So I didn’t think I would get into this kind of thing, but when Pete Cashmore of Mashable nominates you for a meme-ing game, who’s got the stones to say no? Without further ado, here are (some) of my predictions for 2007.

1. Pay Per Blogging Will Survive And Grow: As much as it churns some stomachs to think it, paying bloggers for their posts, opinions, or content will continue unabated throughout 2007. It took hold with deep grassroots in 2006, as marginalized d-list bloggers loved the idea of getting paid to blog. The entire category will, by the end of 2008, be a recognized and, amongst marketers, cheap and legitimate way of farming out grassroots buzz. As the category grows, we’ll see even more marketing companies try to grow a system like PayPerPost and ReviewMe; furthermore, A-list bloggers will continue to beat their chests over how wrong the idea is, not realizing that the reality is a foregone conclusion.

2. News aggregators will Thrive: With the idea that News-is-commodity as never more important, vertical algorithmic aggregators will continue to thrive, intermediating themselves between users and their news source. Although Google News heralded the way, sites like Techmeme, Tailrank, and Megite will all survive and thrive in their respective areas. Their growth will be covered by the mainstream media (ironically), and somewhere in the middle of the year, the entire category will explode. (more…)

Not to be outdone by the recent spate of crowdsourcing initiatives kicked off by Gannett and later followed by the BBC, who just a month ago announced a similar crowdsourcing initiative where they would pay an undisclosed sum to amateur video and photo ‘journalists’, Yahoo and Reuters are jumping into the fray with both fists first. The NYT reports on a new initiative that will be launched tomorrow, where, just like the BBC announcement, amateur photographers and videographers will be able to submit material for possible publication and syndication.

And, just like the BBC, there are vague promises of compensation if your piece does get chosen. The blogosphere has jumped on this piece of news, with Om Malik mentioning that its about time, given how prevalent digital cameras (and cameras on a phone) are; Thomas Hawk weighs in on behalf of potential photojournalists (let’s be above board with how much you’re going to pay them); Natali Del Conte opines on whether or not its a grab for Yahoo to get some free reporting done.

While the details of the process remain unknown, I think the specifics behind the compensation will probably be ironed out soon enough; that’s not really the issue.

If 2006 is known for the year that blogging, social networks, and social bookmarking got big — and readily game-able exploitable entities — it will also be known as the year that traditional news media took its first baby steps towards utilizing user generated content in earnest. And, as such, be the beginning loops in the death spiral for many professional journalists and photographers.

Its almost like the disintermediation of professional reporters — in all its forms — and when the price is so right (costing nothing to retain, and only paying for product), its hard to fathom why mainstream media outlets will turn away from this move. I think 2007 will only see a continual evolution of this aspect of The News.

I think one entity that has been lost in all of this is Getty, one of the leaders in stock photography, which has made great strides already in the user-generated content. (more…)

Earlier in the year, Gannett, parent company of such news properties about the USA Today, announced that it would take the bold steps toward restructuring the way they delivered the news. I blogged about it over here — but one of the biggest moves was to formalize an initiative to bring in the fold of user generated content, also known as crowdsourcing. The BBC has made strides to do the same sort of thing, but with a report by the Washington Post, it seems like Gannett is jumping with both feet in the water.

The article describes in detail how one local newspaper is in the process of transforming their journalists into “mobile journalists”, also known as “Mojo’s” — and are flattening their management and editorial process, where these “mojo’s” post directly to the newspaper website. While the Mojos will be a combination of full and part time staff, the newspaper will also be enrolling in non paid citizens to help encover the news as well; the article has no details on this, unfortunately, but does list a piece of news that predates Gannett’s dramatic change in its news policy.

With an emphasis towards publishing directly to the web, a mandate towards posting high posting frequency, with an aim towards local freshness, and an almost non-existent editorial pressure, coupled with online messageboards and a Craigslist style classifieds … well, I’m in agreement with the Silicon Alley Reporter on this one.

Its almost like they’re aiming to create a local news blog.

Is that what Gannett’s trying to achieve? They’re not saying it in as many words, and you can dress it up how you like, but it sure seems that way. And is it such a bad thing?

With blogging software anyone can easily start publishing frequent “news” easily, and distribute access to potential ‘journalists’ in seconds. Most open source software allows you to drop in plugins that can allow reasonable (and free) out-of-the box functionality. The only thing that’s missing is the funds to pay would be reports to be on the scene and essentially “live-blog” live events.

“Hyperlocal news”? Why not just call a spade a spade, and just say Gannett is moving towards blogging?

So with some of the noise Gannett made about a month ago, and the news that the BBC is exploring user generated content, one would think that the evolution of news lies strictly in involving your audience.

Not so.

Someone made a point during the Gannett discussion about whether or not crowdsourcing was an attempt to cut down costs; although the news you get in return is of questionable quality, its fresh, its unique — and its cheap.

Well, that thought has been extended, and then some, with the outsourcing of editorial, copywriting, graphic design, and whole departments to the far east (read: India). The International Herald Tribune reports that, for example:

WAN, a Paris-based organization representing 72 national newspaper associations, conducted a global survey of about 350 newspapers in Europe, Asia and the United States, and company executives reported that they expected the outsourcing to increase, although few were willing to farm out all of their editorial functions.

Since then, the memos have been churning: The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio announced its intentions to shed 90 graphic design jobs and ship out the work to Affinity Express in Pune, India. The Contra Costa Times, a California newspaper newly acquired by Media News Group in the breakup of Knight Ridder, revealed plans to shift ad production positions to Express KCS in India, which bills itself as the “world’s media back office.”

It does mention Reuters, however, as an example of a global media business that embraces the benefits of outsourcing — and does so easily, conflicts with local guilds aside, because there are probably no real local roots to speak of (like the Associated Press).
It reminds me of that panel I attended a few weeks ago at a local University (York University, actually) — with Mat Ingram as one of the panelists. The other panelist, mentioned something that struck me at the time — that news is a commodity. But I think news only remains a commodity when you’re not able to add value in a way no one else can.

And that’s where I think that the future of news lies – the local news, news that is immediately around you, news that is contemporary and relevant, and its news you just can’t outsource.

On the other hand, it is a domain that user generated content and crowdsourcing can obviously play a role. Traditional news organizations will have to recognize these truths one day, and capitalize on some examples as News-as-community (even online ones) that are really the future of what the news can and should be.

Which is funny in some sense, given how it seems like some local newspapers have thrown in their lot with Yahoo and want to be done with it [if anyone knows of a masterplan, let me know]

The Guardian reports that the Beeb is taking its first official steps towards using user generated content. Their take on things (if I can paraphrase) is that they won’t be paying for many pieces — in fact, very, very few; so don’t get your hopes up.

My feeling is that on the surface it might look like a “so what?” media piece; after all, when something newsworthy happens and your reporters are nowhere near the scene the instant it happens (and barring the development of precogniscient new reporters, it ain’t gonna happen) any news organization will grab footage, pictures, or personal accounts, no matter the quality. All this does, one might say, is codify their policy so that they will be acknowledging and paying for said media.

That might be true.

On the other hand, I think this development in policy is yet another example of how the BBC is taking official strides in emerging pool of “new media” and “citizen journalism”. Some might decry this as a lost opportunity to cultivate something new and revolutionary, which is valid; on the other hand, I see it from a glass-half-full point of view. After all, radicalism is something that probably doesn’t do well at established organizations that have 80 or so years of history.

Where the BBC takes it — what the next steps are in the months and years to come will ultimately tell us how interested it is in this philosophy. It might be waiting, for example, to learn from the mistakes of others. On this side of the pond, Gannett has clearly stripped off its metaphorical clothes and has jumped right into the deep end with its restructuring plans and their planned roles for crowdsourcing.

BBC and the Guardian both are great examples of traditional media trying to do it right. The Beeb should be cautiously congratulated — but I think time will tell about how vested it is in this facet of news reporting.

Gannett, the parent company of USA Today and 90 other newspaper brethren, is attempting to evolve its newpaper concerns through something called crowdsourcing — the process which relies on sometimes upon unpaid or low-paid amateurs who use their spare time to create content, solve problems, or even do corporate R&D [definition courtesy of Wikipedia, which, ironically is the definition of crowdsourcing].

There’s a great piece in Wired about the issue which describes the changes:

The initiative emphasizes four goals: Prioritize local news over national news; publish more user-generated content; become 24-7 news operations, in which the newspapers do less and the websites do much more; and finally, use crowdsourcing methods to put readers to work as watchdogs, whistle-blowers and researchers in large, investigative features.

[emphasis mine, once again]

It looks like Gannett is trying to harness the energy and cost-savings of the always-on nature of bloggers and interested netizens — which I think is a great thing; it will enable newspapers to evolve out of the media that has defined them, to from delivering news on an entirely different medium, in a way that makes sense for the participatory nature of the Internet.

The difficulty, however, is trying to manage crowds so that they are efficient and competent organizations of individuals — no matter how loose they might be. While information gleaned from the blogosphere is always taken with a grain of salt, newspapers and professional news organizations, or whatever consists of the 4th estate, are held to a higher standard of professionalism — and as well they should be.

Much like Wikipedia trying to beget Citizendium and Digg begetting Netscape, I think that in order to ensure that level of quality-control will be necessary. If the crowds are working 24/7 to pull in data to be the whistle-watchers and researchers, I think the secret sauce will be be a commensurate requirement in editorial efforts to prevent the darker side of crowds, which will almost certainly require the development of another layer of newspaper bureaucracy.
As Mr. Howe’s Wired article goes — with particular hot button issues:

(more…)