“Media Industry” Items

Coming Media Industry Storm, 1999 Speech

In February 1999, I gave a speech at the 10th Annual Interactive Newspapers Conference in Atlanta. At that time, the newspaper industry was still clinging to its traditional revenue pillars—print circulation, display ads, and, most crucially, classifieds. However, to me, there was no doubt that those pillars were now built upon shifting sands.

I gave the speech in my role as Director of Technology and Information Strategies for Central Newspapers. I wanted to issue a warning that time was short to hope that changes were evolutionary not revolutionary. Looking back, I’m particularly proud that I said that the internet was a fundamentally a different medium, not an extension of an existing medium.

I asked Chat GPT to read the transcript of the speech and write a post. [The full transcript is available here.] This is what AI wrote:

Drawing from his experience launching online ventures like ArizonaCentral.com and HomeFair.com, Howard Finberg projected a not-so-distant future in which classifieds—the cash cow for local papers—would erode significantly. Industry research was already signaling a potential 7% loss in bottom-line revenue. “Look around the room,” Finberg said. “Seven percent of us won’t be here next year unless other things happen.”

What followed was a clear-eyed, sometimes humorous, always practical exploration of how newspapers needed to reinvent themselves—organizationally, culturally, and strategically—for the internet era.

A New Business, Not a New Department

Finberg’s core message was that digital wasn’t just an add-on. It was a fundamentally different medium with different economics, content, and user behavior. Drawing a comparison to how early television mimicked radio before finding its own identity, he urged media leaders to stop thinking of the web as an “extension of print.”

Instead, he proposed a hybrid model he called Integrated Independence. The idea was to combine centralized resources (like shared technology platforms and content services) with localized control. Local newsrooms would have the freedom to tailor digital strategies to their communities while benefiting from corporate-level efficiencies. “Nobody knows the local markets better than the local publishers,” Finberg reminded the audience.

Breaking the Assembly Line

Finberg also called for deep structural and cultural change within newsrooms. The traditional assembly-line workflow—where one department handed off content to another in rigid steps—wasn’t going to cut it. He advocated for flatter hierarchies, shared knowledge, and team-driven processes where journalists were empowered to collaborate, experiment, and respond to audience needs in real-time.

One visual metaphor stood out: the future journalist not as a solitary reporter with a notebook, but a nimble, multi-skilled “first-on-the-scene” storyteller—equipped with audio, video, and digital tools, capturing stories from the ground up.

Talent, Risk, and Retention

Finberg was equally blunt about the staffing crisis on the horizon. Starting salaries in journalism couldn’t compete with emerging web companies offering equity and entrepreneurial freedom. “We face a real brain drain,” he warned. His solution? Pay strategically for “Hot Jobs,” break HR molds when needed, and—most importantly—offer employees the chance to learn, move, and grow. “We (must) reward failure,” he said, “by not penalizing it—and by encouraging the next try.”

A Call to Look Beyond

Perhaps the most striking element of Finberg’s talk was his push for the industry to stop looking only inward. “We need to start attending conferences outside our field,” he said. “Broadcasting, cable, tech—we have to see what others are doing.” It was a call for curiosity, humility, and horizon scanning—a mindset that still resonates today.

More than two decades later, many of the ideas in this talk—content re-usability (“author once, publish many”), cross-platform journalism, digital-first thinking, and agile teams—have become core to modern media strategy. But in 1999, this was revolutionary thinking.

Finberg’s presentation wasn’t just a roadmap. It was a challenge. A reminder that digital disruption wasn’t just coming—it had already arrived.

Electronic Newspaper of the Future, 1992

One of the more innovative folks in the design universe was a professor from Spain, Dr. Juan A. Giner.  Giner was at the School of Journalism  at the University of Navarra. In 1992, he asked several folks for their thoughts about electronic newspapers.  This is before the Internet.  I think he was using some of the information for a research paper and for a presentation at the Summit Meeting of Editors and Publishers, a European conference, I’m guessing.

Here’s what I wrote, the conclusion of my thoughts, sent via FAX:

They have information to sell, regardless of the form it takes to reach the reader. Unfortunately, only a few see the road ahead; too many are looking behind at the road they have just traveled.

If the current leadership fails in understanding the market place or fails to adjust to the needs of the news consumer, then the consequences will be two-fold:

• Many more companies will go out of business.
• Many more companies will be bought by those who understand the needs of the marketplace and replace those publishers and editors who do not.

The future will belong to the quick and smart. Be neither quick nor smart and you’ll be out of the game.

It was fun to think about the future.

Michael Bloomberg on Newspapers

Michael Bloomberg, president and founder of Bloomberg Financial Markets gave a keynote speech at the International Winter Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in 1997.  His speech was about the future of electronic devices and he spent a lot of time talking about newspapers and whether there’s an electronic solution that would make consumers give up on print. [That’s why I’m posting his speech]. An excerpt:

And if we are going to build consumer products, if our businesses are going to grow and let electronic devices replace newspapers they are going to have to provide the same functionality. Now another answer to the problem would be don’t let radio and television become the substitute for newspapers. But find some way to make newspapers more valuable, more economic. And if you think about it, it is a very easy thing to do. Right now we go and we chop down an awful lot of trees in Canada, we haul them to the mill, we grind them up into paper, we put ink on it, we deliver it to the comer newspaper stand or the newspaper boy or girl throws it on your doorstep. You read it once and you throw it away. It is a phenomenally inefficient thing screaming for a technological solution.

Bloomberg also so the coming of streaming television:

No matter how many times people tell you that broadcast is here to stay, the feet of the matter is it is not here to stay. It is so compelling to be able to get what you want, when you want it, independent of everybody else that we are going to give you video on demand no matter what it costs and no matter who’s axe gets gored and people will try to protect their industries. They will try to protect their jobs, but the feet of the matter is, if you look at the public, the public has the interest in getting a movie they go to Blockbuster, they want to see it when they want to see it. The public even goes to the comer movie theater to see it when they want to see it. The public wants to be able to jump over commercials, which is going to be a very big problem. Who is going to pay for all of this? The public wants to be able to stop that football game for two minutes when the phone rings or when the diaper needs changing. And we are going to have to deliver those kinds of products, those facilities, those attributes for television.

His speech had some good visionary moments.

Online Consumer Survey, 1992-1993

The Interactive Services Association, a trade organization for companies that marketed online services [think AOL or CompuServe] to consumers, issued several reports about consumer behavior online.  The 1993 report was done just before the wide-spread use of the World Wide Web.  Here are some of the highlights from the report:

  • Active users find that no one system meets their needs completely, and seek out unique content and bargain features. Three in five online survey respondents use at least two online systems, and more than half subscribe to three or more. This should strongly encourage innovations by incumbents and unique offerings by new entrants – right-minded efforts will be recognized and rewarded by a market that restlessly seeks out new and improved services. (More representative survey data suggest that only about one-fourth of all online users use more than one system.)
  • BBS’s appeal to online users on both price and content. About two-thirds of respondents use bulletin board systems (BBS’s) in addition to commercial online services. A third or more cite cost, software libraries for downloading, and communication with other users as the reasons for BBS’s appeal. Commercial services must continue to expand their offerings beyond these latter areas in order to justify their higher fees.
  • Software downloading, communicating with others who share interests, and getting PC-related help and information lead in popularity among applications. Respondents were asked to choose, from a listing of 10, the three applications they use most. In addition to the three just mentioned, exchanging electronic mail with friends and family, and obtaining current, general news round out the first tier of most-used applications. Systems and services competing for the core of today’s market must continue to advance their offerings in these areas.
  • Online use by multiple household members is substantial and growing. Regular use by other family members was reported by a full 42.5% of respondents, almost double last year’s percentage. In addition, a remarkable one in ten of all respondents report regular use by a child or children 12 or under. Although Prodigy did not participate in the survey, its use by multiple-system users may underlay this phenomenon – along with the growth of family-oriented features on other systems. This paradigmatic change, regardless of its source, presents a new opportunity to be addressed broadly by the industry.

In a couple of years, there would a report on how to build online services that were Web-based.

10th Annual Interactive Newspaper Conference

I was a speaker at the Editor & Publisher magazine’s 10th Annual Interactive Newspapers Conference in Atlanta, Ga. My speech was recorded live on February 18, 1999 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Here’s a bit of what I said at the start of my speech:

I made a presentation to our managers at Phoenix Newspapers a couple of weeks ago, and I sort of titled it “Armageddon” and whether, when we lose all, some share of classifieds in the next three years, what impact will that have on the bottom line. And if you look at the latest research from Forrester, they predict, on industry average, a 7% reduction in bottom line figures. If classified continues going the way it’s going then seven percent of us won’t be here next year, unless other things happen.

Another couple of interesting statistics is that in less than a dozen years, in 10 years, everybody under 50 will be computer literate. We’re all basically computer literate here; and obviously, the generations coming behind us are all computer literate. And even scarier is that by 2010, everybody under the age of 21 will not have known a world without the Internet. To us, some grey hairs [old folks] in the room, along with myself, is that we can remember, hot type and cold type and all that. And we remember when the Internet first took off.

This transcript is sometimes hard to read since the transcriber didn’t catch all of the jargon. However, it gives you a taste of what we were talking about in 1999.

Media Companies Launch Consortium

This is the official launch of PAFET, Partners Affiliated for Exploring Technology. It was a consortium that hoped that by exploring technology together, these companies would benefit from shared knowledge in the creation of new businesses and/or services.

“Our purpose is to maintain and strengthen our competence in collecting, packaging and marketing information, making use of the best of evolving technologies available. As a group we can invest in research on new information technology that larger companies are pursuing,” states James N. Rosse, president and chief executive officer of Freedom Communications, Inc., who will be the first chairman of the PAFET management committee

How Consumers Spend Their Media Day

How consumers use media has always been an interesting topic. However, it never really got the attention of those at the top of newspaper organizations.  One of the better studies was this one:

The Center for Media Design at Ball State University conducted the Middletown Media Studies in 2003-2004. These investigations tracked the ways in which ordinary Americans residing in and around Muncie engage with the many new forms of media available in the twentieth century. More details are available in the CMD Reports and White Papers listing.

Here’s a copy of a paper about the study in the International Digital Media & Arts Association Journalism from Spring 2004.

Here’s a link to Ball State’s documents about the project.

Cover of the Media Research Center special report Media Bias 101, last updated October 2009

Media Bias 101: Twenty Years of Research

A special report from the Media Research Center, marked “Last Updated: October 2009,” collecting two decades of polling into a single argument. The booklet is organized in three chapters: what journalists think and how journalists vote; what the public thinks about the media; and what journalists themselves say about media bias — divided into those denying it and those admitting it.

Chapter one runs 16 exhibits, from the 1981 Lichter-Rothman study The Media Elite through the Weaver and Wilhoit surveys at Indiana University, the 1985 Los Angeles Times poll of 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers, ASNE’s 1996 The Newspaper Journalists of the ’90s, Pew’s 2004 survey of 547 journalists and media executives, and Slate’s pre-election staff polls in 2000, 2004 and 2008. The MRC’s framing is explicit about the provenance of the data:

These surveys of journalists were conducted by professional pollsters, academics or news organizations, not by conservatives trying to score a political point against the press.

Chapter two turns the lens around, with 19 exhibits of public opinion research — Pew, Gallup, ASNE’s 1998 Journalism Credibility Project, Rasmussen, Harvard’s National Leadership Index, the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, the Missouri School of Journalism. The chapter’s thesis:

These polls document a crisis for the news media. Years of skewed reporting has squandered the public’s trust.

The third chapter is a clip file of quotations, arranged as “Journalists Denying Liberal Bias” and “Journalists Admitting Liberal Bias,” running back to 1989. Among the admissions, New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent’s July 25, 2004 column asking “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”:

Of course it is…. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

And, from the same chapter, Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff:

If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue.

The closing page describes the organization: founded in 1987, based in Alexandria, Virginia, with divisions including the Business & Media Institute, the Culture & Media Institute, TimesWatch.org, NewsBusters.org and CNSNews.com.

Reading this in 2026, the numbers are a period piece but the argument is not. Every trust-in-news survey since has kept measuring the same gap the MRC was documenting here, and the partisan split in who believes which outlet — which this report flagged in 2009 — has only widened. Worth having in the archive as a primary document: this is how the case was assembled, exhibit by exhibit, at the end of the first decade of the century.

1994-era Poynter memo proposing a seminar on the first 10 years of news on the Web

Proposal For the Web+10 Seminar at Poynter

This is an interoffice memo I wrote at the Poynter Institute in January 2004, proposing a seminar to mark — and, more usefully, to learn from — the first 10 years of news on the Web. It went to Karen Dunlap, Janet Weaver, Paul Pohlman, Bill Mitchell and Al Tompkins, with copies to a number of colleagues working on Poynter Online and News University.

The premise was simple:

Anniversaries are important. We mark milestones so we can celebrate the past and look towards the future.

I laid out a short list of the dates that felt like the founding moments of online news: Access Atlanta launching on Prodigy in March 1994, the Raleigh News and Observer’s NandoTimes in July 1994, Poynter going online with a BBS in December 1994, Mercury Center Web in January 1995 (“complete with advertising”), USA Today’s dial-up service in April 1995, and the announcement that same month of New Century Network by eight major newspaper publishing companies.

But nostalgia wasn’t the point. What we had come to accept as conventional wisdom by 2004 had been paid for the hard way:

What we take as “conventional wisdom” however, did not start out that way. Hard lessons were learned. These lessons provide the foundations for the development of a new form of journalism and a new type of information medium.

The proposed format borrowed from Poynter’s “Planning Your Election Coverage” seminar — a mix of industry leaders and working managers, plus some of the pioneers of the field as participants and speakers. The session ideas ranged from the evolution of journalism on the Web to what readers actually wanted from news sites, convergence, the new EyeTrack research, credibility and ethics, changing media habits, “Sight and sound: the emerging Web senses,” and the interactivity challenge I titled “You provide, but I drive.”

I also wanted the seminar to be more than a room in St. Petersburg. The idea was to extend the conversation before and after the in-person meeting using News University as a platform, carry the teaching into Poynter Online, and possibly publish a special Poynter Report as a handbook “to guide online journalism into the next 10 years.”

The postscript is my favorite part of the memo. Just after I finished writing, Robin Sloan posted an item to Convergence Chaser about New York Times Digital CEO Martin Nisenholtz speaking about… Pong. Nisenholtz argued that nytimes.com would evolve

from sorting, distributing and making accessible content created principally for other formats, to creating content that is native to the computing world from which we evolved.

My reaction, in the memo: we needed to bring him to Poynter to explore what “native content” meant for journalists and journalism.

Reading this now, the milestone list looks impossibly early and the questions look impossibly current. We’re well past Web+30, and we are still arguing about credibility, about who drives the experience, and about what content native to a new platform actually looks like — only now the platform is generative AI rather than the browser.

Gartner research note listing twelve high-impact technologies with a Technology Radar Screen adoption timeline

Gartner’s Twelve Technologies For 2000 To 2010

A Gartner research note (Technology, T-10-8085) by analysts J. Fenn and A. Linden, forecasting the technologies that would reshape enterprise computing over the coming decade. The note is short — two pages — but it is a useful snapshot of what the industry’s most-quoted research firm thought mattered as the century turned.

We identify 12 high-impact technologies for user enterprises, including wireless Web technologies, biometrics, content-based retrieval, natural language processing, Bluetooth and speech recognition.

The twelve, as listed: Wireless Web technologies (including Web phones and WAP), biometric identification, content-based retrieval, natural language processing, Bluetooth, speech recognition, Webtops, XML for content and data exchange, embedded miniature computers, pattern recognition, e-cash and display technologies.

The methodology was a modified Delphi process — a cross-section of Gartner analysts built a list of high-impact technology areas, then each voted for up to 10, with the emphasis on those judged currently undervalued. Wireless Web technologies were the only unanimous pick.

A “Technology Radar Screen” figure assigns each technology a year marking “the point at which the technology begins the steepest part of its adoption curve”: XML in 2001, wireless Web, Webtops, Bluetooth and NLP in 2002, pattern recognition and content-based retrieval in 2004, speech recognition and biometrics in 2005, e-cash in 2006, display technologies in 2007, and embedded miniature computers in 2008.

The most interesting passage is a sidebar defining what the analysts called spontaneous computing:

An era of spontaneous computing will begin around 2007, predicated on the availability of ubiquitous, reliable wireless connectivity that will provide any time, any place access to information and messaging through highly portable or wearable systems with speech interfaces.

And the consequence they drew from it:

Instead of being the center of attention, information processing will become a secondary activity achieved while the user is performing some other task (driving or sitting in a meeting), leading to true multitasking.

The note closes with the standard Gartner formulation:

Bottom Line: Technology and business planners should evaluate these technologies as part of their technology portfolios to determine the impact on future IT and business directions.

Clipping of David Noack's November 1998 Editor & Publisher article on the AP's fee-based news archive for The Wire

AP Launches Its First Consumer E-Commerce Venture

This November 21, 1998 article from Editor & Publisher, written by David Noack, reports on the Associated Press launching its first electronic commerce venture aimed at consumers: a fee-based archive for its online news service, “The Wire.” The service was available through The Wire’s Web site and the 250 online newspapers that hosted the AP’s online news service, with an official announcement expected around Nov. 23.

The subscription archive covered national, international, sports, financial and business stories dating back to July 1, 1997 — a big jump from the free two-week search, which held about 10,000 articles versus the new service’s 250,000. Individual pricing ran from $2.95 for a single article to a $99.95 “Annual Pass” for 1,500 articles, with a 20% revenue-sharing arrangement for newspapers that signed up customers.

Jim Kennedy, director of AP Multimedia Services, said the e-commerce component had been in the plans since 1995:

“This will be the first time that we have a text service of our own that goes directly to the consumer.”

“This was part of our original planning, but it took some time to get over some of these hurdles that we had with technically making this available to consumers and also editorially ensuring the integrity of the content.”