The Krehbiel Group - Something I Learned Yesterday

Bo Sacks distributed an interesting article by Peter Houston yesterday called “How to build a future-proof editorial operation: Insights from IFJ 2023.” IFJ being the International Journalism Festival in Italy. 1. Serve your audience This should be obvious, right? If you make a product, you should make it the way people want it. But isn’t there a bit of a tension when it comes to editorial products? There’s a lot of conversation around the conflict between what people might want and … telling the truth? That’s a challenge that publishers have to face. Are you providing a product the way your customers want it, or do you have some other standard? That can be tough. But Houston is focusing on another aspect of this, which is to give readers solutions. Don’t just complain about problems. And I agree with that to some extent. If you’re talking about something where there is a clear solution. Don’t get out of your wheelhouse here and start offering things as solutions that are actually just opinions. 2. Look after your staff Yes. Retention is important in most businesses, but let’s be honest, we’re probably facing a time when AI will be taking jobs, so the important thing is going to be retaining your top talent. It’s going to be difficult, but you’re probably going to have to lose some people. Make sure it’s not the people who drive your business. 3. Cover the climate crisis. This one bothers me a bit. There’s a big partisan gap on this topic. Some people want that coverage while some people are sick of it. Again, are you trying to create a product that your subscribers want, or are you lecturing them? 4. Pay attention to AI No. Don’t pay attention to it. Start using it. Right now. In at least two ways. First, as a productivity tool. Second, start thinking about ways to use AI to create personalized content for your readers. 5. Be cautious, stay curious Houston says publishers should avoid chasing every new development in media. Rather, they should focus on their brand values and on their audience. Well – yes and no. Definitely focus on your audience, and definitely avoid falling too hard for the latest shiny object. But some of those shiny objects will represent new opportunities, and you need to spend some portion of your resources pursuing them. I think that’s the point of the “cast your bread upon the waters,” thing. There’s an element of chance to success, and you need to be out there to capitalize on it. SOURCES ========= https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/how-to-build-a-future-proof-editorial-operation-insights-from-ifj-2023/ https://krehbielgroup.com

Sometimes people ask me which is the best customer data platform. Unfortunately, there is no best Customer Data Plaform (CDP), just like there’s no best shoe. The trick is to know what questions to ask as you start this process. In this short video, I want to talk about your website. First, I want you to forget about it. The Internet has changed the way we think about things to such an extent that we often assume our website is the starting point for all tech questions. That’s not always true. For some businesses — like a restaurant, or a gym — web traffic might not be the first consideration, but they might still need to harmonize customer data from multiple sources. That’s the main use case of a CDP – to collect data from several different sources and merge it into a “golden record” for each customer so that you can take appropriate action. As you think about a CDP, ask yourself what customer data you have, where it’s stored, and what would you do with that data if you had it organized the way you wanted it. Possible sources might be … * Prospect lists or sales leads * Email data (lists, opens, clicks, unsubscribes) * Purchase information * Questions / customer support * Membership / rewards programs And potentially a lot more, depending on your business. Make a list. Note where the data is stored, how often it’s updated, what you currently do with it, and what you wish you could do with it. Now think about your website Now that you’ve thought about all your other sources of customer data, think about your customer data again in the context of your web traffic. Imagine that you could sort your web visitors into four buckets. 1. Customers who have self-identified (e.g., by a login) 2. Anonymous visitors who are customers that haven’t yet self-identified 3. Anonymous visitors who might become customers 4. Anonymous visitors who will never become customers Eventually you’ll come to think of your web traffic in many more categories, but this is a good start. Try to estimate how much of your total traffic might be attributable to each group. (You’ll probably be wrong.) Then, develop a plan for each of those groups. That plan will influence what sort of CDP you’re interested in. For example, if the vast majority of your visitors are in group #4, you might not even need a CDP. You might be better off with a Data Management Platform (DMP). But if most of your visitors are in group #1, you probably want a CDP that specializes in customer-centric use cases.

It’s not all the job losses. Although I do think that’s a big problem we’re not ready for. It’s the fact that one or maybe just a few organizations will control everyone’s access to information. Right now, just about anybody who wants can get their ideas out into the public square – as I’m doing right now. And while there is some censorship going on – YouTube can hide your videos, and Google can move your pages way down in the search results – we have a fairly free marketplace of ideas. I’d like it to be a lot more fair and free, but it’s not awful. Very soon, this entire ecosystem will be transformed. You won’t use a search engine. Think about it. Search engines were a great idea, but they’re a bit of a pain. If I do a search about the geology of Nashville, I’ll get a bunch of links to pages, and I won’t know which one answers my question. I might have to read through several pages to get what I want. But if I go to an AI chatbot, it will just answer my question. That’s the future. Notice how that new process won’t give me direct access to other points of view. I could certainly ask the chatbot to tell me if there are other interpretations of the geology of Nashville, and based on my experience so far, it will do that. Unless you ask about something controversial. ChatGPT has a well-documented bias on many hot-button issues. That’s only going to get worse. In other words, here’s what’s going to happen. There will be a few AI algorithms that rise to the top of the heap. They will be controlled by some large corporation. That corporation will decide what’s news, what’s disinformation, and what you should know. Imagine, for example, that Big Pharma purchased ChatGPT. Do you believe you’d get honest answers if you asked about their latest drug? I don’t. Not for a minute. They would label everything that doesn’t fit with their business strategy as disinformation, and they’d hide it from you. There still might be other ways to get information. There still might be search engines. There might be smaller AI bots that claim not to curate what you get to see and hear. But the vast majority of society will be getting their information from one, or maybe a few, AI engines that filter that access – for their own reasons. This probably won’t be a technical violation of “freedom of the press,” because it won’t be the government doing it. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging free speech. It doesn’t stop Microsoft, or Google, or Twitter. So here’s my voice crying in the wilderness. AI will become a direct threat to your freedom to get access to the information you want, and not the information that Big Tech wants you to see. That’s a hidden danger of AI that hasn’t been explored as well as it ought to be.

Google has unveiled precisely the doomsday scenario that I’ve been warning publishers about. Put simply, Google will do what ChatGPT can do, but it will also have access to the current web. When someone enters a query, they won’t get a list of websites to visit. They’ll get the answer to their question. There will be little or no reason to visit publisher websites as a result of a Google search, and that will cause traffic to tank. What’s not clear to me at this point is how Google intends to save their ad business if they destroy traffic to the very pages that display those ads. But whatever they do, you can be sure it won’t be good news for publishers. What can publishers do in response? Here are a few ideas. 1. Stop feeding Google current information so its answers aren’t as good as yours. I’m not sure that will work, since there’s almost no chance all publishers will do that, and it will also kill what little traffic you will still get from Google searches. But it is one option to consider. 2. Go back to print. Quit relying on revenue from digital content with digital ads, since that business model will be dying soon. Cede the online space to AI and create curated, beautiful publications on paper. 3. Create customized, walled-garden apps for niche audiences. But not just an app the way you might do one today. It will have to use AI, and will have to be able to deliver customized, personalized answers to users based on their queries. 4. This goes along with the previous idea. Build your own AI specifically for your niche, and make it better than Google’s — at least in your specific area of expertise. Good luck with that, but that is an option to consider. About print, realize that AI will be coming for print publications as well. Imagine what will happen when I can get a fishing magazine that’s customized to me. E.g., “I fish from a kayak in the Severn River near Little Round Bay. Sometimes I fish near the bay bridge. Create a custom weekly magazine, and I only want it delivered between May and September.” And again, the same could be done in an app. I don’t want to know about fishing conditions in Lake Ponchartrain, or tide tables in Virginia. I want to know exactly what I need, when I need it. That’s the future of publishing. If you want to stay in the game, you’re going to have to figure that out. Sources ======= Google is About To Turn The Online Publishing Industry Upside Down https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/11/google-is-about-to-drop-a-nuclear-bomb-on-the-online-publishing-industry/?sh=1fa803483faa

I’m not a Luddite. I work with people on technology issues, and I like technology. But I also recognize there’s a role for printed publications. So today I’d like to discuss the possible advantages of print. 1. Branding yourself The New European is a relatively recent publication in the UK that’s aimed at people who voted “remain” in the Brexit disputes. Bo Sacks distributed an article on this yesterday, and I commented on his LinkedIn post that one potential benefit of a print publication like this is that by carrying that physical magazine around with you, you’re telling everyone how you felt about Brexit. That sort of thing is important to some people. In a similar way, the magazines on your coffee table, or in your restroom, or the books on your shelf, say something about you to your guests. I assume your guests can’t see what’s on your iPad or Kindle, so that doesn’t work as well. Aside from these slightly vain issues, there are a few practical things. 2. It’s easier (at least for many people) to take notes on a print publication. You can highlight things, scribble in the margins, and so forth. 3. It’s easier to flip back and forth to an index in a print publication. 4. Students frequently like to purchase used textbooks because they can see what the previous owner highlighted. (Remember how Harry Potter did so well with Snape’s old potions book.) 5. Studies have shown that people retain more of what they read in print. 6. Some things – like maps, or charts – simply don’t work well on a small screen. You can fold paper. 7. It’s much easier to lend or borrow something in print. 8. Authors can sign a printed work. They can’t sign a digital edition. 9. You can make a fantastically elegant print publication in a way that you can’t with a digital publication. You can use very nice paper, have much more compelling imagery, and you can even use smells if you want. You may know that I publish a print newsletter once a month, and I do that because everybody gets a billion emails, but very few people get a letter in the mail. Of course, there are many downsides to print. It takes time to get a book in the mail. Printing and distribution costs are higher. Etc. And there are some distinct advantages to a digital publication. You can search it. You can put hyperlinks in it. You can carry a thousand of them in your phone. You can read them in the dark. I’m not arguing for print. But I am saying there may be situations where a print publication can outperform a digital publication. Certainly not in all cases, and almost certainly not in most cases, … but maybe in some. So keep it in mind, and don’t dismiss the idea simply because we’re in a digital age. Sources The New European bucks the trend of print publishing https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/the-new-european-breaks-the-trend-of-print-publishing-/s2/a1028165/ BoSacks.com The Krehbiel Letter https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

It wasn’t long ago that people were praising Quartz as magical. Media experts were pointing to Quartz as a model strategy that other publishers ought to consider. Well, times have changed. Quartz recently removed its three-year-old paywall, according to an article distributed by Bo Sack. The move is designed to expand its general readership, but of course that’s at the expense of its paid membership business. Generally speaking, as you know, publishers try to manipulate the lever between subscription revenue and ad revenue. If they emphasize the subscription side, they tend towards paywalls. A lot of people will look at the Quartz example and say, “See, paywalls don’t work!” To buttress their case, they might cite the example of Time magazine, which also plans to drop its paywall. It’s not that simple, folks. You have to look into the details. The Quartz example isn’t all that great for advocates of removing paywalls, because even after ungating their content, readership has dropped from 3 million per month to 1.3 million per month. There are a lot of complicating factors here, such as a merger with G/O Media, which raises some question of cultural fit, and all that fun stuff. Some of the cultural friction led some leading Quartz reporters to leave. So this is not simply a question of paywalls vs. no paywalls. Quoting from the article … "This about-face in content strategy likely played a role in the dwindling traffic, said Felix Danczak, the senior director of subscriber experience at subscription platform Zuora. Quartz spent years cultivating an audience willing to subscribe to its newsletters and pay for reporting, then reversed course to embrace a free model based on volume." The bottom line is that all kinds of things were going on at Quartz, and you can’t pin this on paywall vs. no paywall. References ========== Sign up for The Krehbiel Letter https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/ One Year After Removing Its Paywall, Quartz’s Traffic Continues to Drop https://www.adweek.com/media/quartz-paywall-traffic/ Sign up for Bo Sacks' newsletter https://www.bosacks.com/

What are the key distinctions between these three models, and how do they affect publishers and their revenue options? We might ask what “membership” means. For example, my “membership” at LA Fitness just that means that I pay a fee to get access to their equipment. But members at the American Legion have to have some connection to military service, and members in the Elk Lodge have to make some profession of faith. So how does membership apply to publishers and content? All three – registration, membership, and subscription – are potential ways to restrict access to content. For example, a newspaper website might say you get three free views per month, but before you can get your fourth, you have to register or subscribe. In either case, you’re giving the site owner something of value: your email address, in the first case, or some money in the second. All three options might mean you get access to exclusive content. But not necessarily. A newspaper site with a paywall might give an anonymous browser access to the very same article as a subscriber, so long as it doesn’t cross the paywall threshold. There’s no answer to this question because nobody has the authority to tell us how to use these terms, but I think it’s helpful to divide these options into two groups. Group one is registration and subscription, and they refer to how you pay. Group two is membership, and it refers to who you are in relation to the other members. What does “members only” mean? First, you might have to qualify for membership. - Supporting an organization or cause. - Swearing an oath of allegiance, or have served in a particular function. - Part of a club – like an investing club, where you share tips. - People with a particular expertise in a subject, like football referees, or beekeepers. - You have to pre-qualify. Second, what does membership get you? - It might give you some level of recognition. (Like Mensa.) - Community and education. Third, when you’re thinking of membership, ask yourself what would make someone a “good member.” - If it’s no more than “he pays his dues,” then in my opinion you don’t have a membership model. - Membership means involvement in a community. Following that logic, my preference would be that LA Fitness call their deal a subscription, not a membership because nobody there cares if I show up or not. In fact, from their perspective, I’m a better member if I pay my dues and never show up. What does all this mean for publishers? I’d say that if your model is a simple exchange of access to content for an email or some money, that’s registration or subscription. Don’t confuse it with “membership.” To have a membership site, you need these things. Members have to qualify. There’s an exchange of value both ways, where the organization gives value to the members, but the members give value to the organization. Members are part of a community. Finally, I’d point out that subscription and membership both have one important thing in common, because they both involve recurring fees. And that’s the need to keep selling the value of the subscription or membership. You need an onboarding program, and you need to constantly justify the value of the subscription or membership. ====================================== Sign up for The Krehbiel Letter at ... https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

Some analyses of Customer Data Platforms take this general form: they list all the functions that CDPs have, or are expected to have, and then rank various CDPs on how well they do those functions in general. I suppose that’s as good as you can do for that sort of analysis, but I don’t think that information is very helpful for any particular company. If you’re evaluating Customer Data Platform options, you don’t care what they’re supposed to do in the abstract, or what they do for other people. You care if they solve your problems — that is, if they address your use cases. For example, it doesn’t matter how well a CDP generates reports, in some broad sense. What matters is if you can get the reports you need with the data you can collect. But that raises a big problem for the company that’s considering a CDP. How do you whittle down the list? There’re a lot of CDPs out there, and you can’t afford to investigate each of them with the diligence required. Here’s a practical path forward. 1. Start with a very detailed list of use cases. Explain exactly what you want to be able to do, what data sources will be required, how that data will have to be processed, what other services will be involved, what activations will occur, what reports need to be generated, etc. The more time you spend on your use cases, the better. 2. Explain your niche. I work with publishers, and the bare fact that a CDP has worked with “publishers” is not enough. There are all different sorts of publishers out there, and they have different business models with different needs. Ask if a prospective CDP has any clients like you. 3. Set reasonable budget goals. I know everybody likes to play games with prices, but I believe transparency is the best strategy. You can negotiate later. 4. Put these three things in a relatively short Request for Information and send it out to all 743 CDPs. I’m kidding about that 743 number. You can’t send your request to everybody, so whittle the list down. 20 might be manageable at this first stage. To the extent that you can, sort them by geography, general ratings, and whether they work in your industry. You’ll have to spend a little time on their websites and YouTube videos to figure this out. Or you can ask me to do it. While you’re waiting on the responses, come up with a grading system, giving the use cases the biggest portion of the score. Then the fun starts. You’re going to have to evaluate all the responses! It’s wearisome, but you’ll learn a lot in the process about what can and can’t be done. You might modify some of your use cases as a result of what you learn, and you might come up with new ones. As you read through the responses and learn new things, you’ll want to change your evaluation criteria. That’s good. Realize that because you’re learning along the way, you’ll evaluate your tenth RFI response differently than you evaluated your first. One way to handle this mound of documents is to divide up the responses among a few different people. Let everyone have a go at scoring ten of them, then re-convene and re-evaluate your grading system. Have one person (that should be me — I’m independent!) read all the responses. Take your revised scoring system, redistribute more of the RFI responses, and do it again. By the time you get through the stack, you should be able to decide which companies make it to the RFP stage. It’s not an easy process, but if you remain focused on your own business requirements, and not on generic rankings, you should make a good decision. Resources ----------- The Krehbiel Letter https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

This interview with Paul Gerbino of Triumvirate Content Consultants explains why publishers should consider content licensing, syndication, and permissioning. These efforts can help publishers extend their brand, find new audiences, and increase revenue. A very simple example would be providing content in another language, but Paul explains some other ways publishers can further their business with his services. Paul can be reached at pgerbino@triumvirateconsultants.com. https://www.triumvirateconsultants.com/

Martin Schori mocks the idea of "peak subscriptions" in a recent article featured by Bo Sacks. The underlying reality is that – despite some recent growth – there’s been a leveling off in digital subscriptions. Why? The article makes some important points. First, you can't make a good "digital subscription" by making a lousy "digital" version of a print product. That happens far too often. Someone signs up for digital and they get a PDF, or a completely rotten online interface. These lousy digital experiences are competing for attention with services like TikTok and Netflix, which provide (so I'm told) an amazing user experience. I don't use TikTok, so I can’t comment on that, and I think Netflix has some very obvious weaknesses -- for example, you can't say "only show me movies," or "only show me options that are below 30 minutes." But despite that, Netflix is miles ahead of most publisher sites. In this respect, Martin is completely correct – publishers would do a lot better if they focused on providing a product their customers want. He doesn't quite make this next point the way I would, so I'll make it my way. Too much digital content is written to hide what the reader is looking for. E.g., "Here's the secret ingredient you're missing in your chili recipe," and you have to read eighteen paragraphs to get it. (BTW, it's probably fish sauce. I know that sounds disgusting, but it's true.) We all know the culprit that causes that kind of foolishness: advertising. One problem I have with Martin's analysis is that I think he's mostly talking about news-based subscription publishing, and he's missing the elephant in the room, which is that the news reporting is almost universally awful. A recent survey said 3/4 of adults believe the news is making us more partisan and more divided, and all I can ask in response to that is what is the other 1/4 smoking. 100 percent of us know that news is a partisan catastrophe. It's no wonder that news publishers are having trouble selling subscriptions because people don't trust the news. Nor should they. Having said that, Martin is drawing attention to some real issues that publishers should address. If you’re a publisher, and you’d like to keep up with trends, new issues, or hear a contrary view from time to time, sign up for The Krehbiel Letter, and be sure to subscribe to this podcast. Resources ========= Martin Schori’s article https://www.inma.org/blogs/media-leaders/post.cfm/the-notion-of-peak-subscriptions-is-laughable You can sign up for the Bo Sacks email at https://bosacks.com Sign up for The Krehbiel Letter at this address. https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

Scott Brinker has an article on chiefmartec.com about the second order effects of generative AI. He says the first order effect is that the quantity of content in the world will grow exponentially. He’s probably right, but I think my brain was put in backwards, because when someone makes a claim or a prediction like that, my immediate thought is to wonder if it might be the opposite. Is it possible that AI will lead to less content generation? The model up to this point has been to create lots of SEO-friendly content to get on the first page of Google – so people will find you, view your ads, and maybe sign up for your email newsletter. Lots and lots of people are competing for that spot. But the search engine model is about to die. Very soon, rather than entering a search and having a choice between 10 billion supposedly relevant pages, we won’t search at all. We’ll just ask the question and get our answer. That will change the calculus of content creation. For example, my wife was recently wondering if there’s a way to revivify hardened instant coffee. She did a search and went to some website that was clearly written by some primitive AI, or possibly by a human who didn’t have the foggiest idea what coffee was. The content was … stupid. Somebody made that website because coffee is a popular subject, and there are lots of ads in that space, so if you can easily create a website that’s effective search engine bait, you can make some money. That’s an example of what Scott Brinker is talking about. Using AI to create content to feed the internet – as it’s currently configured. But isn’t it possible – maybe even likely – that the primary use of AI is going to turn that whole scheme on its head? AI won’t be generating content for searches. It will be generating content for searchers. It will eliminate the middleman of the search engine, the weird website, and the list of 10 billion search results. My wife will just go to her AI of choice and say, “how do you revivify hardened instant coffee?” FYI, I asked ChatGPT and it gave me an interesting answer. Now I suppose you could say that Scott Brinker’s essential point is still true. That generative AI will result in the creation of a lot more content. But the direction and context of that content will be very different. It won’t be creating posts on websites, it will be answering individual questions. This goes along with a conversation Brian Morrissey had on his “People vs. Algorithms” podcast about the development of AI agents. Right now, if you ask ChatGPT a question, it relies on older data. It doesn’t go out and search the web for you. It has some collection of information from the relatively recent past. Soon there will be AI agents that can take a user’s request, like “find me the best French restaurant within 20 miles of my home that has a good selection of Belgian beers,” and it will do that for you. This isn’t far away, and it will fundamentally change the way content is created. Content will be created directly for the user. It won’t be created for keyword density or SEO or any of that stuff, because that won’t be relevant anymore. Sources ====== Exploring the 2nd order effects of generative AI in marketing and martech, by Scott Brinker https://chiefmartec.com/2023/04/exploring-the-2nd-order-effects-of-generative-ai-in-marketing-and-martech/ “The New Interface” from the People vs. Algorithms podcast. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4EASqwZAwlwu8p2owI0pl2 The Krehbiel Group https://krehbielgroup.com

The typical sales funnel of awareness, consideration, and purchase doesn’t go deep enough for publishers. There are several more steps in the journey, and different tools and methods are appropriate for each phase. Publishers should create goals and methods for each of these ten steps in your customer’s journey. You can view the ten steps and related tools using the links below. You can view the latest Krehbiel Letter here. https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/ Here's the chart: "Tools for each step of the engagement ladder." https://krehbielgroup.com/2023/04/28/tools-for-each-step-of-the-engagement-ladder/

Measurement is often a prerequisite to growth, but it can also lead you astray. "What gets measured gets done” is a useful saying, in many ways. * Measuring something requires attention. * Measuring allows you to track improvement. * An impending measurement motivates action. However, a bias towards measurable things might lead us to abandon worthwhile things we can’t measure. Consider advertising. Did advertising money shift to online ads because they are more effective, or because they are more measurable? (Also ask yourself how you would know.) Measurement can cause us to emphasize the quantitative over the qualitative, which isn’t always a good idea. A manager who is very effective at building teams might have poor numbers in more measurable skills. Putting a number to something can make it seem more reliable than it is. This is called “numeracy bias,” and it’s widespread. It’s why adding a number to a subject line can make it more effective. “83% of engineers surveyed” sounds compelling, but what if there were only six engineers? Numeracy bias can prevent us from seeing faulty assumptions, erroneous definitions, and bad data. Don’t let a number or a graph deceive you. Remember that you have a cognitive bias that leads you to trust numbers. Counter it with a healthy dose of skepticism. ======================= Subscribe to The Krehbiel Letter https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

In today's podcast I riff off two articles I read yesterday: one by Brian Morrissey on reducing friction, and one distributed by Bo Sacks that spoke to the ethical obligation of writers to have some concern for how their content is understood. There are several tools and methods publishers and authors can use to increase comprehension. I also recommend some tech options, like micro quizzes, that could increase engagement and provide useful feedback to authors. We've done so much to improve websites, and so little to improve online reading. It's time we changed that.

The Washington Post has developed a series of customer journeys for new subscribers to increase retention and engagement. Reading between the lines, and adding my own thoughts, I explain how publishers could follow the Post's example with their own subscribers. This is a particularly good use case for publishers who have a customer data platform. If this concept intrigues you, give me a call and let's chat about it.

Google will be starting a new program where they pay publishers for their content. Publishers should he happy about that, right? Not so fast. The strategy is always the same. Their goal is to migrate the publisher's customers to their system -- using the publisher's content! It's a sucker's game, but publishers keep playing it.

Publishers face a lot of challenges these days. One of the big ones is engagement. Some recent studies give important insights into how to engage readers, and I summarize them briefly. But publishers also need to find new ways to make money. Jim McKelvey recently explained the way they're monetizing content on his Invisibly app. It's very interesting, but publishers need a lot more options. My question to publishers is this: How are you working to innovate your revenue sources?

Twitter designated NPR as state-sponsored media -- putting them in the same category as Pravda and other government propaganda. NPR decided to leave the platform. NPR claims they get less than 1 percent of their revenue from government sources. Does that mean participation in Twitter isn't even worth 1 percent of NPR's revenue? If so, that says a lot about the value of Twitter, and maybe publishers should re-evaluate their commitment to the platform.

We tend to overestimate the importance of our conscious mind. The truth is that our brain does way more than we are consciously aware of. In short, we're not experts on what it means to be a human. Given that, there have to be limits to how well a programmer can design AI to mimic humanity. There are deep, dark, mysterious aspects to us that computers can't understand, because we can't understand them well enough to add them to the programs! That's not to say we shouldn't be cautious, or even afraid. There are plenty of cautionary tales about how humans have unleashed powers they can't control. But there's no guarantee AI will be able to replace humans.

Twitter has announced a new program for publishers, which, of course, they claim is a great thing for publishers. It will allow publishers to charge a fee to read a single article. The catch here is the same as it always is with all tech platforms. The publisher gets a dime, and the tech platform gets the customer information. Is this a good thing for publishers? As a general rule, no, but it depends on whether the publisher’s business model depends on getting the customer’s information. For example, a book publisher generally does not get any information on the reader, so something along these lines might work for a book publishers. A magazine publisher relies more heavily on getting the customer information, although there are newsstand sales and that sort of thing. When I say this is generally not a good thing for publishers, I mean for publishers whose revenue model depends on getting the customer information. Most publishers are trying to convert website visitors into customers. Sometimes they do this with a free e-newsletter. The publisher provides valuable content in exchange for an email address. In other cases, they use a paywall. The visitor gets some number of free views. The publisher’s strategy is to increase engagement with content the user values so the user believes it’s in his best interest to subscribe. What does Elon’s proposal do to this model? It gives the reader an opportunity to read the publisher’s content with no commitment. That undermines the publisher’s paywall strategy – and the publisher doesn’t even get the reader’s information. By the way, nothing prevents the publisher from charging per article. Of course there might be some friction in that. The reader might have to create an account with the publisher, or with some payment mechanism he hasn’t used before. It would be so much easier for the user if he just had one account that he could use for any content on any platform. And that’s what Elon is banking on. Twitter users will set up one account to pay for content on multiple publisher platforms. That is better for the reader, but it’s not better for the publisher. If Elon wanted to make this a better deal for publishers, he would not only pay the publisher a dime for the article, he would also provide at least some of the customer information. Maybe even only an email address. The trouble I have with all these sorts of programs is that the publisher is getting chump change for his content, it’s undermining his own funnel strategy, and the person who wins – that is, the person who gets the customer relationship – is the tech platform. Links ==== Elon’s announcement https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1652349875017879552?s=46&t=KDcFJdfj6vswexfsQH_-8A The Krehbiel Letter https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

Just this morning I was reading a Bo Sacks article about publishers who use AI to make their writing more SEO-friendly, and I thought, doggone it, why don’t you use AI to make your writing more reader friendly! I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how little publishers have done to improve the online reading experience. It’s a topic I take up briefly in the latest Krehbiel Letter, but I’d like to expand on the idea a bit today. Think about your typical online reading experience. It’s usually a sea of words. Some authors will do you the favor of writing short sentences in short paragraphs, providing subheads, bullet points, and that sort of thing. But that’s about the best you get in making the text more readable. On the other side of the equation, websites are happy to distract you from your reading with ads and pop-ups and all sorts of things. On some sites, especially on mobile, it’s nearly impossible to read an article. I’m sure you’ve browsed one of those “Idiot’s Guide” style of books. They do a fair amount to make reading easier. They have pull quotes and summaries and definitions and lots of interesting things. I’ve discussed this before, so I won’t dwell on that. Today I want to talk about using AI to improve the reading experience. So imagine a publisher has an API connection to ChatGPT, or any one of those magical things out there. And then think about things a reader might want. Here are some ideas I came up with. * A summary of the article * A definition of a word * An elaboration on a concept, or a question raised by the article * A second opinion Then, being a sensible fellow, I asked ChatGPT, first, are all those things possible (they are), and second, what else could be done. ChatGPT recommended … * Personalization such as recommending related articles or providing tailored content based on a reader's interests or reading history. * Language translation. ---------------------------------- Get The Krehbiel Letter at ... https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbiel-letter/

According to an internal memo from BuzzFeed’s CEO Jonah Peretti cited by Forbes, “the business model of news tailored for social media had become too difficult to sustain.” An article distributed by Bo Sack yesterday with the title, “How the social traffic that gave life to BuzzFeed News ultimately led to its demise” has Peretti saying “it took him too long to realize that despite being built primarily to reach a social media-based audience, those platforms did not provide ‘distribution or financial support required’ to operate a free news site.” Here’s another quote from Justin Eisenband of FTI consulting. “Anyone relying on social referrals as a key monetization factor has struggled in the last couple of years.” Two lessons so far. #1 – Live by social media, die by social media. #2 – “Reach” doesn’t pay the bills. This next quote is particularly important, especially as publishers are now considering the latest social media craze, TikTok. "As short-form vertical video is prioritized, Eisenband said external links back to publishers’ sites are less amplified within social media platforms’ walled gardens, as the goal is to keep users on their app.” That’s lesson three, which I’ve mentioned before #3 – Social media platforms have less than no interest in helping you get traffic. Remember the rule I mentioned about a week ago. “All your customers are become our customers.” Doug Arthur from Huber Research Partners said “The successful models — and there are very few — have robust subscription revenues with supplementary [advertising] feeding off the number and intensity of the subscribers’ use.” We can extract rules 4 and 5 from there. #4 – Rely on subscription revenue and advertising revenue. #5 – Focus on engagement on your site. He also said “general interest news is difficult to sell subscriptions against,” which is lesson #6. Buzzfeed did not have a subscription business model, but asked readers for contributions. That has worked for some non-profits or mission-based publications, but doesn’t fit with a for-profit company. I’m not claiming to know all the reasons for the demise of Buzzfeed. Wikipedia says it was originally known for online quizzes, “listicles” – which is an article structured as a list – and pop culture articles. That might explain why I don’t believe I’ve ever been to buzzfeed. I don’t care about pop culture, and I thought of it as that sort of place. It did move into news and won some awards for its coverage, but a Pew Research survey found that it was viewed as an unreliable source. So that will be the last lesson I pull from the Buzzfeed story. #7 – Don’t do things that make you seem like an unreliable source. Sources https://Bosacks.com How the social traffic that gave life to BuzzFeed News ultimately led to its demise https://digiday.com/media/how-the-social-traffic-that-gave-life-to-buzzfeed-news-ultimately-led-to-its-demise/ BuzzFeed News Shutting Down https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/20/buzzfeed-news-shutting-down/?sh=44dca90d7ff3 The End of Buzzfeed News Isn’t Very Suprising News https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-end-of-buzzfeed-news-isn-t-very-surprising-news/ar-AA1a7tzC Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed

In the world of publishing, AI can be a powerful tool to improve your content creation process. However, it is essential to use it with caution and verify its results. Bo Sacks distributed a cautionary tale from the world of artificial intelligence that everyone in the publishing industry should read. A German weekly used AI to create an interview with a man who has been out of the public view since 2013 after a horrible skiing accident. Say a prayer for Michael Schumacher and his family. This seems to be a clear case of relying on AI without checking it. You can’t do that. Would you use spellcheck without reviewing the suggestions? I hope not. Modern AI is both a far better, more powerful tool than spellcheck, and also can you get you in a whole lot more trouble. ChatGPT is a fantastic tool, and I use it regularly, but it makes stuff up, it gets things wrong, and it has some clear biases. As long as you’re aware of that, go ahead and use it. But don’t even rely on ChatGPT unedited. And that raises the question, how should publishers use AI? I’m going to highlight a few things that I think are helpful. 1. Use AI to make sure you’re covering all the bases. For example, if you’re doing a podcast on a topic, ask AI to create an outline for the podcast. It might give you some ideas you hadn’t considered. 2. When you’re done with the podcast, upload a transcript into ChatGPT and ask it to summarize the main points of the podcast. With a little editing you now have a story to post on your website. 3. Now, use ChatGPT for SEO optimization. For example, you could say “read the article provided below and tell me what keywords I should focus on to make it more search-engine friendly.” You can even ask ChatGPT to re-write the article to make it more search-engine friendly. 4. Ask ChatGPT to write a compelling and interesting tweet to draw attention to your podcast. 5. You can also train ChatGPT to write in a particular style. Feel it several articles, then ask it to write a new article in the same style. ChatGPT is a tool that you can use to enhance your publishing efforts. It can make mistakes and have biases, so it is crucial to review its suggestions and results carefully. Use ChatGPT as a conversation partner, providing feedback on its accuracy and improving its performance by giving it more information. By following these tips, you can use AI effectively in publishing to enhance your content creation process. =============================== Here's the article Bo Sacks distributed Sorry AI: German Cover Story Misfires, Editor Is Fired https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/384646/sorry-ai-german-cover-story-misfires-editor-is-f.html

Are Baby Boomers, Gen. X, Millennials, and Gen. Z all that different? I’ve heard it both ways. My friend Janet Granger says there are big differences, but I’ve also seen old quotes about Baby Boomers that sound suspiciously like recent quotes about Gen. Z, which makes me wonder if the differences are just a matter of getting older. We have a funny relationship with generalizations. Or can I use the more fraught term: stereotypes. All my listeners are smart enough to know that a generalization can be true without being true in every case. So, for example, the psychologists tell us that men are more mechanically inclined than women by one standard deviation. That’s true despite the fact that Sally is a car mechanic and Harry can’t change his oil. In my mind, these alleged generational differences are somewhat like the Myers Briggs stuff and personality. I dislike those kinds of groupings because I’ve only seem them abused. At the same time, it’s been reliably shown that people do vary according to the “Big Five” personality traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. What bugs me is when someone assumes that because someone tends towards extroversion – it is a scale, after all – that they will therefore act the way extroverts tend to act in all situations. That’s simply wrong. So let’s pick at this a little. It’s wrong to assume that an individual has the characteristics of a group that individual happens to be a member of. So even if there are “Gen. Z” characteristics and “Boomer” characteristics, that doesn’t mean every person in that generation has those characteristics. People are individuals, and there’s lots of variations within any particular group. Still, there have to be consequences to growing up with black and white TV versus growing up with an iPhone glued to your face, right? And making a reference to Gilligan’s Island is more likely to work with one generation than another. This all leaves me somewhat ambivalent. It’s very likely there are some general guidelines that you should – maybe not follow, but at least keep in mind – when dealing with a particular demographic group, including a particular generation. After all, marketing is a game of averages. That can be true despite the fact that we can’t apply those generalizations to an individual. “You’re Gen Z., so ….” Here’s the Krehbiel take on this. 1. There are probably statistically significant differences between generations. I’d be shocked if there weren’t. 2. Most of the stuff you hear about generational differences is probably hype and marketing BS with no scientific basis. 3. When it comes to these alleged differences, there’s a continuum between “slavishly follow” and “ignore.” Avoid the extremes. 4. Don’t think of these things as givens, but as hypotheses that you can test. If you’ve done any interesting tests along these lines, please let me know. Resources ========= OK Boomer! Revelations of a Baby Boomer Working with Millennials https://www.amazon.com/Boomer-Revelations-Baby-Working-Millennials/dp/1628220082/ Running their own race: the problem with demographic generalisations https://wellmark.com.au/blog/marketing/running-their-own-race-the-problem-with-demographic-generalisations/ The Krehbiel Group https://krehbielgroup.com

Bo Sacks featured an article by David Tvrdon's titled "Why turning newsletters into podcasts and podcasts into newsletters is a great strategy for publishers." David makes some persuasive cases for his thesis, which I review in this brief video, and add a few of my own thoughts. Here's David's original article. https://thefix.media/2023/3/24/why-turning-newsletters-into-podcasts-is-a-great-strategy-for-publishers Here's Bo Sacks' page. https://www.bosacks.com/ Here's my write-up. https://krehbielgroup.com/2023/04/24/publishers-should-convert-newsletters-to-podcasts-and-vice-versa/