginning to charge some
customers to access news and advertising shows the executives making these
decisions are starting to figure out the economics of the internet.
The tactics may not work for every newspaper. When the tactics do work, newspapers are unlikely
to ever regain dominance in their respective markets. But that is not the
point. The markets where newspapers operate changed and became
more competitive, and newspapers have to figure out how to compete.
Papers are starting to divide readers into groups based on
each group’s willingness to pay for access to news. Some readers only read a few
articles from time to time, so they are unlikely to pay anything for access. Newspapers can satisfy these readers by
giving everyone free access to a limited number of articles – 10 or 15 seems to be
a common number – each month.
But other people want access more often and will pay if they have no other choice. Some people want to regularly read specific kinds of news and advertising, or perhaps
they will pay for the convenience of access in multiple delivery
channels – print, the internet, mobile devices. Each group will be willing to pay a
different amount depending on the strength and characteristics of their demand. This means newspapers can charge each of
these groups different amounts for access to news. The different prices for
various combinations of apps, mobile access, web access and print show that newspapers are starting
to do just that.
Economists call this price discrimination, and I understand
why that’s not a great way to market one of these new pricing plans. But the industry has come up with an even
worse way to describe them – paywalls.
The industry’s inelegant term does, however, remind us that
part of making price discrimination work requires that newspapers first stop
allowing everyone to access all of their content for free. Scholars such as Steve Wildman,
Danel H.
Simon & Vrinday Kadiyali and Florian
Stahl(et al), have pointed out that newspapers are competing with themselves
if they charge for access to print editions and also give away news on the
internet. Once readers figured out what
was happening, they began to abandon the paid option in print.
There are many non-trivial reasons the newspapers that are
changing might have stayed with this irrational strategy for so long. It takes time to react to and understand new
forms of competition. Just acquiring and learning to use the technology that
allows price discrimination probably required substantial time and effort.
Another reason might have been that newspapers were told –
and are still being told – they should not charge readers for access. Newspapers are told not to charge for access because internet-based media companies make money without charging for access to news and other information. But search engines and social
media have a very different business model, and that model would collapse if those companies had to pay for the creation of content as newspaper
companies do.
So it was good to see
this week that newspaper executives are talking about things like
subscriber retention and creating different bundles of digital and print
subscriptions (another kind of price discrimination) that focus on high quality
news. It will still be a long, hard slog, but at least they are giving themselves
a fighting chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)