It's great working in a team environment because it beautifully extends my own attention capacity. Colleagues will often send interesting articles and blog fodder my way, and I appreciate how it uncovers gems that might go undiscovered by my RSS reader.
So, a hat tip to colleague Jim Crook, who recently sent along this post by Michael Scherer in Time's Swampland blog. Scherer jumps into the ongoing self-examination of the evolution of traditional media in the age of the blog (and social media) with a very unique perspective. He discusses the "value of the individual article" and how this is increasing due to the fact that consumers no longer have to purchase information in packaged offerings like newspapers. He states that among the options for consumers to individually select stories they want to read, there are well-read blogs like Huffington Post, Drudge Report and others that have links to articles of interest to them. These linked sources augment and give greater context to the information they pass along to their readers.
With the need to replace revenue because of declining subscriptions, ad inventory and classifieds, maximizing online advertising potential is paramount. In this context, Scherer offers this:
There is a corollary effect here: As the value of the package declines, the value of the individual article increases. Online, news organizations charge advertisers based on the number of hits they can get on a site. And since the hits are often coming for specific stories, and not the entire site, a blockbuster story that gets linked to, say, Drudge, is money in the bank.
He then poses questions about what it would take for one out of several competing stories on the same topic to capture the attention of Drudge (or comparable blog). He uses the example of a Politico story on Hillary Clinton's chances in the Democratic primary that is very provocative in nature -- as Scherer characterizes the story -- describing Clinton "as toast". He makes a note of how Politico enjoys regular linking by Drudge and speculates that it is because of this provocative tone.
If you say something provocatively, in a new way, or with an unexpected spin, you will succeed online...This trend towards story-by-story competition, and away from package-by-package competition, is a blessing and a curse. It is forcing better writing, quicker responsiveness, and it is increasing the value of actual news-making and clear-eyed thinking. But it is also increasing pressure on reporters to push the boundaries of provocation.
I happen to think that there is a great deal of truth to what Scherer has to say, and find this kind of insight valuable in terms of understanding how journalism will evolve. Thinking about this dynamic in the tech world, it certainly is consistent with the fact that TechCrunch and Valleywag have grown to be such influential and lucrative ventures. They are provocative themselves (although in some cases trying to become more journalistic at the same time), and therefore tend to link to fellow bloggers and blogging reporters that lean towards this style as well.
If this is true, does this translate into the fact that companies need to be more provocative in the news and communications they put out in order to capture the attention of journalists and bloggers? I tend to believe so, but this requires careful thinking on how to do it successfully. I'd love to hear what you think.
