In earlier posts, I wrote about the value of having a mobile app for your brand, and briefly touched on the associated marketing and sales challenges. In this post, Iâ€™ll dig deeper into how to successfully launch an app and build an audience.
See Also: So Your CEO Says You Need to Be a "Digital First" Publisher? Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
Unlike the Web, publishers cannot passively accumulate an app audience, but rather need to take a very active role in driving downloads. The adage, â€śIf you build it they will comeâ€ť doesnâ€™t hold true for apps. The reason for this is that app stores are islands unto to themselves and the benefits of the open Web (i.e., people stumbling upon your app via search) arenâ€™t available. Compounding this issue are App Store discoverability challenges, including:
â€˘ Limited Search Identifiers. Search in app stores is based on a limited number of key words that you select when you upload the app, rather than the metadata associated with the content/articles themselves. Google just started testing the ability to index and deep link into an app with the release of KitKat but the outcome is questionable, while Apple doesnâ€™t even offer such capabilities. Â â€˘ Too Many Apps per Category. The idea of a user browsing a category (say news) and finding your app is laughable because of the sheer number of apps in any category (i.e., 26,134 apps in the news category alone). Simply put, there are just too many apps for people to browse through.Â
â€˘ Ranking Is a Chicken and Egg Problem. An appâ€™s rank in a store (both for search and by category) is generally dependent upon its rating, but without any downloads the app starts at the bottom of the list. As such, the act of putting an app in an app store doesnâ€™t guarantee any downloads.
Given these discoverability issues, when launching an app you need to have a well-thought out marketing plan. The good news is that as media companies we have a certain advantage over others in that we have media channels available to us that we can leverage to drive app downloads. These â€śfreeâ€ť channels include running print ads, email ads, online ads and mobile Web ads in publications we control. To drive the most downloads, your media plan should include all of these free channels as well as paid placements on competitor sites/apps (if youâ€™ve got some extra marketing dollars lying around). Three tips to keep in mind are:
â€˘ Calls-to-Action on Mobile Devices Work Best. In my experience, the most effective tool in driving downloads is to pop-up a â€śdownload now adâ€ť when the user goes to your mobile website. The messaging in these â€śadsâ€ť simply ask the user if sheâ€™d rather view the content via your app or via the mobile website. This is not so much a marketing exercise, but rather a product development exercise.
â€˘ Print Ads Require Short-Codes. If you are going to use offline (e.g., print) ads to drive downloads be sure to use a â€średirectingâ€ť short-code thatâ€™s easy to use and remember (e.g., at.law.com/apps), rather than the full appstore URL.
â€˘ Make Money From the â€śDownload Adsâ€ť. If youâ€™re smart about leveraging the marketing channels you already own and have a good sales team you can also turn a â€śdownload adâ€ť into revenue by packaging it with a sponsorship opportunity. This has been a tried-and-true approach for us at ALM where weâ€™ve sold compelling sponsorship packages to advertisers that combine offline and online channels. These ads typically say something like â€śDownload the new XZY app brought to by ABCâ€ť with the sponsorâ€™s brand effectively incorporated into the ad.
To sum things up, driving downloads takes time and effort.Â With hundreds of thousands of apps out there, building an audience is as much a function of your marketing efforts, as it is the value of the underlying app.
Years ago, user-generated content (UGC) was typically perceived as "low-quality" media, or at the very least, "lowbrow" entertainment. While the bite-sized content was often engaging, if not inspired, brands tended to shy away from it in fear that an unsavory YouTube clip or crazy cat meme wouldn't sit well--or neatly--next to their carefully crafted brand message.
That's no longer the case, though--not when 80% of online content today is user-generated. Social media and self-publishing tools have created a glut of online amateur content while also increasing the overall quality of the material. As a result, we've seen a sea change in the way publishers work with and integrate UGC onto their sites, and the way they sell it as a value-add for brands.
Smart publishers have found ways to produce professional content, while also tapping their communities to enhance that content with their own. Also, more publishers now have a reputation platform in place allowing them to surface the best UGC and gather a wealth of data on the best experts in their communities. By doing so, publishers get brand-safe material to leverage-and opportunities for new revenue in the bargain.
Still, it's a nascent, unique model that only a handful are embracing effectively. Here are, in my view, the top three.
Most everything about BuzzFeed is highly curated, user-generated content. From the imagery and videos in the actual posts, to the recently launched BuzzFeed Community, BuzzFeed has made UGC the cornerstone of what's become a very successful and now profitable business.
The potential promise in BuzzFeed Community, however, from both a branding and revenue perspective, is especially fascinating and, I think, an eye-opener for online publishers.
Launched in May, BuzzFeed Community is a platform for readers to submit their own BuzzFeed-branded or styled pieces. It's basically a user-generated content pipeline. But if you think of it from a brand advertising point of view--the best user-submitted pieces are featured on the site's homepage and down the road BuzzFeed could possibly repackage that content for "reader-first" native advertising--it's ripe with potential.
Gawker Founder Nick Denton has been referred to as "the most disruptive force in online media right now." When you look at what Gawker is doing in the space today, with respect to both its brands and own technology, that's not an exaggeration.
Like BuzzFeed, Gawker has blurred traditional boundaries between reader and writer. The company recently developed its own proprietary commenting system, for instance, deploying it across its portfolio of sites and empowering its audience to be all things at once-"a writer, an arbiter, an editor, and a publisher." It turns publishing on its head and, similar to BuzzFeed Community, could evolve into reader-driven native ads.
Gawker is monetizing standard comments, too, turning them into native ad experiences of their own through brand-sponsored discussions within a page's comments section.
On the surface, Forbes and UGC may seem like an odd pairing. When you think of Forbes, its pedigree and authority as a venerable professional publisher is what stands out. But if you look closely, Forbes is innovating the use and value of UGC online.
In 2011, Forbes debuted a "Called Out" comments feature on Forbes.com, a social layer beneath every post's headline that surfaces selected conversations between the post's author and individual readers/commenters. It's a tool that points to the "best" UGC.
At first glance, this was a fairly simple feature-add, built to generate engagement across the site. But, when paired with Forbes BrandVoice, Forbes' branded content platform for paying advertisers, it becomes much more than that. "Called Out" comments deliver a relationship-building tool for brands within native pieces, while also allowing brands to highlight on-brand comments as a form of third-party validation.
As a result, comments become another asset that Forbes can market to advertisers, making their overall offering that much more attractive to potential customers. The Future-Role Reversal
As UGC has grown into a significant value-add for brands, UGC-first networks are also trying to evolve as publishers to take advantage. Take LinkedIn, for instance.
While it started as a social networking site, LinkedIn's success with its Influencers content submitted by power users has gained considerable attention among specialty publishers. It shows how engaging lightly edited, user-generated content can be when coupled with the right user base and tools, and how blurry the line is between "traditional" publisher and social networking community. To further blur these lines, the company's ability to cull data from its members' profiles allows it to work as an aggregator of professional content and push stories to us with better performance than a traditional publisher.
In fact, LinkedIn reports an eight-fold increase in traffic to all its news products since Influencers was launched earlier this year, with many posts recording more than 100,000 views.
And LinkedIn isn't the only UGC-driven network making headway in the publishing category. Medium and Quora are also making moves that spell greater ambitions in this area and that could pay off down the road.
Moving forward, pure community content can still be tough to trust (see: Yelp and Amazon). It takes a smart publisher that can blend together a variety of disciplines--content, technology, community moderation, audience quality, advertising, etc., to make UGC work. But, when done right, it translates into significant upside for those publishers and their advertising partners who recognize user-generated content as a real opportunity.
One of the best ways of reaching your market is via your own website. I know this sounds obvious, but it always surprises me the number of controlled magazines that do not have a new subscription offer on their site. In some cases this is because the magazineâ€™s rate base is very healthy, but in this day and age of reduced budgets this is the exception rather than the norm.I visit many websites during the course of a week, and there is no real happy medium. You either get no subscription offers at all, or so many that every time you go to a site, any good cheer gained at this time of year is well and truly lost.If you are making multiple offers via your website, keep them under control otherwise you will scare people off. There is nothing more annoying than navigating to a page, only to get an offer for something you donâ€™t want that is replaced by an offer for something else you donâ€™t want when you close the page on the first offer. The record so far stands at seven offers, and by the time I was able to rid my life of all these offers, I had forgotten why I had gone to the website in the first placeâ€”and have not been back since. Actually, I lied, there is one thing more annoying. Going to the same website and getting the same â€śliteratureâ€ť every time.Control your offers including when and how people see them. Any circulation or audience development professional that does not liaise with the IT department on at least a weekly basis is missing opportunities and more importantly probably losing orders. Being able to react to news relating to your business is key, especially if it is â€śhotâ€ť news. Taking quick advantage of breaking news can be handled with a 250 x 250 ad on the website that circulation or audience development can upload themselves; early birds catching worms comes to mind. You know what I mean!Make sure your offer can be seen efficiently on mobile devices. Some advertisements I have been exposed to have rendered my mobile phone immobile. I know it sounds obvious, but there is nothing worse than an Englishman with an immobile mobileâ€”Sting might even write a song about it. There is only so much any one person can take, so make sure you do not overplay your hand, or else you may well find your prospect is going somewhere else (and despite paywalls, there usually is somewhere else) to get the information you yourself offer.
When the Jim Pattison Group, owners of the largest wholesaler group in North America, first became a co-owner of the Comag Marketing Group, one of Americaâ€™s four major national distributors, benefits that were mentioned included â€średucing redundancies.â€ť I didnâ€™t have a clue what that meant, unless it was a special code for triggering layoffs.Last week I got an announcement from Glenn Morgan, President of Coast to Coast Newsstand Services. Coast to Coast isnâ€™t on the radar of a lot of U.S. publishers, but it is a major Canadian national distributor. Also, its ownership structure has some things in common with Comagâ€™s. Namely, the Jim Pattison Group.Coast to Coast announced that itâ€™s going to outsource its billing, collection, print order and galley prep, and other back office functions to Genera, the Pattison- and Hudson News-owned company that does Comagâ€™s back office.Coast to Coast is also contracting with Comag for their North American field work. Some Coast to Coast field reps will join the combined team.So this is a step in the reduction of redundancies, and it makes sense to me. Iâ€™m not a fan of consolidation for consolidationâ€™s sakeâ€”or, in fact, consolidation at all, necessarilyâ€”but believe me, I am a fervent convert to taking costs out of a wildly expensive newsstand distribution system.How will this partnership affect the relationship between Comag and Coast to Coast? Will the two companies grow ever closer, with C2C eventually acting as Comagâ€™s Canada arm? Will the savings implied by the reduction of redundancies find its way back to publisher clients? Will all this vertical integration give Comag/Coast to Coast an edge over the other national distributors?I donâ€™t really knowâ€”I just read the press release, and am passing it along to you. But as soon as I have inside knowledgeâ€”at least the kind inside knowledge that a blogger is allowed to pass onâ€”I will share that knowledge with you.
Weâ€™ve been focusing on fine tuning our 2014 integrated marketing campaigns here at New Bay Media. When I thought about how to start this process it occurred to me that when we think about an integrated marketing campaign we usually figure that itâ€™s for our brands with a paid model and mostly for new business. Since I have a handful of trade (controlled only) titles as well, I thought about what I could do to create an effective integrated marketing campaign focused on requalification. Below Iâ€™ll take you through the process of how I started my integrated marketing campaign for 15 trade titles.The answer is in the cover tip message/design.â€¨â€¨Yes, thatâ€™s where I started. We do A LOT of requal emails throughout the year and we go from soft messages to stronger, building on the urgency as we get closer to our goal dates (May 31 for May books or November 30th for November books). But what we weren't doing with these email messages was taking them all the way across the different marketing methods within the same time that the email goes out, thus capitalizing on the roles of various marketing methods like banner ads, interstitials, etc. to provide our audience with clearer picture of what they need to do to keep their free issues coming to them.Once I had my cover tip efforts set in place, I had to decide what other marketing channels I wanted to include and how I was going to keep the message consistent throughout the efforts.Â 1. Start with when the print issue will be mailed with the cover tip.2. If the February issue with the cover tip mails in January, then all of the other efforts related to this cover tip should go live in January.3. This will help keep the messaging consistent. The idea is that the person who gets the print magazine with the tip should have received an email a couple of days before announcing the tip. And if they visit the website during January, they should see the interstitials and banner ads with the same messaging and design. If they get a newsletter in January, there should be a banner ad projecting the same message. And lastly, for those brands that offer free access to the iPad/iPhone apps, weâ€™ll have banners ads in the container app and push notices.My goal with the integrated requalification marketing campaign is to build this awareness with the reader that we want them to do something. Thereâ€™s an action they need to take in order to keep getting their free issues.We are ready to start this integrated requalification marketing campaign with 2014. Obviously these cover tip-based integrated marketing efforts are not the only efforts that we are going to be using, but Iâ€™m projecting that building on the message of the cover tip with other traditional and nontraditional marketing efforts will increase the overall requalification responses related to that messaging. We are going to have unique tracking code for each marketing channel and I promise to follow up next year in the fall to let everyone know how it did.
For good or for ill, digital is here to stay. I have no doubt it is good for many readers, I am not sure how good it is for publishers because there are still too many variables concerning digital circulation. These variables are being worked out, slowly in some cases, but as an industry we have to make sure we understand the results and interpret them correctly, and not as we would like them to be.Just because the recently released version of the iPad sold in the millions does not mean digital circulation is going to increase as a direct result of the release. Most people I know who purchased the latest iPad did so to replace the iPad they already had. Over the next weeks people will receive some sort of reader for the holidays, but the total in sales will not see a similar increase in digital circulation.It is important to recognize why digital circulation increases. Many controlled publishers are shifting their three-year old-circulation over from print to digital, not because the reader desires this, but because the publisher does. We have found that re-qualification response rates of digital subscriptions are lower than those on the print file. I believe this is because digital magazines are not as readily accessible as their print cousins. Therefore, you will probably have to send digital subscriptions more efforts to get the same net response as print. There is nothing wrong in this, just remember that you will have to send more efforts and this may affect your promotion budget. What you are saving in printing and mailing costs can be used to send additional efforts, although in reality these savings are almost never passed on.Do not get hooked on the general belief that digital subscriptions will respond better to electronic methods than more traditional methods; there is no rationale to support this thinking, and until you have tested all formats and gained meaningful resultsâ€”results supported by facts, not opinionsâ€”tread carefully.The digital world is upon us, and as promoters, marketers and indeed users, we should embrace the new technology and make it work for us. Digital circulation is a small part of total circulation. It will grow over the next few years, although the growth will slow down, but for all that it would be dangerous to make assumptions based on opinion rather than test results. Yesterday, on one of the networks, an expert said, â€śPeople feel more confident in the market than they did a few years ago.â€ť On the same show, another expert said, â€śPeople are not confident concerning their financial futures.â€ť Facts based on opinions have no value, but opinions based on facts are worth their weight in a ton of iPads!
Over the past week I have spoken about little else than the new fees coming in from TNG, formerly The News Group, the largest wholesaler group in North America and responsible for over half of the continentâ€™s magazine newsstand distribution. The fees, imposed unilaterally and to be implemented right away, range from two cents a copy to eight cents a copy, with 131 publications exempt.Â TNG is imposing these fees in a move that is eerily reminiscent of the fee-for-distribution that Anderson News Company attempted to impose in 2009. The fee imposed then was opposed by publishers and resulted in ANCO going out of business. There are differences now. And whatever the outcome is, it will be very different from that of the ANCO affair.Which is good, as no one wants another wholesaler group to go out of business. No partner in the newsstand distribution supply chain could afford that today. As an industry, we need to try to create a situation where every member of the distribution channel is healthy and profitable.But the situation troubles me, a lot, and for many reasons. Some aspects of this TNG mandate are game changers. Some are not. But the businesses most vulnerable to the consequences of these changes are the independent publishers.I have heardâ€”and probably so have youâ€”comments made by some that this industry will become stronger, healthier, and more profitable by the removal of the â€śclutterâ€ť of the little guys from the newsstand. The irony is that the growth and stabilization of revenues in our business over the last two decades or so has come from the rise of special interest publications. Havenâ€™t these guys been paying attention?I am troubled by the ironies. And I am troubled by the game-changing aspects of this, and by the aspects that are not game-changing at all.I am troubled that the extra fees are not being negotiatedâ€”they are being applied. Thatâ€™s a game-changer. Now, is there a possibility that a publisher could talk to TNG to discuss other ways of skinning this particular cat? There might be. But to do so each publisher needs to take his or her own initiative to bring a plan to TNG. The initial wave of correspondence doesnâ€™t include an invitation to show up at TNG to discuss. But I would encourage you to do so.The fee is expected to be updated every six months. That means that publishers cannot know what they should expect to pay for distribution of their newsstand copies throughout the coming year. They will be charged at the will of TNG. Budgeting for revenues for a year will not be possible. Planning for what might come down the pike is impossible. Thatâ€™s a game-changer. The formulas used for imposing the fees are not to be shared with the publishers that they affect. Consequently, publishers have no say in how these fees are imposed, no way of improving their financial picture in the agencies. Thatâ€™s a game-changer.Â Experience tells us that once those fees are imposed, we cannot expect them to be rolled back. Wholesalers are not known to reverse fees, once imposed. This is not just me grousing about life. This is an explicit policy on the part of the wholesaler community. That would be the same old game. However, I have been told on excellent authority that this game is changing as well, and not for the worse. The six-month re-evaluation is formula-based. If a publisherâ€™s standing changes for the worse, per the formula, the fee gets higher. If it changes for the better, the fee gets lower. So thatâ€™s another game-changer.Of course, once the fees are imposed, they will obviously not be restricted to TNG. They will spread to other wholesalers, of which there are mostly only two. That is the same game. Iâ€™ve heard from some industry sources that these changes are expected to succeed because the business models of publishers donâ€™t rely on newsstand as a source. Publishers, I am told, discount subscriptions dramatically, so they donâ€™t need the circ cash. They make their money from advertising, so they can afford to pay higher circ fees. But the publishers for whom these outdated business models still hold true are in many cases the ones exempted from the TNG fee. Many of the publishers taking the brunt of these changes depend on each revenue-generating channel to be profitable in its own right. Creating assumptions based on business models of the very publishers that arenâ€™t hit by the consequences? Thatâ€™s both an irony, and the same old game.Where we are now is not any one companyâ€™s fault, but the fact remains: There are deep paradoxes involved in the concurrent consolidation of the distribution channel and the fragmentation of publishing and its consumption. I take the wholesalers at their word that they canâ€™t afford to stay in business under the current model. And we ignore this reality at our peril. With a 10 percent loss year over year on a fixed-cost business, the agencies need to find a way to bring their business models into alignment with todayâ€™s newsstand realities. The costs of maintaining their truck fleets are huge; the costs of maintaining their merchandising teams are huge. Revenues are slipping. And we as publishers need for them to stay in business. But from the supplier side, publishers also need to stay in business as costs keep rising and revenues keep slipping. Iâ€™ve done the math. Many of the publishers affected are already getting the thinnest slice of remit for the newsstand sales of their products. From the point of view of the wholesaler, the game is not changing as much as it needs to. The fees levied are not enough to create the profit. They are not enough to fix a system that no longer works. They are seen as a bridge. Something to keep the distribution channel alive while the game is truly, finally changed.So here we stand, yet again, on the brink of big sweeping changes, on the brink of a whole new way of doing business, and we still donâ€™t know what itâ€™s going to look like. But for today the changes are going to be about who can afford to stay in the game, who is going to leave, what counts as a â€ślittleâ€ť publisher and what the medium-sized publishers who donâ€™t make the top 131 are going to do.Some are going to go with TNGâ€™s plan. Some will talk about alternative plans, ones that meet the goals of the suppliers as well as their distribution partners, ones that keep the balls in play for at least a while longer. And some are already speaking to book distributors, direct distributors, and retailers directly. Companies are going to disappear from the system as we know it. Mostâ€”but not allâ€”will be publishers. One thing that will not change is that publishers will continue to produce quality content that people want to read. And they will continue to find a way to get it into their audiencesâ€™ hands.The details of how that will happen are under advisement.
It's no secret that social media has become a bastion for sharing content. But what's interesting now is how shares are allocated from platform to platform, category to category and channel to channel.
The infographic below was created by MAZ Digital Inc., and the data was collected form 124 newsstand magazine apps to determine how users are sharing magazine content on their tablets. It's evident by the results that when it comes to shares, content categories and channels mean everything.
Twitter has gotten more attention lately, but Facebook still has massive advantages in content consumption.
The latter is a news portal for close to a third of all American adults, according toÂ latest studyÂ from the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. Used for news by 10 percent of Americans, YouTube is actually a more-viewed source than Twitter (8 percent).
That's good news for publishers with a lot of "likes," but it doesn't mean the other channels can be ignoredâ€”content probably isn't going to reach people on multiple channels. Two out of three of U.S. adults get news from one, and only one, social network.
Younger, richer, lefty: Most of the platforms in the study skew younger with mid- to high-level income users who are predominantly left-leaning politically, but distinctions did emerge.
Notably, Facebook's user base is 58-percent female, while YouTube (57 percent) and LinkedIn (67 percent) cater to male audiences; Twitter is 50-50. LinkedIn also stood out in ageâ€”half of its users fall in the 30-49 year-old demographic; just 18 percent are under age 30â€”and incomeâ€”63 percent of LinkedIn users earn at least $75,000.
Where else do they look: Twitter users are the most insular when it comes to consuming news content, according to Pew. Out of all social network users, they're the least likely to turn to print, TV or radio.
Twitterers will look down at their phones when they want news thoughâ€”54 percent "often" consume their news content via mobile devices. LinkedIn was the second-most mobile news source (51 percent), with Facebook (38 percent) and YouTube (37 percent) failing to crack 40 percent.
reddit...America's No.1 source for news: By one measure, reddit was the most popular news site of allâ€”more than 60 percent of its users get news on the site, Pew says.
Despite the high percentage of news consumers, its small baseâ€”Pew puts the figure at about 9 million users; for comparison, they say Facebook has 202 million and Twitter has 50 millionâ€”means that just 2 percent of the U.S. population gets its news there.
I was at a rest stop off the Atlantic City Expressway on Saturday when I noticed something peculiar: On sale at a Starbucks of all places, right next to baskets of limited edition coffee beans, was a commemorative reprint of the Dallas Morning Star from the day President Kennedy was shot.I am intimately familiar with the headline. My father saved the copy of the New York Times from 1963. It is now framed and hanging in the basement of our house. This is something I have inherited. I keep print clips. I have an unsettling fear that I will forget a moment if I bear no tangible evidence of it. Moments were documented as chosen flashpoints in time, important events that we could remember even when we forgot. They help to form both our national and individual identities. Now, with the advent of social media and reality television, we document everything and anything, from bombings to breakfasts. We have created hyper-detailed accounts of our mundane lives, marking them â€śmomentous.â€ť But what happens when we saturate our world with details of our everyday lives? Do newsworthy moments even count anymore to the formation of identity, or do they become cultural jetsom, byproducts on our way to becoming the next Snooki or Honey Boo Boo? What makes a President's assassination any more important than, say, buying a prom dress or taking your first cab ride?How do we determine what is meaningful?Obviously, magazines struggle with this. At The Nation, we are in a constant uphill battle against a glut of information and practices. Our competitors in the digital space aren't even our traditional competitors anymoreâ€”we're competing with Mother Jones and The Atlantic, sure, but we're also competing with non-print media (MSNBC, Alternet), YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, BuzzFeed, Netflix, and Google News. And we're no longer competing in a niche universeâ€”because of the aggregated nature of online content, our stuff is out there. EVERYONE'S stuff is out there. But what can we put out there that people can only get from us, by paying us? We're not competing for eyeballs; we're competing for eyeballs that will pay for the privilege of seeing.What's interesting is that though people have amped up their newsfeeds, they haven't stopped looking for intelligent information. TV and books have become smarter, and people have proven that they will commit to long series or writing if it holds their interest. eReaders have created a space for longer books, because people don't mind reading long pieces that they're not lugging around. The length itself doesn't bother people, as long as they can commit to it on their own time.The trick is to create meaningful experiences for people living in a world glutted with information, through carefully selected (buzzword alert: â€ścuratedâ€ť) content and longer, more introspective pieces. Long form journalism in digital outlets? Absolutely. We've seen a return to long form narratives, in literature and journalism, which may seem anachronistic in a world dominated by short attention spans. Even BuzzFeed and Business Insider recently started their own investigative journalism units, focusing on long form. As Tom Junod wrote for Esquire, â€ś...taken as a trend, the persistence of long form at a time when it's been declared dead is a hopeful thing, not a trend at all but evidence that humans, as a race, are at last learning how to take our own complexity into account as we stumble into infinity, digital and otherwise.â€ťIn a world humming with â€śmeaningful moments,â€ť how do we maintain that meaning? How many shootings before we rally for gun control or just forget it's a problem altogether? How many natural disasters need to decimate a country before we start thinking critically about global warming or we decide it's â€śjust one of those thingsâ€ť? It's no longer media 's job to just deliver meaningful moments; instead, we need to deliver meaningful commentary and analysis on those moments.In 1963, my parents were both ten years old, and I was not even an imagining. Yet I understand the importance of marking that storied day that â€śAmerica lost its innocence,â€ť particularly for the media. JFK's assassination was a betrayal of national consciousness, a curtain slashed through to reveal a dark underbelly of reality. A moment, a heartbeat, in a gunshotâ€”we were a nation young, smart, and cavalier, ready to take on the worldâ€”and then, we were not. People wept openly in the streets. Walter Cronkite famously teared up.
What I don't understand is my reaction to the commemorative paper. I wish I'd bought a copy, only to prove it was real, but it felt wrong. It didn't feel right to share the assassination of a president from 50 years ago with no context, no handholding, no exposition. Seeing it now, in print, pretending to be just another part of my everyday news cycle, made me feel more of an outsider, a person sharing a memory that isn't her own, like I was some interloper, a person who didn't have a right to someone else's memory.Yet, how do we learn, if not from sharing memories and stories? Since the dawn of civilization, history has been preserved through story-telling. But what will it mean when we no longer have physical artifacts from a story, when there is no newspaper clipping, when a URL is tweeted in one second and lost a second later? How will we record time and memory? How will we build lasting identities? We will need directionâ€”content and analysis that helps us discuss meaning, since we're too saturated to create our own.President Kennedy's assassination is a story worth re-telling, and the media has been all over the fiftieth anniversary. Has it only been fifty years? To me, it feels like a century ago. To my folks, it could have happened yesterday.
Iâ€™ve been thinking lately about how media is moving increasingly toward a greater technology dependence. Iâ€™ve read about how investment dollars, especially in Silicon Valley, where so much media-related innovation is occurring, steer towards technology solutions for media consumers. New utilitiesâ€”new ways to interact with contentâ€”seem to be more important than the content itself.Think about the major social media and many of the new online-only media businesses like TripAdvisor and Yelp. User interfaces, tools, analytics and more are the difference-makers. They create no content on their own, really, but they have massive audiences. Google commands more ad dollars than the whole magazine and newspaper industries combined.Which for me raises an interesting question: Should media companies be technology companies first and content companies second? Has some paradigm shifted in the media world?Now, before you dismiss what Iâ€™m saying as just simplistic nonsense, consider that not only is Google an advertising giant, but so is Facebook. So is YouTube. Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and others will rise in ad spend, and they all depend on users for their content. They pay no content creators, but they create extraordinary technology-based environments for people to post their own content.And if youâ€™re looking for consistency in the argument, consider that most media companies acknowledge freely that the one-way form of communication is dead. The old-school model of, "we-create-content-and-you-consume-it" is simply incomprehensible to modern media users. They take cellphone photos and videos, and share them easily. Even media companies say that they want to create a platform for community interaction.In that context, then, should we be focused on contentâ€”or technologies that enable the sharing of content? Itâ€™s a fascinating question.There are those who say that without content, thereâ€™s nothing. No Google and no Facebook. Which is true. But that doesnâ€™t really address the question of whoâ€™s doing the creating.
New York--WIRED magazine rounded up some of the most elite healthcare professionals on November 5-6, to discuss how technology--and more specifically, data--will change our future at its Data | Life conference. This is the second installment of the conference and WIRED's second gathering of thought leadership in 2013, following its Think Bigger business conference in May.
Data | Life is another indication that the brand is looking to be more than just a techie-lifestyle magazine. Of course, with so many industries leveraging technology the question from a business perspective is: why healthcare?
The Connection Between Data and Design
Since Scott Dadich took the reigns as editor-in-chief, he has been committed to rethinking the design of WIRED. Throughout the conference he and his team of editors made it clear that design goes beyond the layout of a magazine or website.
"Design is about aesthetics, but at its core it's also about solving the problems people live with everyday," says Cliff Kuang, senior editor of design. And of course the latter can also be said about data.
Dadich weaves it all together when he says, "At WIRED we get to think a lot about the future, and we get to report about the progress enabled by momentum of technology and design. But nowhere is that progress more profound, and that change so exciting, than in the fields of health and healthcare."
The day's first speaker, professor of Medicine and Engineering at the University of Southern California David B. Angus, MD concurs, "We [healthcare professionals] use almost every technology first, because we have to."
In other words, many technologies that people use on a day-to-day basis now--both personally and professionally--were likely designed, developed and tested with healthcare in mind
Thought Leaders Start Conversations that Shape the Future
The event's content was a mix of more than a dozen healthcare and tech speakers. Topics included genetics, fertility apps, sensors and several other data applications that leverage information to improve the quality and length of life. And a packed room of over 100 invitation-only healthcare thought leaders listened in.
"The quantified-self movement has exploded," says WIRED's vice president and publisher, Howard Mittman. "Personal data capture--whether its apps or wearables--is sparking conversations and driving ideas." He also attests that the movement is important no matter what your industry.
Why It Matters
The conference's core theme is an important in that data tells the most accurate and vital stories and has the ability to predict the future. So whether you're looking to learn more about the health of your body or uncover who your who your audience is, data is the best portal for discovery.
The objectives of a healthcare professional may be drastically different from that of a publisher, but the modes for collecting, analyzing and making data actionable are similar. Thus, publishers who talk about leveraging "Big Data" should be keeping one eye on what is happening in the health space, because it could forecast their own future.
At the end of the day, publishers should find comfort in a shared challenge--there is too much data out there and filtering it efficiently and effectively will be an ongoing endeavor for everyone.