Social Media & the Protestant Reformation

By Andrew Ausanka-Crues -- The rise of social media has been a popular topic for pundits of all stripes to pontificate and speculate on. As in all new and unfamiliar communication advancements we see experts clamoring for attention with claims such as email's "reign is over" (link is from a 2009 article) to professional athletes asserting "social media is ruining the world."

The truth of the matter is the human experience has a rich and diverse set of experiences from which to draw upon when attempting to analyze the impact disruptive communication technologies have on societies. The Economist, one of my favorite magazines (or, as they prefer, newspaper) has an excellent article in their annual double issue entitled "How Luther Went Viral".

The delivery of news is changing from an oligarchy of content providers to a diverse, plentiful and fragmented group of producers -- namely you and I. For instance, while the NY Times still plays an outsized role in establishing the news narrative the public receives (local newspapers, TV stations and radio programs taking the Times led) it no longer has nearly the clout it once had.

From the article:

The media environment that Luther had shown himself so adept at managing had much in common with today’s online ecosystem of blogs, social networks and discussion threads. It was a decentralised system whose participants took care of distribution, deciding collectively which messages to amplify through sharing and recommendation. Modern media theorists refer to participants in such systems as a “networked public”, rather than an “audience”, since they do more than just consume information. Luther would pass the text of a new pamphlet to a friendly printer (no money changed hands) and then wait for it to ripple through the network of printing centres across Germany.

With increasing decentralized avenues for the public to receive information it is more important for communicators to understand not only where target audiences receive information -- they have to taylor content to ensure it is relevant and interesting.

Losing the 60th Seat

Imagine if the ghost of Election Future told Teddy the day after the '08 election that he would die soon and that the fate of health care reform depended on the results of the special election to replace him. I'm quite sure the lion of the Senate would've slammed down a scotch in celebration (or equivalent)!

It is absolutely remarkable how the Democrats have revived a completely disorganized, dysfunctional political party. It really comes down to the "economy stupid". Three major mistakes were made by the Obama administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party:

1. pushing health care ahead of economic reform, including financial regulation;
2. trusting that Keynesian economics work; and
3. realizing, because of the branding efforts by the Obama Presidential campaign, voters projected their own interpretations of him, and often times with radical different results.

Obama and his campaign made a very conscious effort to prevent the brand of Obama from becoming labeled by traditional political definitions. Although he had a perfect liberal rating as a U.S. Senator and was known for advocating rather liberal beliefs such as expanding the rights of Americans to health care and other social justice issues, he avoided being categorized as a traditional liberal through advocating for a "realist" foreign policy, a more efficient, results oriented approach to government services, charter schools and praising Ronald Reagan.

While this was a brilliant campaign strategy that was incredibly effective, it was extremely vulnerable once public policy was made and the vision of brand Obama was clarified by American voters. This vulnerability was further compounded by, frankly, the arrogance of the Obama administration. We saw this after Iowa, when team Obama was overly confident about New Hampshire. This overconfidence led to numerous mistakes and nearly cost him the nomination.

I would speculate team Obama became enamored of their poll numbers early on and sought to strengthen the depth of positive sentiments towards Obama by continually keeping Obama front and center of the media cycle. What ensued was overexposure. Press conference after press conference, announcement after announcement... it was soon all Obama all the time... even more that it would already naturally be as the first minority President that was the hope of saving the country from the previous administrations seemingly disastrous policies.

Furthermore, this overexposure was compounded by an apparent supreme confidence that his policies would turn around the economy and unemployment rate. This is where mistake #2 enters.

In many ways Obama is extremely fortunate to even be where he is at right now. Imagine if that jihad advocating cat from Nigeria had actually succeeded in blowing up that plane during the holidays. Obama's rating would be in the low 30's and next November would be a complete bloodbath at the polls.

At the end of the day I'm still quiet stunned how Obama managed to destroy so much of the good will he accumulated with the American people.

BusinessWeek Worth $1?

A report out of the Financial Times indicates that McGraw-Hill will essentially be forced to give the venerable news weekly away for free due to BusinessWeek's $77.8 million loss in the first of 2009 and the realities of the print news distribution model.

Small, but Needed Step, to Greater Government Transparency

In a significant step towards greater government transparency -- and how our taxpayer dollars are being spent -- the stimulus bill requires government agencies to report disbursed monies via an optional RSS feed.

For each of the near term reporting requirements (major communications, formula block grant allocations, weekly reports) agencies are required to provide a feed (preferred: Atom 1.0, acceptable: RSS) of the information so that content can be delivered via subscription.

Real time reporting of how money is allocated will provide advocate organizations greater ammunition to push for a more effective, productive use of government resources -- and our tax dollars. I fully expect this development to create a few firestorms in the blogging world... which will consequentially be covered by radio, broadcast and print media outlets.

Hat tip: Steve Rubel

The Newspaper are Dead... Long Live the Newspaper

It is no secret the Gray Lady is facing serious financial difficulties. Just 18 months ago The New York Times Co. had a market cap of $2.7 billion -- it is only $542 million today. While the Times motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print", their business model/plan is best summarized by their debt rating -- junk. The Times's financial difficulty is epitomized with the fact a share of the The New York Times Company costs less than the Sunday edition of the New York Times.

Newspapers across the country are facing a similar financial problems. Their content is in demand by consumers -- google major local events and the local print stories almost always appear first -- yet they have lost their monopoly of delivering information on demand (before the Internet one could not pull up a radio interview or TV newscast whenever/where ever one desired).

Warning: Wild Speculation

Perhaps the best business model for the local established media would be for television stations to buy out and merge with local newspapers?

Government litigation/regulation, once again (see federal government anti-trust cases against IBM and Microsft -- it wasn't the litigation that ended their monopolies... it was the firms failure to innovate), has failed to keep up with the technological advances in the marketplace and this time threatens to destroy the 4th estate. If this issue sounds familiar, recall the contentious ideological battles in the last 30 years over the concept of "cross-ownership". The "progressive left" has fought any attempt to lift this restrictions claiming it would place too much media power in too few hands, increase media layoffs and therefore reducing the quality of local news coverage and stiffle local democracy. As Amy Goodman wrote in a 2007 article:

The problem facing Martin and his big media friends isn’t that newspapers are unprofitable; it’s that they are simply not as profitable as they used to be. This is in part because of the Internet. People no longer have to rely on the newspaper to post or read classified ads, for example, with free online outlets like Craigslist.

The media system in the United States is too highly concentrated and serves not the public interest but rather the interests of moguls like Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone, who controls CBS/Viacom. Media corporations that will benefit from Martin’s handout are the same ones that acted as a conveyor belt for the lies of the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We need a media that challenges the government, that acts as a fourth estate, not for the state. We need a diverse media. The U.S. Congress has a chance to overrule Martin and the FCC, and to keep the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban in place. It should do so immediately, before the consolidated press leads us into another war.

While I agree it is in the American public interest to have "media that challenges the government, that acts as a fourth estate," I simply do not see any other way to ensure the survival of local media outlets other than consolidation. Two ideas that have raised to address the financial difficulties of local newspapers have been government subsidies (horrible idea for very obvious reasons) and establishing local non-profit trusts (sounds good, yet I doubt this actually works + who is going to subsidize the entities... rich local elite who do not want negative press coverage).

The viability of local news coverage depends on increasing the efficiency with which local news is produced and distributed. Breaking up existing "cross-ownerships" or preventing further consolidation does nothing to address this fundamental reality. The "progressive left" needs to come up with better arguments than demonization of MSM to argue against the repeal of the "cross-ownership" rule and come up with realistic, viable solutions to save local media outlets.

A Possible Solution: Repeal "Cross-Ownership" Regulations

Although my prediction of four daily newspapers by the end of Obama's first term may be a bit aggressive, their is little doubt that an unprecedented number of daily newspapers will cease publication in the next four years. Newspapers have seen their two sources of income (advertising and subscriptions) massacred by the combination of the Internet and recession (esp. the collapse of the real estate and automobile industry). Significant job loses are inevitable. The daily print newspaper model is dead -- and the income from an outlet's Web site is not nearly enough to sustain current news operations.

Consolidation with local TV stations may offer the best opportunity to preserve as much journalistic talent and reporting as possible. Unlike newspapers, local TV stations income stream is far more stable than newspapers. While local TV news broadcasts have seen advertising and audience share drop, their core income stream is far more reliable long-term than print and has not fallen nearly as much.

Like all firms in any sector, newspapers are going to need need to innovate, to adapt -- and many are. Numerous print reporters are already filing video along with the written story to enhance the effectiveness of the piece on the Internet. Local televisions stations are now posting written news stories on the front page of their Web sites without a produced news clip. The delivery mechanism of these two media genres is rapidly merging -- and they are competing with each other for SEO rankings and an increased online readership.

I fear if "cross-ownership" regulations are not removed many daily newspapers will cease publication. The quality of local news coverage will be greater if the remnants of the daily newspaper are allowed to merge with local TV stations than simply go online as a shell of their former selves. In the aggregate local news coverage will be greater if consolidation allows for increased efficiency in news gathering.

The New Newsweek

I commend Newsweek for revamping their magazine in light of their recent and projected subscription losses. Details per the New York Times article:

"'If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable,'" per John Meachem, Newsweek's editor...

"Newsweek loses money...it has to try something big...

'Mass for us is a business that doesn’t work,' said Tom Ascheim, Newsweek’s chief executive. 'Wish it did, but it doesn’t. We did it for a long time, successfully, but we can’t anymore.'

Thirteen months ago, Newsweek lowered its rate base, the circulation promised to advertisers, to 2.6 million from 3.1 million, and Ascheim said that would drop to 1.9 million in July, and to 1.5 million next January...

Starting in May, articles will be reorganized under four broad, new sections — one each for short takes, columnists and commentary, long reporting pieces like the cover articles, and culture — each with less compulsion to touch on the week’s biggest events. A new graphic feature on the last page, “The Bluffer’s Guide,” will tell readers how to sound as if they are knowledgeable on a current topic, whether they are or not.

Political Tone Deaf Award (Bailout Nation)

This week's political tone deaf award goes to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly who, when asked why 11 Democrats did not vote for the "economic stimulus package" when it was on the House floor last week, stated:

The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district. Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that.

When relaying remarks to media outlets a press spokesperson must not only deliver a comment that advances the narrative of the article -- they must provide a quote that will be seen by listeners, readers and/or viewers as authentic while enhancing the long-term brand perception of the organization within targeted audiences.

Daly completely fails in this regard. Although he is being authentic he is damaging the political brand of the Democratic House leadership by being honest on the reality that "liberals" or "progressives" are simply not fiscally responsible. While this quote is not going to change any swing voters minds in the 2010 election cycle it is important to ALWAYS stay on message to ensure the strength of the political brand long-term.

If the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to expand the scope of government involvement in the economy they better get a grip on their PR flacks.

A better statement from Daly would have been:

The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district. She respects the diverse views within the Democratic House caucus and will continue to work with the entire caucus to address the massive challenges that confront our nation.

I like this statement better for a number of reasons:

1. This statement does not damage the public's image of the Democratic Party or the rebranding campaign from the word "liberal" to "progressive."
2. Although she seems accepting of the votes against the "economic stimulus package," their is a subtle threat in the latter part of the statement that members shouldn't get too comfortable voting against her on legislation.
3. I included the line "diverse views within the Democratic Party" from a branding perspective... to contrast the ideological purity current being enforced within the GOP. It is important for swing voters (moderates and independents) to see the Democratic Party as open to diverse ideologies to find solutions to the problems of America.

Credible Political Communication

The role of a communications director/team for an elected office is to share information with the public on what government is doing to address problems and to build/shape the political brand of the elected official in order to advance his/her political future.

It was well known during the 2008 that John McCain didn't know how to use a computer. He even admitted it in the spring of 2008. I understand the need to use new technologies to improve one's ability to deliver messaging, yet apparently McCain is now personally down with Twitter?

An effective use of Twitter is not to relay a politician's media and diplomatic tea schedule -- BORING! An effective use of Twitter would be for the elected official to build his political brand by relaying unique incite into their thought process or entertaining anecdotes from their lives (as a former communications director for a Los Angeles City Council member I can attest that all elected politicians have plenty of harmless stories that can be shared under 140 characters that followers would find of interest).

This does not entail for an elected official to understand or "get" Twitter -- although that certainly would help. A successful Twitter strategy necessitates an elected official to engage with their staff to ensure original, unique content.

To maintain at least some credibility here the McCain camp should just call the Twitter feed "The Office of Senator John McCain."

The Demise of the Printed Daily Newspaper

It is no secret that the traditional model of the daily newspaper is no longer functional. The "golden" age of print journalism -- when printed daily newspapers held a monopoly on the ability to deliver information to the consumer of news whenever the consumer wanted to access the information -- is over. While the news consumer could and did access information from the radio or television, nothing compared with the convenience of reading the newspaper when one wanted and without being at the whim of what order a radio/television news producer arranged news pieces.

This monopoly on accessing the attention of consumers enabled printed daily newspapers to charge very lucrative fees to other firms/organizations/individuals who wished to rent a part of the printed daily newspaper deliver mechanism to market to consumers.

The printed daily newspapers (PDN) has faced challenges to its monopoly of delivering information before (radio, television). While in the past the PDN was able to adapt and even grow stronger by eliminating evening editions and further consolidation it has never faced a challenger that attacks its core strength -- the ability to deliver information to the consumer on demand.

Yes, the fact that the Internet can deliver news to the consumer faster and cheaper certainly is a major factor in the demise of the PDN. However, radio delivers information to the consumer faster and cheaper and the newspaper has been able to survive -- and thrive -- in spite of this competition. The reason the Internet is destroying the PDN business model is because it does what radio cannot -- provide information to the consumer in a manner that empowers the consumer to decide what and when they access information/entertainment.

-------

How soon will the PDN last? My not so bold prediction: at most four newspapers print seven days a week by the end of Obama's first term.

The Media's Change of Guard

I thoroughly enjoy the political e-mail conversations/debates I have with three good friends of mine growing up. Two I would consider very liberal, the other pretty conservative (of the Heritage Foundation ilk). After a conversation on whether or not O'Reilly and Hannity have any intelligence I decided to retort with a longer response on the future state of the media. The piece is unedited and very raw, yet I thought I would share it here as it may be of interest to some.

---

Looking at the current media environment I think partisan media will only grow. If you look at communications and media historically partisan and opinionated news sources dominated. The period between WWII and the 2000 elections, where the ethics and standards of journalism was held in the upmost esteem, was a historically anomaly. This period was possible due to the incredible profit margins the networks, print and radio outlets had as the cost of distributing information went radically down due to new technologies (broadcast and print ad revenue with a growing affluent readership).

The profit margins are gone. Technology has grown so rapidly it has enabled an entire new medium of communication that is free to deliver -- the internet. Not only is it free it is incredibly fast. Why would I pay and wait for information when I can get it free and quicker online?

Daily newspapers are simply fucked. They will never make up the ad revenue online. The transaction cost for people to search for favorite sources of information online is very minimal. People will naturally look for information that conforms to their world view as it provides greater satisfaction. For evidence not only have the daily circulation numbers crashed, the New York Times corporate debt is now rated as junk and the Christian Science Monitor dropped its daily print edition and became a weekly. If a non-profit can't make it times are really bad.

With those will go the high standards for journalism, unfortunately. Newspapers especially will be in a desperate search to preserve market share, if they survive at all. Rebranding oneself as a paper that "thinks like I do" may be their only salvation outside of some of the elite papers (WSJ, Financial Times, New York Times).

Welcome to the new era of tabloid, partisan journalism. Our only salvation is more sites like TPM and similar right-wing sites find a new audience that is willing to pay for investigative journalism.

Furthermore...

The better question here is what does this mean for democracy? As communities grow more uniform (Santa Barbara elite liberals, suburban Orange County conservative), is the nature of bipartisanship essentially doomed? Don't blame the politicians -- blame the voting public!

My biggest concern here is that people stop thinking analytically on how to best solve problems and resort to familiar political rhetoric to feel they belong to something. A spirit of bipartisanship leads to better solutions as people are forced to negotiate out of their often narrow political convictions.