Comments on: Time for a change: The Associated Press as Napsterized news

By: Patrick White

Patrick White — Wed, 11 May 2005 09:59:44 +0000

Hi. I am very much interested on this story ablout AP’s future. Very interesting.

Could somebody mail me the AP’s 2004 annual report? AP is declining to release it to journalist…

Tks!

Patrick White

Contact me by e-mail: white@megatoon.com

By: Michael Strong

Michael Strong — Mon, 09 May 2005 18:22:37 +0000

I was looking for something in the article which justifies the term “experience paper.” I have to draw issue with the methodology for the conclusions. I don’t see how this identifies any new audience and separates that new audience from any previous audience.
On page eight of the startrib_overview.pdf we are shown two ads and told this represents the old and the new. All I can see are two approaches which have been taken for as long as I can remember. Writing an ad which appeals to someone’s eye and someone’s interest is as old as any display advertising (or nature). The catalog-listing derided here are the very things sought out by persons who are looking for price listings in shopper type publications and web sites. The catch-your-interest ads are draws in other types of publications. A further extension are those ads which are deliberately obscure. I fail to see how this is new.
Here is a text summary from page seven:
“In summary, the main techniques used were:

By: Allan Kim

Allan Kim — Wed, 04 May 2005 16:54:28 +0000

Could AP’s new policy have more to do with empire-building at AP Digital than with institutional cluelessness. While I’m not privy to price information, I’d suspect it’s intended to drive newspapers toward premium services (e.g. AP Wire) and to discourage AP members from publishing and distributing AP content on their own.

The idea of P2P news cooperatives supplementing or replacing AP does have some appeal. I am concerned that years of enjoying the luxury of the wire-service libel exemption have eroded independent news judgment at small- and mid-sized papers, and I wonder if editors are ready to paddle their own figurative canoes on state and regional issues.

By: Chris J. Walter

Chris J. Walter — Mon, 02 May 2005 16:46:30 +0000

I am fascinated by the ideas mentioned in the initial document by Mssrs Benz&Phillips as they reflect very much the proposals I have brought forward as head of development at a national wire service in Switzerland (which I left since) a long time ago already. I am convinced that the media industry can benefit profoundly from well optimized, professional content sharing services which will become a virtual marketplace similar to eBay.com or other professional trading plattforms.

I am all for it and would like to propose as next steps to give this initiative a somewhat more formal environment by

- giving it a name (something like ‘google’ or so
- creating a room to continue and expand this discussion in digital way (like an eGroup at yahoo.com or something similar) which should allow for multiple topics and for proper threading etc.

I am certainly ready to contribute details for the model I’ve had the time to think about for several years now. (Before well known reflexes to disruptives changes became effective, it was endorsed as a strategic project by the board of directors what allowed for some prototyping work to be done). I am convinced that a scalable technical (preferably open source) solution is relatively easy to achieve and that most if not all concerns can be addressed in the long run. However, the most challenging task will be to convince all the established players in the news industry to adopt new ways of doing daily business. Of course, there is a economic argument growing stronger by the day and this will be helpful.

Numerous initiatives for establishing some sort of an exchange for news articles have taken place all over the planet and can be reached on the Web and some are mentioned in comments above. As forerunners they have planted the fields and have created awareness for new possibilities emerging with new technologies. But they have not changed the industry (yet!). What is fascinating me is that this seems to change now as executives from a considerable media company have come to the same or similar conclusions and are supporting steps to move forward. It is not only the media companies in the U.S. (with the specific AP membership situation), but the news industry on a global scale who can benefit from a re-arranging of the way news content is exchanged among professional partners. Although, thanks to the Internet, content can flow around the globe (almost) for free nowadays, it is important that professionally created content keeps it quality and commercial value. A future news exchange network must strive to not only provide a smart technical solution, but to preserve these values in a fast and sometimes adversely changing world.

chris.j.walter@gmail.com

By: Brian Humphrey

Brian Humphrey — Mon, 02 May 2005 12:43:41 +0000

With their recent TrustRank movement, our friends at Google clearly see the coming need for qualifying what to this point has merely been quantified. Namely, the "stand-alone journalist". While I'm not so soon to write AP's obituary, I do see the writing on the wall. Pity those who choose to react rather than act on what is coming.

By: Vin Crosbie

Vin Crosbie — Mon, 02 May 2005 07:47:30 +0000

The Peer-to-Peer aspect is already underway in Connecticut. The afternoon daily in Willimantic (the chronicle.com) dropped the Associated Press three years ago. It uses Reuters and LAT/WP to replace the AP

By: Randy Wright

Randy Wright — Sun, 01 May 2005 17:43:19 +0000

(((As content loses value, expert editing and customer-driven bundling are becoming the tools for building audience. And audience — not content — is the news industry

By: Sam Smith

Sam Smith — Sun, 01 May 2005 08:11:12 +0000

>>”As content loses value, expert editing and customer-driven bundling are becoming the tools for building audience. And audience – not content – is the news industry

By: Randy Wright

Randy Wright — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:11:09 +0000

Oh, one other thing … (sorry, I’m doing 10 things at once today) …

We’re sharing news ON CYCLE, not a DAY LATE as under the AP model.

Randy

By: Randy Wright

Randy Wright — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:53:40 +0000

I should add to my previous post:

We see the first step in Napsterizing news as being a return to the cooperative concept. AP started out this way, but over the years has come to see itself more as a commerecial vendor with customers.

With our fledgling new cooperative, NEWSapE members offer their material at no charge in exchange for receiving material at no charge. The easiest arrangement is to pick a newspaper in your region with which you share some common news coverage interest — like the capitol or sports. Then work out your own agreement on what you want to share with each other. NEWSapE provides the tool for sharing at no cost.

We’ll see how it evolves. I’m certainly open to suggestions on a basic agreement between the partners in the use of NEWSapE. As for such things as publication rights, I see no problem for now with newspapers making their own arrangements with each other.

By the way, NEWSapE is secured by passord and IP, so you can’t log on unless you’re an approved member. And even if an employee leaves your newsroom to join your competitor and takes your password, they won’t be able to rip off your stories.

Randy Wright
Executive Editor
Daily Herald
Provo, UT