journalism

The New York Times KPI’s

 

Here are numbers lifted form the NYT’s Innovation report (see last week) and other sources. 

Most of The New York Times’ reach comes from its digital audience. Regardless of the metric, viewers on desktops and mobile are crushing print readers.

321-1 - 450

Sources: ComScore for the monthly uniques (US only); internal count for the home page views per 24 hours period and Gfk MRI based on net weekday & Sunday readership, Fall 2013 survey.

321-2 - 450

321-3 - 450

In theory, the Times can get rid of print. Digital revenue far exceeds the cost of running the newsroom, which amounts to $200m a year for 1300 writers and editors. Even if you add $20m for the 200 technical staff needed to run digital operations, and even 30% more for overhead, sales, marketing, and support staff, the result would still be a substantial profit  – but would advertisers come in the same way for a digital-only product?

321-4 - 450

The ad market seems to reward quality journalism over aggregation and listicles: The NYTimes.com monetizes itself three times better than Business Insider and nineteen times better than BuzzFeed. For this graph I simply divided annual advertising revenue for each media by the number of monthly users: 30m UVs for the NYT, 12m UVs for Business Insider according to ComScore figures quoted in this 247wallst story, and a revenue estimated at $20m by Reuters. (Had I used a 25m UVs assumption, BI’s ARPU would have been only $0.80 per visitor and per year).

321-5 - 450

The Times is known to have invested a lot in its digital subscription system (760,000 subs to date). It turns out to have been worth every penny. For those who doubt the paid model’s efficiency, The New York Times provides a great blueprint for quality media.

–frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com 

 

Time to Rethink the Newspaper. Seriously.

 

The newspaper’s lingering preeminence keeps pulling legacy media downward. Their inability to challenge the old sovereign’s status precludes every step of a critically needed modernization. (Part of a series).  

This column was scheduled to appear in the next two or three weeks. Then, on Thursday, the thick Innovation report by an ad hoc New Times task force came to the fore. Like many media watchers, I downloaded its 97 pages PDF , printed it (yes) and carefully annotated it. A lot has been written about it and I’m not going to add my own exegesis on top of numerous others. You can look at the always competent viewpoint from Nieman Lab’s Joshua Benton who sees The leaked New York Times innovation report as one of the key documents of this media age. (Other good coverage includes Politico and Capital New York — I’m linking to the NYT tag, then you’ll have all the stories pertaining to Jill Abramson’s brutal firing as well).

320-Innovation_full

This report is important one for two main reasons:

– The New York Times is viewed as one of the few traditional media to have successfully morphed into a spectacular digital machine. This backdrop gives a strong resonance to the report because many news organizations haven’t achieved half of what the NYT did, whether the metric is the performance of its digital subscription model, or its achievements in high-yield advertising – all while keeping its impregnable ability to collect Pulitzer prizes.

– We rarely, if ever, see an internal analysis expressed in such bold terms. Usually, to avoid ruffling feathers, such reports are heavily edited – which ends up being the best way to preserve the status quo. Even more, mastheads tend to distance themselves from endorsing conclusions coming from the “management crowd” – a coldly demeaning phrase. But, it the Times case, the report was expressly endorsed by the top editors (Abramson and her then second-in-command Dean Baquet who now leads the shop.)

Let’s then focus back to this column’s original intent: Why reinvent the newspaper, quickly and thoroughly.

Until last week, the reference on the matter was an email sent in January 2013 by Lionel Barber, the Financial Times editor (full-text in the Guardian), in which he sets a clear roadmap to shifting resources from print to digital:

I now want to set out in detail how we propose to reshape the FT for the digital age. (…)

[We] are proposing a shift of some resources from night work to day and from print to digital. This requires an FT-wide initiative to train our journalists to operate to the best of their abilities. And it requires decisive leadership. (…)

On unified news desks, we need to become content editors rather than page editors. We must rethink how we publish our content, when and in what form, whether conventional news, blogs, video or social media.

 A year later, key numbers for the FT are impressive:

– A 2013 profit of £55m ($92m, €67m) for the FT Group (which includes the 50% stake Pearson owns in the Economist Group); that’s an increase of 17%, while sales are slightly down by 1% to £449m ( $755m, €551m)

– 415,000 digital subscribers (+31% in one year) who now account for two-thirds of the FT’s total audience (652,000 altogether: +8%, including a staggering 60% growth in corporate users at 260,000)

– A rise in digital subscribers that offsets the decline in advertising now accounting for 32% of FT Group revenue vs. 52% in 2008.

– For the first time, in 2013, FT digital content revenue exceeded print content.

The FT might be on sale – but its management did quite well.

Echoing Lionel Barber’s view of resources reassignments are the equally strong terms from The New York Times’Innovation Report:

In the coming years, The New York Times needs to accelerate its transition from a newspaper that also produces a rich and impressive digital report to a digital publication that also produces a rich and impressive newspaper. This is not a matter of semantics. It is a critical, difficult and, at times, painful transformation that will require us to rethink much of what we do every day. [page 81] 

Stories are typically filed late in the day. Our mobile apps are organized by print sections. Desks meticulously lay out their sections but spend little time thinking about social strategies. Traditional reporting skills are the top priority in hiring and promotion. The habits and traditions built over a century and a half of putting out the paper are a powerful, conservative force as we transition to digital — none more so than the gravitational pull of Page One. [It] has become increasingly clear that we are not moving with enough urgency. [page 59]

The newsroom should begin an intensive review of its print traditions and digital needs — and create a road map for the difficult transition ahead. We need to know where we are, where we’re headed and where we want to go. [page 82]

These quotes from a news organization that never gave up on great journalism will be helpful to those who desperately struggle to transform newsrooms. It is also a plea for the necessity of dumping the obdurate print-first obsession:

– It precludes modernizing the recruiting process as journalists are still too often picked for their writing capabilities while many other talents are needed.

– It limits audience development initiatives. In today’s print-oriented newsrooms, most writers and editors consider their jobs done once the story is filed in the CMS (Content Management System). Unfortunately, in every fast-growing digital media outlets such as Buzzfeed, The HuffPo, Politico, Quartz, Vox Media, now part of the competitive landscape, throwing the story online is actually just the beginning. The ability to cause a news item to reverberate around the social sphere is now as important as being a good writer.

– As stated in the Times report, convincing the masthead on the mandatory resource-shifting in only part of the journey; most of the transformation’s weight lies on the shoulders of the rank and file in the newsroom.

– At the NYT as everywhere else, the old guard (regardless of age, actually), is the main obstacle to the necessary rapprochement between the editorial and the business side. For instance, by rejecting the idea that Branded Content would greatly benefit from the newsroom expertise (although everyone agrees that a news writer should never be asked to write advertorial), or that a conference is indeed an editorial initiative directed to a valuable audience segment, such conservative postures are actually shrinking the company down to its most fragile component.

– The same goes for the analytics arsenal. I heard scores of examples in which newsrooms call for more dashboards and indicators, but seldom use them. Editors should be supported by tactical analytics teams (including at the editorial meeting level) that will provide immediate and mi-terms trends, as well as editorial decision-making tools.

One of the most difficult part of the transformation of legacy media is not addressed in the Times Innovation report nor in the FT’s exposé. It pertains to the future of the physical newspapers itself (the layout of the Times remains terribly out-of-date): How should it evolve? What should be its primary goals in order to address and seduce a readership now overwhelmed by commodity news? What should be the main KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) of a modern newspapers? What about content: types of stories, length, timelessness, value-added? Should it actually remain a daily?

(To be continued…)

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

On Marc Andreessen’s optimistic view of news

 

A strongly-worded column by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen triggered an intense debate on the future of news. Andreessen might be right places, but his views can also be dangerously simplistic. 

For starters, it is always great to have an outsider’s view. Marc Andreessen’s witty, and fast-paced dithyramb on the future of news is undoubtedly welcome. But, as always, regardless of the depth and breath of the big picture he paints, the devil lies in the details. In no particular order, here are my thoughts on his manifesto.

As a European, I found his piece extraordinary US-centric or, slightly more broadly, Anglophone-centric.

Andreessen wrote :

[T]he market size is dramatically expanding—many more people consume news now vs. 10 or 20 years ago. Many more still will consume news in the next 10 to 20 years. Volume is being driven up, and that is a big, big deal.
Right now everyone is obsessed with slumping prices, but ultimately, the most important dynamic is No. 3 – increasing volume. Here’s why: Market size equals destiny. The big opportunity for the news industry in the next five to 10 years is to increase its market size 100x AND drop prices 10X. Become larger and much more important in the process.

By saying this, Andreessen makes two good faith mistakes.

First, he mixes up global reach and monetizable audience. Evidently, a growing number of people will enjoy access to news (maybe not all the 5 billion cellphone users he mentions), but the proportion of those able to generate a measurable ARPU is likely to be very small.

The Scalability that works for Google Maps or WhatsApp doesn’t work as well for the notion of relevant information, one that is more tightly connected to language, proximity and culture.

Second, he overestimates the addressable news market’s fragmentation. I live in France, a 66 million people country with a high standard of living and good fixed and mobile internet access. In spite of these factors, it remains a small market for the super-low-yield digital news business that brings few euros per year and per user (except for a minuscule subscriber base.) I remained stunned by the inability of good journalistic products, created by smart people, to find a sustainable business models after years of trying.

And the huge, globalized English speaking market does not warrant financial success. The Guardian is one such example. It operates one of the finest digital news system in the world but keeps bleeding money. The Guardian brings a mere $60m in digital ad revenue per year — to be compared to a kitten-rigged, listicles-saturated aggregator generating a multiple of this amount. Journalism has become almost impossible to monetize by itself (I’ll come back to that topic).

Andreessen also vastly underestimates the cost of good journalism when he writes:

[T]he total global expense budget of all investigative journalism is tiny —  in the neighborhood of tens of millions of dollars annually.”

Fact is, journalism is inherently expensive because it is by laborious and unpredictable: An investigation can take months, and yield nothing; or the journalistic outcome can be great, lifting the reputation of the media, but with zero impact on the revenue side (no identifiable growth in subscriptions or advertising). The same goes for ambitious coverage of people or events. No one has ever translated a Pulitzer Prize in hard dollars.

This is also the case for what Andreessen calls the “Baghdad Bureau problem”. It was said to cost $3m/year for the New York Times. In fact, on an annual basis, the Times spends about $200m for its news operations, including $70m for foreign coverage alone. The NYT is likely to stay afloat when it goes entirely digital (which might happen before the end of the decade), but one of the nastiest features of digital news is the unforgiving Winner Takes All mechanism.

As far as philanthropy is considered, I won’t spend too much time on the issue except to say this: Relying on philanthropy to cure malaria or to support ill-understood artists bears witness to an absence of sustainable economic system. (Until, perhaps, the artist dies; as for malaria, there is indeed a very long term benefit for society, but not for those who supply the treatment, hence the mandatory call to generosity.) Saying investigative or public-interest journalism could/should rely on philanthropy is the same as admitting it’s economically unsustainable. Luckily, American society has produced scores of philanthropists free from any agenda (political, ideological, religious) — such as the Sandler Foundation with ProPublica. That’s not the case in France — not to mention Russia and many other countries.

There are plenty of areas in which I completely support Marc Andreessen’s view. For example: A media company “should be run like a business“, i.e. seek the profitability that will warrant its independence (from every economic agent: shareholders, advertisers, political pressure, etc.) This brings us to the size and shape of a modern news factory (I use the term on purpose). We have to deal with an unpleasant reality: Good journalism is no longer sustainable as a standalone activity. But — and that’s the good news — it remains the best and indispensable core around which to develop multiple activities (see my recent column about The News Media Revenue Matrix).You can’t develop services, conferences, publishing, etc. around a depreciated journalistic asset. On the other hand, this asset has to be drastically streamlined: In many cases, less people, better-paid (simply for the ability to retain talent) and with sufficient means to do their job (don’t go for the press junkets because the travel budget has been slashed, you’ll lose on three counts: credibility of your brand, self-esteem of your team, quality of the reporting.)

Unfortunately, as Andreessen noted, there are plenty of hurdles to overcome. In fact, most existing news companies do not fathom the depth of the transformation required to survive and thrive. Nor do they understand the urgency to set this massive overhaul in motion. Such moves require strength, strong leadership, creativity, a fresh approach, unabated confidence, and a systemic vision — all of the above in short supply at legacy media. Note that when Marc Andreessen prides himself to be an investor in media ventures (for instance Business Insider– no conflict of interest), all are digital natives and bear none of the burdens of traditional media. His bullishness on news is selective, personal.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

What to do with $250m in digital journalism? (II)

 

In a previous Monday Note, we looked at an ideal newsroom, profusely funded by Pierre Omidyar and managed by whistleblowing facilitator Glenn Greenwald, a structure that combines the agility of a tech startup with the highest of journalistic standards. Today, we look at the product and the business model.   

Profit or non-profit? Definitely for-profit! First, because the eBay founder’s track record (see this The New Inquiry article) shows a fierce appetite for profitable ventures. And second, because there no such thing as a free and independent media press without a strong business side: financial vulnerability is journalism’s worst enemy while profit breeds scalability. How to make money, then, with a narrow niche such as investigative journalism? Can Omidyar’s venture move beyond the cross-subsidy system that powered legacy media for decades? This weekend, in a FT.com interview, Henry Blodget justified the deluge of eye-grabbing headlines spread over Business Insider by saying “The dining and motoring sections pay for the Iraq bureau”. . .

For this, Omidyar can look at a wide set of choices: he could devise click-driven contents built on the proven high volume / cheap ads equation. Or he could opt for what I’ll call the Porsche Model, one in which the most visible activity (in this case sports car manufacturing) brings only a marginal contribution to the P&L when compared to its financial activities: in 2009, Porsche made $1bn in profit from car sales and almost $7bn betting on Volkswagen stock. More realistically, an endowment-like model sounds natural for a deep-pocketed investor like Pierre Omidyar. Most US universities are doing fine with that model: a large sum of money, the endowment, is invested and produces enough interest to run operations. One sure thing: If he really wants to go against big corporations and finance, to shield it from pressure, Omidyar should keep its business model disconnected from its editorial operation.

Investigative journalism is a field in which the subscription model can work. In France, the web site Mediapart offers a credible example. Known for, among many others feats, its investigation of the Budget Minister’s hidden Swiss bank account that led to its resignation, Mediapart maintains a newsroom of seasoned reporters working on hot topics. In five years, it collected close to 80,000 subscribers paying €9.90 per month; the web site intends to make €6m ($8m) in revenue and a profit of €0.4m ($0.5m) this year. Small amounts indeed, but not so bad for a market one fifth the size of the US. Scaling up to the huge English-speaking market, and assuming that it will go for a global scope rather than a US-centric coverage, the Omidyar-Greenwald venture could shoot for 500,000 to 800,000 subscribers within a few years, achieving $40m to $60m in yearly revenue.

On the product side, the motto should be Try Everything – on multiple segments and platforms.

Here is possible product-line structure:

298 graph

Mobile should primarily be a news updating vector. In a developing story, say hearings on the NSA scandal, readers want quotes, live blogging, snapshots – all easy to grab while on the go. Addiction must be the goal.

Newsletters deserve particular attention. They remain an excellent vector to distribute news and a powerful traffic driver. But this requires two conditions: First, they must be carefully designed, written by human beings and not by robots. Second, they must be run like an e-commerce operation: a combination of mass emailing and heavy personalization based on collected navigation data. For an editorial product, this means mapping out granular “semantic profiles” in order to serve users with tailored contents. If the Omidyar-Greenwald project lives up to its promise, it will deliver a regular stream of exclusive stuff. A cleverly engineered email system (both editorially and technically) stands good chances  to become a must-read.

User profiling must allow the creation of several verticals. Judging who will join the venture from the first bylines (see article in CNet), the coverage intends te be broad: from national security to White House politics, sports issues (a sure click-bait), civil liberties, military affairs, etc. This justifies working on audience segmentation, as not everyone will be interested in the same subject. The same goes for social web extensions: the more segmented, the better.

Web TV. If you want to go beyond kittens or Nascar crashes, providing TV contents on the web is more difficult that it appears. But “programs” available in Scandinavia show that, for developing stories, Web TV can be a great substitute for conventional TV as it allows simultaneous coverage of multiple events. Nordic viewers love that.

Fact-checking. Since the Omidyar-Greenwald project is built. t on trust and transparency, it should consider launching the equivalent of politifact.com, a fact-checking web site operated by the Tampa Bay Times, which landed a Pulitzer Prize in 2009. A vertical fact-checking site on national security, privacy and data protection issue would definitely be a hit.

Other languages. Going after the Chinese market could be hard to resist. According to Internet World Stats, it is by far the largest single market in the world with 538 million people connected to the web in 2012. For a media venture aimed at lifting the veil on corruption, China offers strong potential in itself. As far as evading censorship, it should be an appealing challenge for the squad of hackers hired by Omidyar-Greenwald.

A print version? Yes. It sounds weird, but I strongly believe that a well-designed weekly, large format (tabloid or Berliner), distributed on selected, affluent markets, would complete the product line. Print remains a vector of choice for specific, long-form readings, ambitious news scenographies with high impact photographs, for an in-depth profile or a public interest story.

Global Thinking. Its potential for worldwide reach is one of this venture’s most interesting factors. It will be of limited interest if it doesn’t embrace a global approach to public interest journalism in large democracies but also in countries that are deprived of a free press (a long list). Creating a high standard, worldwide affiliation system to promote investigative journalism everywhere, regardless of the economic and political constraints, should definitely be on the founders’ roadmap.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

What to do with $250m in digital journalism? (1)

 

Pierre Omidyar, Ebay’s founder and now philanthropist, pledged $250m to a new investigative reporting venture. Starting a project of this magnitude from scratch isn’t an everyday occurrence, leading us to wonder how it could look like? (First of two articles) 

For a digital journalism project, 250 million dollars (€185m) is a serious investment. So far, it’s unclear whether this is a one-time investment, merely initial funding (Omidyar’s share in eBay is approx. $8.5bn), or just yearly running costs. To put things in perspective, The New York Times’ 1300 people newsroom costs around $200m per year, including $70m for international coverage alone, i.e. reporting abroad and maintaining 24 foreign bureaus manned by 50 reporters. But, by most measures, the scope of NYT operations is at the far end of the scale.

A more realistic example is the funding of the non-profit media ProPublica (see a previous Monday Note on the subject). According to its 2012 financial statement (PDF here), ProPublica has raised a little more than $10m from philanthropic organizations and spends less than that for a 30 persons staff. No one disputes that, journalistically speaking, ProPublica is a remarkable publication; it faithfully follows its “Journalism in the Public Interest” mission statement, collecting two Pulitzer Prizes in so doing.

Great journalism can be done at a relatively minimal cost, especially when focused on a narrow segment of the news spectrum. On the other hand, as the New York Times P&L shows, the scope and size of its output directly correlates to the money invested in its production – causing the spending to skyrocket as a result.

Since we know little of Pierre Omidyar’s intentions (interview here in the NYT and a story outlining the project), I’ll spare Monday Note readers my usual back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I’ll stick to a general outline of what a richly funded news ventures could look like.

Staffing structure. Once again, ProPublica shows the way: a relatively small team of young staffers, coached by seasoned reporters and editors. For this, Omidyar draws the hottest name in the field, namely the lawyer-activist-Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald, who played a prominent role in the Snowden leaks (more about him: his blog on The Guardian; a NYT Magazine profile of Greenwald’s pal Laura Poitras, another key Snowden helper).

Greenwald_guardian

Multi-layer hierarchy is the plague of legacy media. The org chart should be minimalist. A management team of five dedicated, experienced editors is sufficient to lead a 24/365 news structure. Add another layer for production tasks and that’s pretty much it. As for the headcount, it depends on the scope of the news coverage: My guess is a newsroom of 100-150, including a production staff (I’ll come back to that in a moment) can do a terrific  job.

No Guild, no unions, no syndicats à la française, please. Behind their “fighting for our people” façade, they cynically protect their cushy prebends and accelerate the industry’s demise. As a result, the field is left open to pure players – who are keeping people in stables, content-recycling factories.

Beyond that, avoiding any kind of collective bargaining allows management to pay whatever will be necessary to hire and retain talent, without relying to fake titles or bogus hierarchy positions to justify their choices. In addition, above-market salaries should discourage ethically dubious external gigs. Lastly, a strict No-Kolkhoze governance must be enforced from the outset; collaboration and heated intellectual debate is fine as long as it doesn’t emasculate decisions, development, innovation – and speed.

A Journalism 2.0 Academy. I strongly believe in the training of staffers, journalists or not. Hiring motivated young lawyers, accountants, financial analysts, even scientists, and teaching them the trade of journalism is one the best ways to raise the competency level in a newsroom. It means having a couple of in-house “teachers” who will compile and document the best internal and external practices, and dispense those on a permanent basis. This is what excellence requires.

A Technology Directorate. On purpose, I’m borrowing jargon from the CIA or the FSB. A modern news organization should get inspiration from the intelligence community, with a small staff of top level engineers, hackers, cryptographers, data miners, semantic specialists. Together, they will collect data, protect communications for the staff and their sources, provide secured workstations, laptops and servers, build a mirroring infrastructure as a precaution against governmental intrusion. This is complex and expensive: It means establishing encrypted links between countries, preferably on a dedicated network (take advantage of Google’s anger against the NSA to rent capacity), and putting servers in countries like Iceland — a libertarian country and also one of the most connected in the world. While writing this, I ran a couple of “ping” tests, and it turned out that, from Europe, the response-time from an Icelandic server is twice as short as from the New York Times!

Besides assisting the newsroom, tech staff should build a secure and super-fast and easy-to-use Content Management System. Most likely, the best way will turn out to be a WordPress system hack – as Forbes, Quartz, AllThingsD, and plenty of others did. Whatever the setup ends up being, it must be loaded with a powerful semantic engine, connected to scores of databases that will help enrich stories with metadata (see a previous Monday Note on the subject The story as gateway to knowledge). By the same token, a v2.0 newsroom should have its own “aggrefilter”, its own Techmeme that will monitor hundreds websites, blogs and twitter feeds and programmatically collect the most relevant stories. This could be a potent tool for a newsroom (we are building one at Les Echos that will primarily benefit our news team.)

Predictive Analysis Tools and Signal-to-Noise detection. In a more ambitious fashion, an ideal news machine should run analytics aimed at anticipating/predicting spasms in the news cycle. Pierre Omidyar and Glenn Greenwald should acquire or build a unit like the Swedish company Recorded Future (more in this story in Wired UK), which is used by large corporations and by the CIA. Perhaps more realistically, building tools to analyze and decipher in realtime the internet’s “noise”, and being able to detect “low-level signals” could be critical to effectively surfing the wave.

That’s all for today. Next week, I’ll address two main points: Designing modern news products, and ideas on how to make (some) money with this enthralling venture.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The story as gateway to knowledge (and revenue)

 

In digital journalism, the article is no longer an end in itself. Quite the contrary, it’s an entry point to the depths and riches of the web, and a significant contributor to the revenue stream.

Last week in Paris, I met the representative of a major US tech firm in charge of content-based partnerships. This witty, fast-thinking young engineer toured European capitals for an upcoming web + mobile platform, meeting guys like me in charge of digital operations in large media companies. Our discussion quickly centered on the notion of article in the digital world. Like many of his peers (I can’t  name them otherwise you might triangulate with whom I spoke), he looked at the journalistic article in an old-fashioned way: a block of text, augmented with links here and there, period.

This no longer is how it works — or how it should work.

There are many forms of digital journalistic contents. They range from the morning briefing you’ll eat up on your smartphone while inhaling your breakfast, or during your commute to work, to the long-form piece aimed at lean-back reading, preferably on a tablet and with a glass of chilled chardonnay. In between, there is the immense output of large media outlets that create good original content, hundreds of pieces every day.

If we draw a quick matrix of contents vs time and devices, chances are it will look like this:

usages, devices

As the graph shows, in a ideal world, a news stream should be broken into multiple formats to fit different devices at different times of the day. Of course, the size of the bubbles depicting usage intensity varies by market.

Three notes: the smartphone appears as the clear winner with high usage, spread all over the day; tablets enjoy the largest scope of contents (plus the highest engagement). As for the PC, it has been evicted as a vector for mainstream, general news. Still, thanks to its unparalleled capabilities and penetration as a productivity tool, the PC retains the most of the business uses. Consequently, the news read on a PC, largely in the context of a professional use, carry a greater value — as long as the article is linked to three different functions:

First as an audience concentrator from multiple sources, see here:

traffic drivers

Second, by building a system in which the article becomes an entry point to the web’s depths, i.e. to the trove of publicly and freely available databases. To get an idea of the open web’s riches, see the image below and click this link to dive into it:

debpedia_colored

 

This two-year old graph was designed by University of Berlin computer scientists. All these datasets are up for grabs by editors and publishers willing to expand their contents. Every single piece of news can be greatly augmented by hundreds of datasets orbiting around the DNpedia Knowledge Base (part of the Wikipedia Project.) According to its official description, the English version of DPpedia describes 4 million objects, including:

  • 832,000 persons
  • 639,000 places (including 427,000 populated places)
  • 372,000 creative works (including 116,000 music albums, 78,000 films and 18,500 video games)
  • 209,000 organizations (including 49,000 companies and 45,000 educational institutions), 226,000 species
  • 5,600 diseases.
  • When extended to the 119 available languages, the number of objects rises to 25 million.

The third way to raise the value of editorial contents is to use the article as a promotional vehicle for a broad set of ancillary products that media organizations should develop:

article upsell

(Needless to say, in this chart, Church and State must remain separated: the article is to be a journalistic product, aimed primarily at informing the public; the “promotional” aspect being only secondary.)

Until now, connecting to multiple datasets and up-selling extra products weren’t priorities for most legacy media. The main reasons are well-known: insufficient technological culture and investments  — which left the field totally open to pure players that made a modern, productive use of both datasets and new commercial channels. Things are changing though. Slowly.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The Quartz Way (1)

 

Quartz, a web-only business publication, just turned one year old. On both editorial and business dimensions, Quartz features all components of a modern media venture. Is this a formula for the long run? To answer the question, in the first of two articles, we take a closer look at the editorial product.

Quartz (qz.com) is the kind of media most business writers would love to be part of. It’s smart, fun, witty, basic and sophisticated at the same time. Like Jony Ive design at Apple, its apparent simplicity is the combined product of deep thought and of a series of bold moves by its owner, the Atlantic Media group, publisher of the eponymous monthly. From all standpoints, content, organization or even business model, Quartz came up with innovations (see the Monday Note I wrote for the launch in September 2012).

Ten days ago, my phone interview with editor-in-chief Kevin Delaney, started with a discussion of his newsroom of 25 writers and editors. On Tuesday September 24 at 9pm Paris Time, Quartz had this piece at the top of its infinite scroll:

Quartz illustr

Editorially, this epitomizes (in a way) what Quartz is about: topics addressed through well-defined angles (in this case, the idea that if Amazon hit large book retailers hard, it didn’t have much impact on small independent bookstores.) The story was short but right to the point — taking the opposite side of the now worn tale of Amazon devastating the book-selling landscape. To illustrate his piece, instead of using yet another photograph of Jeff Bezos haranguing a crowd, the writer picked this weird image of a girl showing off at a bookstore event.

Yes, at Quartz, journalists are the ones who get to select the pictures that go with their article. Most of the time, this yields better audience numbers.

Actually, explains Kevin Delaney, the staff is supposed to produce a complete package, ready to be processed by editors, with links, headline, photos (lifted from Reuters, Getty, AP or sometime the Creative Commons trove) properly cropped and adjusted. Everything is done within a WordPress interface, chosen for its versatility, but also because most journalists already know to use it. As for headlines (the task usually handled by editors), the Quartz newsroom relies on team chats to quickly and collaboratively work on pieces.

kevin_delaney
Kevin Delaney (photo: Quartz)

The same goes for graphics like in this snapshot of Tweeter’s IPO prospectus, a part of the magazine’s comprehensive coverage of the upcoming event. To further encourage the use of graphics and charts in stories, Quartz engineering director Michael Donohoe (a NYT alumni) ChartBuilder, a bespoke, easy to use tool.  [Correction : as pointed out by Quartz'global news editor Gideon Lichfield, ChartBuilder has been developed by David Yanofsky, one of Quartz journalist/coder/data hackers...] As an internet-native company, Quartz threw its software in the open-source world (see how it looks in Github) — an unthinkable move in the close-to-the-vest legacy media world…

While listening to Delaney describing his organization, I couldn’t help but mentally itemize what separates its super-agile setup from traditional media. A couple of months ago, I met the digital management of a major UK newspaper. There, execs kept whining about the slow pace evolution of the news staff and the struggle to get writers to add links and basic metadata (don’t even think about pix or graphics) to their work product. By and large, most legacy media I know of, in France, UK and the United States, are years behind swift boats such as Quartz, Politico or the older but still sharp Slate.

I used to think the breadth and depth of older large newsrooms could guarantee their survival in a digital world plagued by mediocrity and loose ethics. But considering great pure players like Quartz — which is just the latest offspring of a larger league — I now come to think we are witnessing the emergence of a new breed of smaller, digital-only outlets that are closing the gap, quality-wise, with legacy media. In the context of an increasingly segmented and short-on-time readership, I can only wonder how long the legacy newsroom’s strategic advantage of size and scope will last.

Quartz editorial staff has nothing to do with the low-paid, poultry farm newsrooms of many digital outlets. Most of the 25 journalists and editors (out a staff of 50) were drawn from well established brands such as Bloomberg, The Economist, Reuters, New York Magazine or The Wall Street Journal (Kevin Delaney, 41, is himself a former WSJ.com managing editor). “Our staff is slightly younger than the average newsroom, and it is steeped in the notion of entrepreneurial journalism”, says the Quartz editor-in-chief. “With Quartz, we had many opportunity to rethink the assumptions of traditional media”.

The original idea was to devise how The Economist would look like if it had been born in 2012 rather than in 1843, explains Delaney. It would be digital native, mostly for mobile reading, and focus on contemporary economic engines such as digital, globalization, e-commerce, the future of energy, debt, China, etc. Instead of abiding by the usual classification of business news that looks like a nomenclature from the Bureau of Labor Statistics  (Industry, Services, Markets, Trade, etc.), Quartz opted for a sexier taxonomy; its coverage is based on an evolving list of “Obsessions“, a much more cognitive-friendly way to consider the news cycle than the usual “beat” (read this on the matter). As an avid magazine reader, Delaney said he derived the idea from publications like New York Magazine.

The challenge is connecting this categorization to audience expectations… Hence the importance of the social reverberation of Quartz treatments. They translate into stunning numbers: according to Kevin Delaney, 85% to 90% of its traffic is “earned” and social referrals account 50% of the site’s traffic. In other words, the traffic coming from people typing http://qz.com in their browser accounts for only 10-15% of the volume. To put things in perspective, on a legacy media site, social traffic weighs about 5% — in some rare cases 10% — and around 40% to 50% of the pages views are generated via the home page.

Since the site is nothing else but an infinite rolling page of stories, there is no classic jumping board home page. Another obsession of Quartz founders: “We wanted to minimize friction and encourage readers to share our stories. We designed the site first for tablets, then for mobile and as a classic website, in that order,” insists Kevin Delaney. No apps in sight, but a site built in HTML5 and responsive design that adjusts to screen size. At first, the no-app choice sounded weird for a media aimed at a mobile audience, but considering the rising costs and complexity of building, managing, and maintaining native apps on multiple platforms, a single HTML design was probably the best approach.

I’m not through talking about Quartz. Next week, we’ll examine the venture’s business aspects, its bold ways of dealing with advertising.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

News: Personalized or Serendipitous?

 

Every digital news designer faces the question: should the traditional serendipity of contents be preserved or should we go full steam for personalization? It turns out Google is already working on ways to combine both — on its usual grand scale.

Serendipity always seemed inseparable from journalism. For any media product, taking readers away from their main center of interest is part of the fabric. I go on a website for a morning update and soon find myself captured by crafty editing that will drive me to read up on a subject that was, until now, alien to me. That’s the beauty of a great news package.

Or is it still the case? Isn’t it a mostly generational inclination? Does a Gen Y individual really care about being drawn to a science story when getting online to see sports results?

Several elements concur to the erosion of serendipity and, more generally, curiosity.

First, behavioral among digital readers are evolving. These extend far beyond generations: Regardless of her age, today’s reader is short on time. At every moment of the day (except, maybe, in the loo or in bed at night), her reading time is slashed by multiple stimuli: social teases, incoming mail, alerts or simply succumbing to distractions that lie just one click (or one app) away. That’s one of the tragedies of traditional news outlets: When it comes to retaining the commuter’s attention, for instance, Slate or The Washington Post are in direct competition with addictive products such as Facebook or Angry Birds…

Second, the old “trusted news brand” notion is going away. Young people can’t be bothered to leaf though several titles to get their feed of a variety of topics; that’s why aggregators thrive. The more innocuous ones, such as Mediagazer, mostly send traffic back to the original news provider; but legions of others (Business Insider, The Huffington Post…) melt news brands into their own, repackage contents with eye-grabbing headlines and boost the whole package with aggressive marketing.

Below, see how BuzzFeed summed up the New York Times story on the NSA monitoring social traffic: 80 words in BF that capture the substance of a 2000 words article by two experienced journalists who collected exclusive documents and reported from Washington, New York and Berlin. buzzfeed nyt

(Note that BuzzFeed is serving a more appealing headline and a livelier photograph of general Keith Alexander, head of NSA.) How many BuzzFeed glancers did click on the link sending back to the original story? I’d bet no more that 5%. (Anyway, judging by the 500 comments that followed it, the NYT did well with their article.) This trends also explains why the Times is working on new digital products that take into account both time scarcity and the Gen Y way with news.

This leads us the third reason to wonder about personalization: the economics of digital news. In the devastated landscape of online advertising, it became more critical than ever to structure news content with the goal of retaining readers within a site. That’s why proper tagging, use of metadata, semantic recommendation engines and topic pages entries are so important. More pages per visit means more ads exposure, then more revenue. Again, pure players excel at providing incentives to read more stuff within their own environment, thus generating more page views.

Coming back to the customization issue, should we turn the dial fully to the end? Or should we preserve at least some of the fortuitous discovery that was always part of the old media’s charm?

Let’s first get rid of the idea of the reader presetting his/her own preferences. No one does it. At least for mainstream products. Therefore, news customization must rely on technology, not human input.

Last week, I spoke with Richard Gingras, the senior director of news and social products at Google (in other words, he oversees Google News and Google + from an editorial an business perspective). Richard is a veteran of the news business. Among many things, he headed Salon.com, one of the first and best online publication ever.

gingras

According to him, “Today’s news personalization is very unsophisticated. We look at your news reading patterns, we determine that you looked at five stories about the Arab Spring and we deduct you might like articles about Egypt. This is not how it should work. In fact, you might be interested in many other things such as the fall from grace of dictators, generation-driven revolutions, etc. These requires understanding concepts”. And that’s a matter Google is working on, he says. Not only for news, but for products such as Google Now which is the main application of Google’s efforts on predictive search. (Read for example With Personal Data, Predictive Apps Stay a Step Ahead in the MIT Technology Review, or Apps That Know What You Want, Before You Do in the NYTimes).

The idea is to connect all of Google’s knowledge, from the individual level to his/her social group context, and beyond. This incredibly granular analysis of personal preferences and inclinations, set in the framework of the large macro-scale of the digital world, is at the core of the search giant’s strategy as summed-up below:

google infos2

On the top of this architecture, Google is developing techniques aimed at capturing the precious “signals” needed to serve more relevant contents, explains Richard Gingras. Not only in the direct vicinity of a topic, but based on center of interests drawn from concepts associated to individuals’ online patterns analyzed in a wider context. In doing so, Gingras underlines the ability of Google News to develop a kind of educated serendipity (term is mine) as opposed to narrowing the user’s mind by serving her the unrefined output of a personalization engine. In other words, based on your consumption of news, your search patterns, and a deep analysis (semantic, tonality, implied emotions) of your mail and your posts — matched against hundreds of millions of others — Google will be able to suggest a link to the profile of an artist in Harper’s when you dropped in Google News to check on Syria. That’s not customized news in a restricted sense, but that not straightforward serendipity either. That’s Google’s way of anticipating your intellectual and emotional wishes. Fascinating and scary.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

Memo #2 to Jeff Bezos: Let’s talk about news products and design

 

Should the new owner of The Washington Post dump the print edition? What should its digital online strategy and tactics look like, both in terms of contents and platforms? 

The questions stated above might not fall into Jeff Bezos areas of sharpest expertise. But there is no shortage of smart people within The Washington Post — at least a core group eager to seize their new owner’s “keep experimenting” motto and run with it.

What can he do? For today, let’s focus on editorial products.

#1. The printed newspaper. Should The Washington Post dump its print product altogether? The short answer is no. At least not yet and not completely. Scores of digital zealots, usually with a razor-thin media culture, will push for the ultimate sacrifice. But in every market — Washington, London, Paris — there still exists a solid base of highly solvent readers that will pay a premium for the print product. This very group carries two precious features for newspaper economics: One, they are willing to pay almost any price to have their precious paper delivered every day. For a proof of that statement, see how quality papers repeatedly hiked prices in recent years, $2 or €2 is no longer a psychological threshold. Hefty street prices helped many to offset the decline of advertising revenues. Keeping the printing presses running offers a second advantage, the ads themselves: They gave lost ground, but the remaining print ads still bring 10 or 15 times more money per reader than digital versions — which is, let’s be honest, a complete economic failure of digital news products.

How long will it last? I’d say around five years. It actually depends of the evolution of the print product. Look at this weekend paper’s layout:

wapo pages

Is there anyone at The Washington Post who seriously believes this paleolithic visual will help retain readers?

Bezos should bring in a team of modern art directors from abroad. One such example is Innovation Media Consulting, an organization that works in many countries and has a great track record (I know one of Innovation’s partners well, Juan Señor, but I have no interest whatsoever in the firm.) Visually, the Post should consider a new layout (the Berliner format is a much better fit for tomorrow’s print than the old broadsheet). Also, to get a much-needed glimpse on what’s going on outside the Beltway, management should use their Amazon account to buy copies of the excellent Best Newspapers Design compilation.

Regarding the national vs. local/regional question, to me, the debate is settled: There is no point at having a physical daily newspaper with a national reach, period. (This could change if, one day, the Post is down to just one thick weekend edition.) Last August, in a remote trading post of Northern New Mexico, I found a fresh copy of the New York Times, most likely printed in Denver or Santa Fe, four hours truck drive from where I was (just have a look at this Google Map featuring the NYT printing plants locations to see my point). National + global scope belongs to digital.

#2. Digital products. The plural is important because, for a news company such as the Post, no single focus will do. At least three avenues ought to be considered: Web, mobile and tablets. (For the moment, we’ll put the Web aside, where The Post is doing great.)

For all publishers, mobile is way more tricky than initially imagined: as long as we can’t integrate content subscription in cell carrier billing, it will be difficult to have people pay for it — except if we consider some kind of in-app purchase for specialized contents. As for advertising on mobile, it now grows in “spectacular” fashion — going from the infinitesimal to insignificant. Furthermore, when comparing their product line to pure players such as Circa, we see how legacy media experienced difficulties in catching the mobile wave (see a previous Monday Note) or Pocket. The Post better work in that direction.

Tablets promise much better monetization. For this, assess the rate of iPad ownership among the Post’s readers (I bet it must be around 60%). Unfortunately, in the old press, the current rationale calls for flavors of print replicas, usually based on a PDF. As I’m writing this paragraph, I’m trying to download this morning’s Sunday edition of the Post for their iPad app; I’m stuck at about 20% of the download. (I certainly won’t ridicule the Post’s occasional glitches since it still occurs too often at my own paper– and I’m the one responsible…)

Why are digital publishers like us still struggling with this? It’s because we are stuck with a technology — namely PDF — that wasn’t designed for low download times, nor for interaction with the user, enhanced contents, social sharing, etc. Plus, many of us can’t depart form the idea that readers need to find on our apps the exact page look and feel, column structure and general layout of the print version. That assertion becomes less and less valid as the number of online readers keeps growing. That audience can become several orders of magnitude larger than the print edition’s readership: Simply consider that the NYT has 50 million people who are in contact with its online version one way another (including the very long tail), that’s more than fifty times it’s print circulation on any weekday.

Granted, a news product must have a visual identity, recognizable in every possible form, but that certainly doesn’t mean sticking to a 1993 technology with guys like us trying to keep outdated stuff alive, like a Havana car repairman nostalgically tinkering with a 1956 Chevrolet Bel Air

Jeff Bezos must keep one important things in mind: The modernization of print media has always been driven by the magazine industry, not by newspapers: From graphic design, to marketing, to advertising, weeklies and monthlies have lead innovation for decades. Now, as their print vector is dying, many of them tend to innovate on digital. They’re not doing it equally well, of course: a large group such as Condé Nast is pathetically backward — most of its titles offer only ultra-basic and unstable apps — but many publications (Fast Company, Business Week) made the leap forward with digital magazines really designed for the tablets. Even the NYT is about to launch a digital magazine for tablets that will feature great productions such as the Pulitzer Prize winning Snow Fall. So will ProPublica, I’m told.

fastco app

The Post should get rid of the cumbersome PDF legacy and switch to a full blown e-newspaper for iPad, generic Android tablets and Kindle Fire. There is no shortage of inspirational works available in the AppStore and in Apple Newsstand: Longform for the curation (my favorite weekend readings), The Magazine, TNW and more, all filled with interesting ideas or features…

To further stimulate innovation Jeff Bezos should call in firms able to genuinely think outside of the box such as Ideo or smaller shops who design great selling apps like Caroline+Young (the dataviz app mem:o), the people who did the sketching app Paper53… Personally, I’d even go as far as picking up the brain of great architects like Norman Foster, Rem Koolhas or workspace specialists NBBJ who have been commissioned to build Amazon new headquarters… It would be the most enthralling experiment to mix such great and diverse design talent pool with the Post’s journalistic excellence…

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Culture War: Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post

 

by Jean-Louis Gassée

After predicting the death of newspapers, that was last year, Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, now buys himself the The Washington Post. Necrophilia or the beginning of another spectacular transformation of an old genre?

A successful business man reaches the dangerous age of 50, looks at his fortune and makes a decision: He’s going to plough a few of his millions into a restaurant. In the past 25 years, he’s been to many of the best dining places around the world. Power lunches, closing dinners, gastronomy road trips with the family, he’s done it all.

He knows restaurants.

But he keeps failing. He fires the chef, changes suppliers, hires a new dining room manager, looks for a classier sommelier, fights city inspectors, calls on his acquaintances and asks them to bring their celebrity friends… nothing works.

He was blinded by his command of his true calling: being a customer. He saw the show from a comfortable box seat and only went backstage when invited by a knowing proprietor eager to glad-hand a moneyed patron. Our gastronome failed to see he knew very little about being a restaurateur, the intricacies, the people challenges (theft, drugs and sex), the politics that are involved in running a real restaurant.

(During my psychosocial moratorium, before I joined the high-tech industry in 1968, I worked in a bar, a food-serving strip-joint, and a restaurant. I thought these places were deranged. Decades later, I read Anthony Bourdain’s Kitchen Confidential and realized the “people challenges” I witnessed aren’t so unusual after all. Enjoy the book and think about the goings-on back there next time a maitre d’ looks down his aquiline nose at you.)

Failed restaurants are common in Silicon Valley, with its crowd of affluent and well-traveled business people who think they can master the trade. A few of them subsidize the great dinners we get to enjoy — for a while. They have our fleeting gratitude and end up with a painfully depleted bank account.

Is this a valid parable for Jeff Bezos plowing $250M (so far) into The Washington Post? To start, the price paid for the DC “paper of record” amounts to less than 1% of the Amazon founder’s fortune. Even if he has to double or triple his initial investment while he turns the paper around, it won’t trouble Bezos’ pocketbook much — he can eminently afford the bet.

And, unlike our failed restaurateur, I don’t think Bezos’ purchase was made in a mid-life fit of vanity. (Although see this delicious piece of Internet satire that contends he bought the paper as a result of a mistaken click.) Read Bezos’ Wikipedia bio, or his letters to shareholders… you’ll see he’s a deep-thinking geek (now a term of respect. The Urban Dictionary updates the meaning: people you pick on in high school and wind up working for as an adult). He’s justifiably famous for taking the very long view, and he’s quotably willing to be “misunderstood” for a long time.

But can he win?

Personally, I hope so. I used to love newspapers, I remember how much I enjoyed breakfast with two local and two national papers, all delivered to my doorstep, an unimaginable luxury in France.

Once upon a time, for their advertising revenue, newpapers enjoyed an oligopoly. With three or four dailies in each market, prices were contained. And we, the readers, certainly didn’t mind that advertisers paid 75% of the cost of our daily fix.

Then, the Internet that Bezos has ridden so well intervened and newspapers lost the news race. The Internet won on velocity and, too often, on relevance. In a Fortune Tech piece offering “5 hacks for Jeff Bezos“, Ryan Holmes, CEO of Social Media Management company HootSuite, points to the speed and tone of social media as sources of fixes for the Post:

Perhaps the greatest criticism of newspapers today is that they have lost relevance to their own readers. Writing on the decline of the Post, New York Times media columnist David Carr points out that “[the] days when people snapped open the daily paper to find out the things they should care about were long past …” Big newspapers, in particular, have proven startlingly inept at delivering timely, relevant news to the people they serve. So, naturally, readers have gone elsewhere, to myriad online sources that better cater to their interests.

Since the Net offered a seemingly unconstrained amount of billboard space, the price that newspapers could charge for ads was quickly cut by a factor of ten and, more recently, sixteen.

But it wasn’t just the emergence of the Internet as a news medium that dealt newspapers a near fatal blow. They also lost the race because of internal, cultural circumstances.

In another case of the Incumbent’s Curse, newspapers looked down on the Internet and those annoying high-tech people and things.  Kara Swisher, co-head of AllThingsD (a Wall Street Journal enterprise), recounts her trouble with the old, arrogant culture at the Post in her Dear Jeff Bezos, Here’s What I Saw as an Analog Nobody in the Mailroom of the Washington Post letter:

“It happened every day — other reporters playfully mocking me for using email so much or for borrowing the Post’s few suitcase cellphones, or major editors telling me that the Internet was like the CB-radio fad, or sales people insisting that the good times would never end for newspapers as long as there were local businesses that needed to reach consumers. (In truth, they still do, but that’s another letter.)”

Sadly, the Post’s cultural reluctance isn’t unique. In another country, two prominent dailies I know exhibit very similar symptoms, print journalists who actively despise or even obstruct the Internet side of their house.

Much has been written about Jeff Bezos’ personal (not Amazon’s) purchase of the Post. For example: Good Luck With That – Pew Research Graphs Bezos’ Stunning Challenge, where Tom Foremski steps us through the Post’s business challenges, starting with the inexorable decline in Print revenues:

Post Revenue Decline

Another comment well worth reading, Stop the Presses: A New Media Baron Appears, comes to us courtesy of Michael Moritz, a.k.a. Sir Michael, a journalist who went over to the Dark Side and is now Chairman of Sequoia Capital, a leading venture firm. The article reminds us of Bezos’ foremost preoccupation with customers [emphasis mine]:

“It won’t come as a surprise that Bezos explains that pleasing, if not thrilling, customers is Amazon’s most important task. In his 2009 letter he provided a peek into the internals of Amazon explaining that of the company’s 452 detailed goals for the ensuing year 360 had an impact on the customer, the word ‘revenue’ was used just eight times, ‘free cash flow’ only four times and ‘net income’, ‘gross profit’, ‘margin’ and operating profit were not mentioned. Even though there is no line item on any financial statement for the intangible value associated with the trust of customers this is, by far and away, Amazon’s most important asset.

Elsewhere, Moritz reminds us of another source of Amazon’s prosperity, Free Cash-Flow, a frequent topic in Bezos’ letters to shareholders:

“Since inception Amazon has generated $20.2 billion from operations almost half of which ($8.6 B), has been used for capital expenditures such as new distribution centers, which improve life for the customer.”

With this and more in mind, we now turn to the letter Bezos wrote to employees at the newspaper. While he professes no desire to “be leading The Washington Post day-to-day”, he nonetheless makes no mystery of his goal to be an agent of change, of modernization, of adapting to the Internet Age:

“There will, of course, be change at The Post over the coming years. That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment. Our touchstone will be readers, understanding what they care about – government, local leaders, restaurant openings, scout troops, businesses, charities, governors, sports – and working backwards from there. I’m excited and optimistic about the opportunity for invention.”

This comes from a man who, last year, said ‘People Won’t Pay For News On The Web, Print Will Be Dead In 20 Years‘.

Changing business models as a publicly traded company is impossible in practice. The old model dies faster than the new one kicks in and Wall Street runs away from the transition’s “earnings trough”. By buying the Washington Post, Bezos is afforded a privacy that the old public ownership structure doesn’t permit. (That’s exactly why Michael Dell wants to take his own company private, so he can perform surgery behind the curtains.)

Which leaves the new owner with his biggest challenge: Understanding and changing the culture at the old “paper” — which sounds harder and more expensive than a gastronome trying to become a restaurateur.

There will be blood.

This is no reflection on Bezos’ truly amazing diversity and depth of skills, but a sincere concern borne of Culture’s ability to devour anything that stands in its way, sometimes silently until it’s too late. As the saying goes, Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast.

Of course, we have examples of people performing seemingly impossible feats. Steve Jobs’ Apple 2.0 comes to mind, a turnaround of monumental proportions to which Bezos’ Amazon achievements could be fairly compared. So, why couldn’t Bezos build a WaPo 2.0?

As Aaron Levie, the founding CEO of Box, tweeted last week:

“Industries are transformed by outsiders who think anything is possible, not insiders who think they already know what is impossible.”

One more thing, a thought I can’t suppress: Unlike Steve Jobs, who gained insight from his tribulations and then spread the benefits on the largest of scales, Bezos hasn’t been burned and tempered by failure.

JLG@mondaynote.com