This blog actually began in 1995 as the State of the Media Annual Report to our clients in 1995. In 2000 as media started to contract and editorial staffs were cut, it came out twice a year, than quarterly. Then we started this blog, Communications Basics to make distribution easier and to expand into discussions about how corporate communications was changing best practices.
In 2013 we are seeing a solidifying of the media industry around several disparate niches and have discovered how media will work for the foreseeable future. We are in the process of compiling our observations into a white paper on the State of the Media in the 21st Century. The focus is primarily on the electronics and embedded software industry that we have served for many years, but the concepts are applicable in multiple industries.
But instead of giving it away as we have in the past we are asking for something in return. We want to talk to the people who are in a position to make the changes needed to succeed. If you are that kind of person, fill out the form on this page and, after we evaluate what you say about yourself, we’ll send it to you at no charge, with the understanding that we may be contacting you about doing business together.
If you don’t want to go through the evaluation, or if you don’t qualify we offer two options: Either pay a fee for the report, or give us the contact information of someone in your organization who does qualify. We will send it to them and they can share it with you. Sound fair?
You can sign up at our website or fill out the form right here.
Got a call from Rich Nass, brand director of Design News, about an important distinction within the UBM family. Design News and it's associated conferences are not part of UBM Tech. Rich works in the division know as UBM Canon, which was originally made up of the print properties that had been purchased a few years ago from Canon Communications, which had acquired the properties from Reed Elsevier, which previously belonged to.... Well, you get the idea, and yes it is hard to keep up with it all.
Anywho... UBM Canon is not out of the print game. Design News is still very much a print AND online enterprise with a healthy circulation (145,000) and online reach of over 300,000 and a boatload of conferences all dedicated to horizontal design industries including manufacturing, medical devices, packaging, pharma, etc.
However....
Like UBM Tech, UBM Canon considers itself a "community" driven by the input of it's audience. Rich says 75 percent of the content in Design News print and online is written by the readers. The remaining 25 percent is produced by the 10-person editorial staff. Also like UBMl, that staff "doesn't sweat over a story for two months to produce a 3,000 word article," but instead cranks out a series of much smaller articles every day for online and print publication.
So other than the print property, UBM Tech and UBM Canon are much the same philosophically.
Now do you think you have a clear idea what UBM is all about? Neither do I. I think I've got these two heads of the Hydra under control. We'll see.
My posts on the changes at UBM Tech have been the most popular on this blog since I started it. Lots of people have weighed in on whether it is good or bad (most say bad) but I've tried to remain neutral. I'm maintaining that neutrality, especially after talking to UBM Tech CEO Paul Miller last week.
Miller has said to me several times in the past couple of years that UBM is a marketing company, not a media company. In last week's chat he took it to another level. "UBM Tech is, effectively, out of the magazine business. We are now running online communities."
There have been several comments from people still in the media business expressing doubt that UBM properties can be considered ethical, reliable, trustworthy "real journalism," etc. But the answer to all of those concerns is... it's not a media company anymore. Trying to measure the UBM business model against traditional journalism is like determining distance with a measuring cup.
A few weeks ago, Joe Basques wrote that companies need to change their perspective to understand their market. I submit that everyone looking at the new UBM model needs to change their perspective as well. Paul Miller said, in essence that UBM was giving up the journalism field of competition to Hearst, Extension Media, EE Journal and all the others, not because they didn't think it was a good business to be in, but that it had become such a small part of the UBM business that it mattered less than the direction their communities were going did.
Paul even wished all his former competitors well and considered them a valued part of the information ecosystem that engineers needed. But they are no longer what UBM considers competition. Who are they competing against? Their old foes Reed Elsevier for one, who abandoned the journalism business for the event business as well a few years ago. What UBM has that Reed doesn't however, is the online communities.
Another competitor you might consider is Google itself. And here's why.
Google recently changed it's search algorithm to diminish keyword (the core of SEO practices) and focus on engagement: what people are reading, what people are commenting on and what people are sharing. That means they are actively boosting what the users are interested in. That is, essentially, the UBM model now. What was known as the editorial staff are now community managers and brand managers whose primary job is curation. Armed with a powerful new technology these managers can look at what content provider and content is getting the most play and their job is to feature that content in the community. The managers will develop content, but that's not their primary job. Readers who actively comment and make valuable input will be invited to become regular contributors. Sometimes that will be paid, more often it will not. The readers will make the ultimate decision as to what rises to the top of the medium, not journalists.
This is significantly different than what we know as traditional journalism. It may fail spectactularly or it will succeed spectacularly. Whatever you may think of it, Miller and UBM are taking a massive but calculated gamble. "We're pretty positive about how this will turn out, but it is admittedly very different. However, when you look at traditional media, the odds for success are not very good. We wish all who remain the best of luck, but something different has to be done. We think this is one way to do it right."
I am currently working on a white paper that looks at the current state of the media in the 21st centur. It will be available in a few weeks, but we aren't giving it away free this time. If you want it, we need to know if you are the right person to get it, or if you can get it to the right person, If you aren't one of those, get your credit card out. This one is too good to give away.
A couple of weeks ago I started talking about the changes at UBM which has opened up a torrent of comment and readership on this blog. Almost doubling the audience. That's good.
Kevin Morris, nice guy
What's even better is that people are really talking about how journalism and
Lou Covey, S*** Disturber
media is changing.
To be honest, most of the comment has been negative, mostly about UBM, and mostly from competitors and former employees. Little of that stuff was publishable and after contacting most of them, they all withdrew their comments (Yeah, I'm a nice guy). But there were some very productive responses and a couple were from Kevin Morris, editorial director of Tech Focus Media.
I emailed Kevin directly and we made a date to talk about it face to face at the Design West Conference in San Jose. I made my first Spreaker broadcast from it. And away we go...
Alex Wolfe is leaving UBM Tech. Just heard it from two sources (neither of them Alex). Don't know where he's going, but it is a major coup for whoever grabs him.
Alex has been, for a long time, a stalwart of electronics journalism. He broke the story about the Intel Floating Point error. He's been edior in chief of Information Week, Design News, IEEE Spectrum. My first trip to Manhattan was specifically to meet with him, face to face, with a client because the client considered him the most important editor to meet. That's why he's risen as high as he has in the UBM organization and why his loss to them is going to be pretty devastating.
The word is everyone on UBM Tech is sending out resumes if they aren't getting offers, If you look at the EETimes masthead you see 44 editorial positions. One (executive editor held by George Leopold) was eliminated in January. Both positions for EBN are now gone (Wolfe and Brian Fuller), six are duplicative (they hold down other positions), and I count 11 that are on contract and have other duties outside of UBM. That means 24 of the 44 are staff members, dedicated to developing and managing content. They're good people. How long can they last?
The UBM decision to merge media with events is not a bad idea. It is possibly a good idea. But you can't make anything work unless you have people to do the work.
Earlier today I posited that the latest downsizing at UBM editorial might have been a step too far and that there would be a voluntary exodus of the talent still on board.
Not 5 minutes after I posted I got a rumor that Brian Fuller was leaving his position at the UBM online publication EBN for a corporate position at Cadence Design. I just had it confirmed.
I also suggested that people who had been laid off in January would be approached to return and that few would take the offer. I've learned today that several offers have been rebuffed, even from those that have not yet found permanent employment.
Corporations are becoming attractive locales for displaced journalists. Ron Wilson left UBM, voluntarily, several years ago to be editor in chief for Altera's content engine and before him, Mike Santarini took over the internal publication at Xilinx. Last week UBM January detritus Silvie Barack landed as content manager at Atmel where she plans to launch a site similar to Intel Free Press very soon.
What happens when all the advertisers begin to compete with EE Times, EBN, and EDN for content? When will TI, HP and AMD offer the remaining staff similar jobs and freedom?
We've been following a string of thought regarding the changes at UBM properties. I've personally avoided making any judgement on the philosophical approach the company has taken. It is what it is.
However, the recent round of layoffs really cut into the bone of their content development. Calling Nic Mokhoff, Barbara Jorgenson and Bolaji Ojo redundant... even when you have all stars like Alex Wolfe, Patrick Mannion and Brian Fuller still on the team... is mindboggling to me.
UBM has had a habit of cutting back far too much and then having to rehire too fast. (I remember when Dave Burskey was hired to replace Ron Wilson, after a gap of several months to cover semiconductors, and then laid Burskey off before a year was out) This time I think they may have gone too far and the opportunities for great journalists to work independently in corporations is going to thin the available talent very fast.
Recently Intel launched a site called the Intel Free Press. this is one of those efforts that is being called "branded but independent" journalism. Yes, Intel is footing the bill, but they are leaving the editorial team alone in content development. they don't have to worry about advertisers or revenue or even readership. They can concentrate on just making good content for the Intel ecosystem. What does Intel need with UBM publications and events now?
At Design West, the strain on UBM editors was palpable, and those former editors were exhulting in the freedom they had in the corporate walls. That tells me UBM may have gone too far again. Several years ago, I sat with Brian Fuller on a boat in San Diego and talked about his frustration with UBM's continual dismantling of staff. A few months later he left the company and told me it was an issue of ethics.He just couldn't continue keep letting people go. After several years of checking the world out, he was lured back into UBM. Now he's in charge of a publication that has little resources. He looks tired. I'm wondering how long he's going to last this time. At least now he won't be laying people off at EBN. He's all there is of staff. The rest are freelancers. We're going to see another significant personnel shift at UBM, but it won't be layoffs. There are jobs out there for good journalists who are willing to think a little differently.
Don't get me wrong. The UBM sites produce good content ... right now. But you need people who know what good content is to produce it. I don't know, maybe that's the plan: force the content creators to go to the advertisers and then make them pay to put it on your titles. But what's to stop the advertisers from starting their own titles. Why should they pay?
Going to be an interesting year, for sure. More to come.
I recommended we tell the complete story of PPACA from multiple angles, and position this provider as a thought leader on this entire subject. We could have exposed his product to multiple viable markets that he had not even considered. After multiple discussions it became clear that the potential sponsor wanted some content that simply said “Here’s my product, buy it.” There was no interest in going deeper and telling the entire story.
Over the last several years, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard companies say “we know who our top ten customers are, and we’re already engaging them.” That’s not really true. We’ve found that everyone knows a few people in each of the top 10 customers, but know nothing of 10 times the number of contacts within each customer’s infrastructure. We’ve seen countless companies lose sales to competitors and completely miss new markets because they refuse (or are incapable) to see things from a new perspective.
In 1905, Albert Einstein published the theory of special relativity, which explains how to interpret motion between different inertial frames of reference. I’m sure we’ve all heard the “glass train” example used to describe Einstein’s theory. In this example, two people are viewing the same scenario from two different perspectives, one is standing on a moving train made of glass with a ball in his hand, and the other is standing on the ground outside the train, watching the train pass by.
As the train goes by, the person riding the train drops the ball from his hand. He watches the ball fall straight down, hit the ground, and bounce right back up into his hand. The observer outside of the train sees something completely different from their perspective. As the train goes by and the ball is dropped, he sees the ball fall in an arch shape going down and bouncing back up with the reverse arch. Who’s right? Both views are correct depending on your frame of reference or perspective. But one thing is for sure: If you’re the guy watching the train going by, you aren’t going anywhere.
Consider this, Saccharin was invented by accident when a researcher was studying coal tar. Play-Doh wasn’t invented as a play thing, but rather as a cleaning tool. Superglue was actually invented YEARS before anyone figured out what to do with it. X-rays were a complete surprise. Accidental inventions happen all the time, even in the world of technology. In fact, the sensors we use today for everything from monitoring the purity of air or water to locating and destroying tumor cells are the result of an accident. A student, Jamie Link, a was doing her doctoral work in chemistry when one of the silicon chips she was working with burst. She discovered afterward, that the tiny pieces still functioned as sensors. Today, sensors are everywhere, and they were discovered completely by accident. The secondary market for each of these things was much larger than the original. Maybe the next big innovation is actually leveraging current technology for something completely new. In order to get there we’re going to need a new perspective.
You might know several influencers in your list of customers, but influencers are rarely innovators (because innovators end up rocking the boat). Those guys are elsewhere in the companies and they see the world from a different perspective -- the perspective you need now.
The problem is, those are the people you need to find and that can be an extremely difficult thing if you’re chasing after people with the traditional perspective. Your knowledge, experiences, emotions, etc. are holding you back. Changing your perspective can open new markets and transform your business. You need to get on the train.
Do you need help looking at things from a different perspective? It’s one of the things we do best. Watch this video to see what others have to say, then contact us.
We've had some interesting interaction on this site the past couple of weeks about the future of b2b media. There is an old guard that publically espouses absolute separation of editorial and advertising but the reality is very much different. And today comes news that Open Systems Publishing is taking the leap into custom electronic publishing. Not print, electronic.
From the press release:
ST. CLAIR SHORES, MI, April 19, 2013 - OpenSystems Media has announced the next generation in digital publishing - an all new, dynamic E-mag marketing program, giving clients the chance to create their own branded, lead-generating digital magazine - the Custom E-mag Initiative.
The Custom E-mag Initiative, which launches today, is an interactive digital publication, featuring the clients own educational white papers, product and company video clips, display ads, topical articles, hyperlinks to additional resources, social media interfaces, and product announcements (demonstration available at custom.opensystemsmedia.com). Posted online in a web-browser-friendly format, the E-mag's content is gated, requiring interested readers to register. This provides the client a list of interested parties for follow-up.
This is the direction of pretty much every electronics industry media house now, and follows on the heels of more established firms like Forbes, The Washington Post and the New York Times. Corporations are moving toward being their own publisher.
But here's the point Footwasher Media stands on: It doesn't matter what the vehicle is, what matters is whether your audience accepts it as valid and is willing to engage.
You are not going to attract customers to your in-house media by stuffing your marketing content into a new bag. You are going to have to invest in content producers that have a perspective outside of your marcom. Hell, I wish journalists could still get a paycheck by being an employee of a publication, but those that do have a real hard time making rent. Yes there are a very few organizations that make money the old fashioned way, but they still sell a lot of space for corporate news releases and white papers and webinars. In fact, it's getting harder and harder to find the independent content in any publication.
Should we sit around and grumble about the change, or should we, as independent journalists, try to adapt to it?
Last week we started a lively discussion about how media is evolving, what is right about it and what is wrong about it. We also touched on the issue of reliability and ethics.
Today an article from emediavitals.com crossed my screen and deals with the issue of ethics and content head on. You may not agree with it, but it's a statement of what reality is for media today.
Let me say this about the issue of ethics: there is no organizational structure that can absolutely ensure content follows a particular ethical standard. In fact, the reliance on traditional business models in media, rather than actually knowing what the professional standard is has helped hasten the demise of traditional journalism in the 21st Century.
Ethics is a personal construct. You either are or are not ethical. No one knows for sure where you stand or what you are doing. Only you do. Everyone else is just assuming where you stand. Your organizational structure does not ensure your practice.
Recent Comments