We only have two eyes and 24 hours, so regrettably, after years of arguing the other side, I concede. There has to be a winner and a loser.
For years I’ve been saying that the terms “traditional” and “social” media didn’t make sense. I argued that we should just think of media in general. Whether content is distributed on a blog, on CNN, on the local radio station or via Twitter, we should treat the channel as “media” and focus on how to use it as part of our marketing and communicating mix. This makes perfect sense.
Unless the name on your paycheck is a newspaper.
For us marketing and communication folks, it’s true. We pitch a blogger, we pitch an editor and we pitch a fit when they misspell our name. We reach our audience by doing good things and telling others about those good things. But for folks in the “traditional” media world, it is different.
Again, I’m the guy that for years has said things like “the lines are graying” and “bloggers blog about the news, the news covers blogs.” Yes, “reporters” write blogs and bloggers are newsmakers. But ask the guy laid off from the local paper last week about gray lines. Between January of 2008 and March of 2009 more than 120 US newspapers folded. That’s about two per week. Newspaper circulation dropped 25% last year. In the fourth quarter of 2008, newspaper ad revenue dropped nearly 20%, that’s following at least six consecutive quarters of decline.
Meanwhile, Facebook’s active users doubled in the course of eight months to top 200 million. Facebook is enjoying 276% growth in 35-54 year-old users and 513% in users 55+. Twitter growth is reported at numbers so big they are meaningless, what does 1500% annual growth look like? And the growth is primarily in the 30+ age group. Recent reports put the number of Twitter users at 23 million.
I want to believe that everyone wins. I want to believe that social media and traditional media will peacefully coexist. That society will demand its newspapers. But even the eternal optimist can’t hold onto these beliefs much longer. I get a lot of resistance when I talk about social media and traditional media. And no wonder — it’s an emotional topic. Here’s what I hear:
1. “Bill, you’re biased.”
It’s true, I am biased. See, I’m not just an Internet marketer; I’m a journalism school grad. I’ve worked at two daily newspapers. I love to read Time magazine at the end of the day. Newspapers are like coffee. Yes, I like coffee, but I like the act of drinking coffee even more. I like newspapers too, but like the act of reading newspapers, even more. At the same time, as a consumer, I’m also guilty of contributing to the decline of traditional media. Last week when I wanted to know what was going on at the local high school football game, I didn’t turn on the radio. I went to search.twitter.com and “watched” the game on Twitter through the eyes of hundreds of fans. With social media, everyone is a reporter. We are all producing news content for each other. And we do it for free. How does traditional media compete with faster and free?
2. What about ethics and accuracy?
When talking about social media, people always question the validity of information. Not long ago, an Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was falsely reported dead via Twitter. And then there was… Well… Okay, that’s the problem with the validity argument: it ain’t valid. The high profile Tubbs Jones incident is the one everyone talks about it, but I get most of my news from Twitter. Of the thousands of news stories I’ve consumed via Twitter, exactly one has been inaccurate. Not a bad percentage. The ethics does make it tougher on the media relations crowd though. If you pitch a reporter poorly, she just won’t cover your story. Pitch a blogger poorly and feel the wrath of angry social media.
3. The market will force traditional media to compete. News programs integrate Twitter into news — everyone can win.
I only wish it were so. According to Paper Cuts, a site that tracks job losses in the newspaper industry, the paper industry lost 13,000 jobs so far this year… and the number goes up every day. Dave Barry, one of my very favorite writers, has written about the decline of the newspaper industry for years. I remember reading in one of Dave’s columns that every few years a newspaper would bring in a consultant to talk about how to attract more young readers. The consultant would recommend the paper write more articles about things like skateboarding. The newspaper produces a bunch of articles about skateboarding. Young people still don’t buy papers. Older people stop subscribing to the paper because all the stories are about skateboarding.
Not long after last year’s presidential election I was on a panel with a veteran newspaper reporter. The crowd was mainly college kids. They were passionate…about traditional media. They argued repeatedly that newspapers were just fine, thank you very much. They criticized social media and stated that it could not be viewed with as a legitimate form of journalism. My support came from the most unexpected place. The AP reporter closed the session with something like this:
“Take two business models. In one you plant an acorn. It grows into a tree. That tree is cut down and turned into paper. That paper is put onto a printing press. Then some people go out and talk to other people. They write stuff down on another piece of paper. Then they drive back to an office and type up a story. That story is printed on the printing press. Then the paper is cut into blocks, loaded on a truck and taken to people’s homes.
In the second business model one person witnesses news and types it in a Blackberry, then the rest of the world consumes it.”
Social Media vs. Traditional Media, Okay There is a Difference
No comments:
Post a Comment