State of the Media

Where will innovation come from next?

The past two weeks have been a blur for me as we are coming to the tail end of a massive project for a client and looking for our next big thing. The project involved redesigning a very complex website, moving it to a new server and making the switchover look absolutely transparent to all the users.  We partnered with a very innovative web and software design company out of Costa Mesa, Apogeeinvent, who did an absolutely incredible job of innovating our way through the masses of data and content.

Innovation.  That's what I was looking for in taking on this project.  We couldn't ignore what had been accomplished, but the infrastructure that got the client there was showing signs of strain. And budgetary restraints made it difficult to maintain it.  So whole chunks of the supports had to be pulled out, redesigned and plugged in without having the whole thing collapse.  In the past 24 hours the changeover was accomplished and with some minor tweaks and turns of the screws it's looking pretty good.

And during the past 24 hours I've come to realize that this project was a metaphor for our times.  Everything we counted on in our society's infrastructure is strained or failing.  What we used to do to make a living may not be available tomorrow.  We are crying out for innovation, but at the same time we have the prevailing "wisdon" that there is no budget for innovation.

I had a couple of beers with a marketing exec in the semiconductor industry yesterday to maybe find a way to help him innovate within tight budgetary constraints.  Of course the discussion cam around to social media, which he believes can help, but he doesn't know how to sell it to the bean counters.  There always has the be a monetary ROI, you know.

Then my old buddy, Rich Wallace popped up this morning on the Next Silicon Valley blg/news site about innovation cropping up out of social media metrics.  The short of it was the explanation of what social media is for.  We keep saying it's for communication and community -- which it is -- but it is so much more: its for data mining, and that data will determine what the market needs, how that need will be met, and what people can afford to pay for it.

Most of the technology industry has been enamored with what the technology can do, leaving the customer the responsibility of figuring out what it is for.  When money was loose, that was a good plan: Let the customer figure out the innovation.  But the customers don't have time to figure that out.  they are too busy trying to meet the needs of their own customers who can't figure out the products.

The data derived from social media platforms and practices is the way companies will figure out what the customers will actually buy.  

The essence of good sales technique is to figure out the real need of the customer and sell him something that will meet that need.  But in the past 20 years, technologists have created products and forced them on customers. Take electronic design automation (EDA) for example.  I was talking to a design manager for a VERY big semiconductor company who told me that 10 years ago, 75 percent of their design work was done on commercial EDA tools.  Today he said it's around 35 percent.  Why? Because the tools the EDA industry keeps trying to sell him are variants of the same tools they've been selling him for the past 10 years, not anything that he actually needs now.  So the tools he uses most are the ones the company develops internally.

(Now I know I'm going to get a lot of screaming emails telling me I don't know what I am talking about.  I'm just telling you what a design manager from a major EDA customer -- $20M tool budget -- told me.  He doesn't run all the designs for the company, but he still has a significant budget)

How does this come about? It comes from sales and marketing teams whose data is based on personal experience from a decade ago; a belief that was was true in 1999 is true today.  And the reason they believe that is the mechanism that provided information to them about changes started disappearing 10 years ago.

It you want to succeed in the current economic paradigm, you are going to have to start figuring out what your customers need and what they can pay for.  There is a whole new generation of customer out there that you have never met.  And 85 percent of them are on social networks looking for answers.

Like Fox Mulder said, "The truth is out there." So go get it.  You can't afford not to.

Wrapping up this history of mass media and journalism

On June 3 I said I would wrap up this series within a week.  Well here it is a month later.  Best laid plans and all that.

The last entry focused on whether there was actually a tradition of media objectivity and the answer was, pretty much, no.  We are all in a lather about losing an objective media but in truth, we got to where we are today without one.  What we are facing today is not the loss of an objective media, but a vibrant media the provides information and opinion by which we make decisions.  And we are losing it because the financing model is broken.  So how did we get here?

There are hardly any news agencies (print or broadcast) that were founded as for-profit organizations.  Joseph Pulitzer made his fortune in law and business before owning any newspapers. William Randolph Hearst made his money in mining.  Frederick Bonfils bought the Denver Post with his real estate fortune.  Every single historic newspaper was founded with one thing in mind: to promote the political and business goals of it's owner.  It was run, secondarily as a "public service."  Profit was not part of the picture. Broadcast networks began running news programs because the federal government, controlling the airwaves through the FCC, require public service as a condition of leasing those frequencies, but they were run on a shoe string because they didn't make any money.

It was with the explosion of advertising in all media in the 1950s that the media industry started seeing profit in running media.  The standard of journalistic ethics grew out of that period because there was enormous pressure from the audience to maintain that objectivity.  What also grew out of that was the massive media corporations we know today, including Viacom, Time Warner, The Tribune company and Fox.  Today, supporting a particular political or social position is not nearly as important as making money (You think Fox News does what it does because of a political position?  You are naive.)

But because the advertising revenue has dropped so dramatically over the past 10 years (with no end to the drop in sight) the corporations are looking for ways to stem the revenue hemorrhage.  Part of that is changing the emphasis from news coverage, which is no longer required by the government, to low cost productions like reality shows and talent contests... because that's where people are advertising.

While everyone is "concerned" about the death of our 50-year-old experiment with unbiased reporting, they only want it unbiased if it agrees with their opinion and world view.  People watch Fox and MSNBC because it agrees with what they already think.  

It's sad that people think the media has abandoned them, but the reverse is true.  Like government, people get the kind of media they deserve.  And if you feel a sense of loss there's only one person that can make a difference.  Go into the bathroom, look at a mirror and you will find that person.

The king is not dead... but he's not feeling too well

Had a real surprise this weekend when I got the New Tech Press web metrics for the past week (yes, it's doing quite well, thank you).  I got to the end to see where most of the referrals came from and had to sit down for a minute.

About 30 percent of the traffic on NTP comes from referrals, like blog posters mentioning the article or the site and, of course, web searches.  For most of the past year, most of the referrals came from Google, which is no big surprise.  That changed after Microsoft launched Bing last month.  

I started noticing that more and more visits were being referred to NTP through Bing almost immediately, but last week, the final result was that Bing referrals were twice Google's.

I have no idea why this is so, but I do know that the searches are for subjects in my metatags and keywords and when people are searching for news on EDA, semiconductors, green technology, they are being referred to NTP through Bing, more often than through Google.

Anyone who knows me knows I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but from a purely selfish perspective, I have to take my hat of to Bill's team.  They are really helping me out.

Market research is not about you

I have relationships with a lot of industry analysts and, like journalists, their existence is hanging by a thread because very few people understand what they are for.

Take the redoubtable Gary Smith, a long time analyst for the EDA industry.  Gary worked most of his career for Gartner until that organization decided to stop covering the industry because... well... no one in the industry was supporting the effort, just like they weren't advertising.  Gary struck off on his own after the layoff and founded Gary Smith EDA and continued the good work.  He's making a decent living but people still don't understand what he is doing.

Long before the layoff, Gary started putting out a wall chart on the industry; what companies were in it and where they fit.  Over the years, as the industry grew, Gary started making more wall charts for different segments.  I think there are three now.  You need an magnifying glass and a comfortable seat to read them, but they are pretty comprehensive.

And most people in the industry complain about them.  "That company doesn't belong in that category!"  "That's not what we do!" "I thought he was an industry expert!"  All those complainers have no clue what the purpose of those charts are and what Gary does.

See, analysts don't report what the companies in a given industry tell them.  They listen to the customers of the industry.  They listen to current customers, past customer and potential customers, then they report what those people say.  Of course, Gary takes lots of meetings with vendors, listens politely, takes a few notes and nods sagely.  Then he goes back to his data from the customers and sees if it lines up with what they say.  Then he puts out his reports (available for a fee) and his free wall charts.  Personally, I think he way undercharges for the charts.

In today's world, getting a reality check about your messages and image in the market for free is INCREDIBLY valuable.  It doesn't matter if Gary or any other analyst can parrot back your corporate dreck, it matters what the market is hearing you say, hearing what others are saying, and that information getting back to you.  If what the analyst says what the market sees agrees with you, then you need to give your marketing team a pat on the back.  If it doesn't agree, you need to ask the team why.

I've had several clients get upset about analyst positioning and end up abandoning working with the analyst (like Gary), but on the rare occasion that I get them to cool down and reconsider their positioning statements, wonderful things happen.  New customers start calling them, sales people have their calls returned, and business looks good.

So I take my hat off the Gary and all his compatriots in the analyst field.  And it's time the rest of you went to him hat in hand and find out what your customers are really saying.

Well somebody gets it.

Jeff Bier at BDTi just posted a column at InsideDSP about how companies make a mistake when cutting back and skimping on communications.  What a relief that someone in a marketing role recognizes that.

Just this week I was talking to a company that said they really don't need to make an outreach to their customers because they are "all on board with our technology."  Really.  He said that.  He believed that every possible customer; every person who has direct decision-making authority in signing the check to buy the product in each customer, has signed off.  The only problem is, none of the customers have agreed to let the company say who the customers are, nor have they actually delivered a check.

Several years ago I was working with a semiconductor company that believed they had their cash cow -- a computer company named after a fruit -- completely nailed down.  They didn't need to promote any more to get into that customer's products.  In the last month I worked with them before they went with a cut-rate publicist I supported them at the CES conference in Vegas and two guys walked up with badges saying they were from the company's big customer to look over the new products.  These two guys were from a stealth operation within the customer design unit.  

Well, they looked at the new product and turned to the sales VP.  "If we knew you had this, we would have considered you for the design-in process."  As a result, the client did not get into the blockbuster new product that came out a year and a half later.  Late last year, the client's products were designed out of the cash-cow product update.  Today, that client is never heard of except when they don't hit their sales numbers.

There is a conventional wisdom out in the world that engineers talk to each other, so we really don't need the media or a lot of marketing efforts.  All that is needed is to go to trade shows and crank out cookie-cutter press releases on the web.  That wisdom was born out of the cost-cutting that began 10 years ago.  We can see what the ROI of that wisdom is.

Jeff Bier, good job.  Now I hope someone begins to listen.

Rumors of your death ... are duly reported.

OK I know you're probably getting sick of this but I been reading through the newly revived Wiretap at John Cooley's ESNUG and there is a definite trend I'm seeing:  Companies, organizations and events that have been declared DOA are coming back to say they are very much alive and active.  But the "word on the street" was that they were dead.

So let's define "word on the street."  The reason a lot of people in the engineering world say that losing the media is not a big deal is because "engineers talk to each other."  Well, guess what?  I talk to engineers too and what I write about generally comes from them.  And since there is no other source of information to verify what they are saying is the media that no longer exists, what else are you going to believe.

Yes, when engineers talk about engineering problems, they are a great source of authority.  But when they discuss business, current events, industry activity.... well it's probably a load of hooey.

EESof, DATE, Stone Pillar, Nascentric, Pyxis and a dozen other companies and organizations have all had reports made about their death this past year, based on statements from engineers that they are gone.  That "information" has been duly noted by what remains of the press.  What do all of those groups have in common?  A lack of effective communication with the market.  The only way to change that is to invest more in communication.  If you don't want to do that... expect "reports" of your demise.

There are ethics and then there are ethics.

There's an interesting interchange between John Cooley and Gayatri Japa of the India Times on John's Wiretap today.  Seems Mr. Japa takes exception to the implied independence of Apache's is a violation of "honour" since the site is dedicated to pushing Apache's products and technology.  He points out that while companies like Synopsys, Mentor and Cadence have their own blog sites, they clearly identify themselves as being financed and promoted by their host companies.

I'd like to agree with Mr. Japa because it does make my skin crawl a bit to see a blatant lack of transparency, but then I am reminded of something that happened to me in the past year with New Tech Press.  

A company I was talking to about the program, when they learned that at the bottom of each article is a statement that says who the sponsor of the article is, said they didn't want that statement in their article.  "Just say that it was sponsored by New Tech Press."  When I explained that would be a violation of our ethical code; that we must maintain transparency not only because we agreed to do that with out media partners, but because journalistic standards require it, they said, 'Your ethics are not our ethics."

And that pretty much wraps it up.  Everyone ascribes to a cetain ethical code, but those codes are in no way equivalent.  Apache is not a journalistic organization.  It has no employees or contractors that have training or experience in journalism.  It has no one in the organization that even knows an established code of ethics exists for journalism, public relations and marketing communications, much less what is in that code.  And even if they did know what it was they would not agree to abide by it.

So with that knowledge in mind, I think we can all admit that Apache has not violated anyone's honor, because they don't agree with an established honor code.

This is what you get when you have an industry that refuses to support a vibrant, independent media; when amateurs run the show.  If you need brain surgery, don't go to the hospital janitor.  Go to a real doctor.  If you want journalism, don't go to an engineer.  If you want an ethical story, don't go to a company website.

Social Media chicanery

There was an interesting post in PC World recently, by Robert Strohmeyer about social media charlatans who try to sell companies on the magic of social media.  He has a point.  A lot of consultants and experts make it sound like all you have to do is learn the technology of social media and it will do all the rest of the work for you.  And that's simply not true.

A lot of the experts have dome out of my field of public relations and advertising who spent most of their careers force feeding the dreck posing as communication from their clients into the mechanism of the media.  Magically it seemed that the offal was turned into trusted information. These same people have learned how to shove that stuff into social media engines and the clients see that now they can read exactly what they put in.  There is no more filter.  Of course everyone thinks that's better.

It's not really.

What social media really does is put the medium directly into the hands of a lot of communication amateurs.  Unfortunately, I have to put a lot of my own into that group because most publicists, advertising experts and marketers have had virtually no training or experience in authentic communication -- just basic writing -- and are really horrible at putting out anything that isn't incomprehensible gunk.

But it is the world we happen to live in right now.  The media that we were used to; the one that fixed and filtered all our crap, has gone away for the most part.  We are now left with the responsibility of doing the work they did.  The good news is that social media has given us much easier and cheaper access to media.  The bad news is, we are all going to have to learn how to communicate properly, or at least start hiring people who can.  And by people, I mean experienced communicators that will cry "bullshit" when the clients start spewing it.

The thing I love about social media is that it takes away any excuse.  You can't blame the media for bias, or misquoting and ignorance of the problem... because you are the media.  And if what you are putting out is not getting results, then it isn't the media's fault, it's yours.

Of course, there's always the economy to blame.  Obviously it couldn't be your message.

Holy Crap! I had no idea...

For the past year, I've had a problem with statistics on New Tech Press.  We knew we were getting a lot of visitors, because I could see how many were coming into my other blogs from New Tech Press, but we couldn't get the data out of the actual site.  My web guy finally worked it out this week and the data started coming in...

We get 2,000 to 5,000 unique visitors every month.  Even when don't have anything new for a couple of months.  Of course, new stuff always kicks up the number but I was figuring we had, at most about 2,000 visitors total.

I'll be damned.  The silly thing actually works.

Tradition of free press, yes. Tradition of objectivity... not so much

When I got the journalism bug back in 1971 I actually believed that our tradition of media objectivity dated all the way back to the Bill of Rights.  But over the years I've done a lot of study on the subject of the press, especially in the past 10 years, and discovered that the US press from about 1750 to 1950 was anything but objective.  In fact from the end of the the Revolutionary War through World War 1, the tenor of the American press had a greater resemblance to Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman than Woodward and Bernstein.

The early American press was primarily anonymous.  Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin wrote scurrilous pieces about public friends and office holders that would be considered actionable today.  And they did it all under pen names. Jefferson blasted his "best friend" John Adams simply as "Anonymous" and Hamilton under the name "Brutus."  Hamilton took on both Adams, Jeffeson and even George Washington under "Pacificus"  And Franklin had an entire village of pen names that bitch slapped just about everyone that ever crossed him.

As the new country "matured" people got a little braver stating their abject disgust with certain public figures, to the point that certain factions actually founded newspapers to support their particular position.  Andrew Jackson near the end of his first term funded the establishment of a newspaper that blatantly admitted they were in existence to support Jackson.

In Jackson's defense, the newspaper that was funded by his the John Quincy Adams camp called him a homicidal maniac.  Something had to be done.

A few decades later, having your own publication wasn't considered cricket for politicians, but I imagine Abraham Lincoln wished he could have.  Here's what the New York Herald had to say about him when he was running for his second term:

President Lincoln is a joke incarnate... The idea that such a man should be president of such a country is a very ridiculous joke ... His cabinet is and always has been a joke....His emancipation proclamation was a solemn joke..." and on it goes.  

Of course, the people of the southern states didn't like him much either. Harper's Weekly, in 1864 published a list of slurs against Lincoln including: Filthy storyteller, Despot, Liar, Thief, Braggart, Usurper, Monster, Butcher.  Oh, wait.  Those weren't what the southerners were saying.  That's what northern Democrats called him.

Keep in mind, this is what was being reported as "news" not editorial.

The point here, is that for almost 200 years, the tradition of the American press, and to a certain degree the European press as well, was not one of objectivity.  Freedom of the press meant the protection of unjust, hateful and often untrue conjecture against both public and private figures.  In other words, pretty much a lot what we see on television, hear on radio and readon the internet today.  So how did we get to the place we are today?  That's next week.