“Fan” Us on Facebook, Follow Us for Free

“People will pay for content if it is so unique they can’t get it anywhere else, so fast they benefit from getting it before anyone else, or so related to their tribe that paying for it brings them closer to other people. We’ll always be willing to pay for souvenirs of news, as well, things to go on a shelf or badges of honor to share.” - Seth Godin, in his blog post “Malcolm is wrong”

I was really inspired by the entry that master marketer Seth Godin posted on his blog a few days ago. In it, he discussed Free, a new book by Chris Anderson, and the way that Anderson’s ideas relate to digital content.

(Pictured at left: Free air, by St_A_Sh)

What Godin wrote was not particularly ground-breaking, but it made me think about how online journalists can create unique, inimitable, and absolutely-worth-paying-for content.

Allow me to break down the paragraph I posted above by highlighting some key phrases:

1. “So unique” - Of course, journalistic pieces are based on fact. However, writers can make facts seem unique and interesting. The way a writer strings together facts can be unusual and enticing yet still remain true and completely correct. In his book Writing for Story, Jon Franklin has some really great tips for journalists trying to create dramatic nonfiction.

2. “Before anyone else” - Included with my subscription to The New Yorker, I have access to the magazine’s digital reader. This week, I read the online version of a short story by one of my favorite writers, Lorrie Moore, before I received the print edition. When the print edition arrived in the mail, I sneered at it. “See this?” I asked, holding up the magazine for my brother. “I already read it online.”

3. “Brings them closer to other people” - As someone who really loves and appreciates creative writing, I understand how poetry and fiction can bring together individuals with similar emotions, longings, or circumstances. Why is creative writing so powerful? Carefully crafted imagery, detail, and forward-moving narratives captivate a reader’s attention. Is there a way for journalists to use these elements without comprising the unbiased nature of news?

4. “Souvenirs” - Why do we still purchase compact discs when we can download songs on the Internet? Why do we buy an author’s book when we’ve already read bits and pieces elsewhere? Fans purchase souvenirs. Journalists need to gain a fanbase. P.S. You can “fan” Too Shy to Stop on Facebook too!

Museum-Quality Magazines for the Masses?

About a week ago, Twitter member @markfbonner sent me a link to this TED talk about design and the way it impacts how readers interact with print newspapers.  Designer Jacek Utko, a Polish newspaper designer who created award-winning redesigns for newspapers in Eastern Europe, says, “In the long run, there is no practical reason for newspapers to survive. So what can you do?”  He thinks design is the saving grace.

According to Utko, newspapers are essentially boring. Okay, newspapers aren’t really supposed to be exciting, but in an age when consumers have short attention spans, maybe we have to do more to entertain and entice them.

(Pictured at left: Newspapers re-imagined, by danie;)

Do we even know how to capture the attention of the average reader? Sure, Utko’s newspapers have won awards, but is sharp design really the way to motivate people to buy newspapers?

When thinking about the Too Shy to Stop redesign last fall, I decided that design was a top priority. I knew that layout wouldn’t be the only reason that people would visit our website, but I wanted a clean look to complement our clear and compelling writing. Each element of a publication has to work together to create an appealing final product.

Roby Fitzhenry of Always Creative, the design company that created the layout for Too Shy to Stop, said, “Designing for an online magazine was fun but a bit challenging. Unlike print-based magazines and newspapers, designing for the web means that the content needs to easily flow into a flexible grid while maintaining readability and visual interest. Consistency, usability, and the brand’s overall identity and voice were my top focuses while redesigning Too Shy to Stop.”

In redesigning his newspapers, Utko could experiment with bold graphics and intricate two-page spreads. However, designing for online doesn’t allow for as much experimentation because consumers just want something that’s easy to read on a glowing screen.

(Pictured at right: Design for an art museum?, by √oхέƒx™)

Martin Langevald, of the Neiman Journalism Lab, thinks that design is not the only thing attracting an audience to an online publication. For him, connecting with the audience is more important than impressing readers with design. He writes, “…the world revolves around us, the editors and publishers.  As it ever did, in print newsrooms. Let’s lose that model.” Writers and creative professionals (Utko and myself included) spend so much time trying to impress one another that they forget who they are creating for!

This does not mean that we should forget about design. Publications, whether online or in print, just have to be real, accessible, unique, straightforward, and memorable. These characteristics may not qualify a newspaper page for wall space at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but they will keep consumers interested and engaged.

Speculation v. Sources in Reporting Michael Jackson’s Death

At around 5:30 PM yesterday, I noticed news of Michael Jackson’s cardiac arrest on Twitter and Facebook. At around 6 PM, some people claimed that he had died. What?! I performed a Google search to find an update. The website that had first reported his death, celebrity gossip site TMZ, was so heavily trafficked that I couldn’t access it.

Twitter member @TravelingAnna wrote, “Michael Jackson broke the Internet. everything is down.”

CNN and NY Times wouldn’t confirm his death until almost a half hour later. I kept wondering what would happen if TMZ was wrong; many people trust this AOL-owned website, despite the its typically-”fluffy” subject matter.

(Pictured at left: Breaking news!, by emutree)

Twitter member @BethanyShondark wrote, “They (TMZ) have people in every LA hospital on their payrolls. I didn’t doubt it when they broke it first.”

My Facebook and Twitter friends believed the news of Jackson’s death before the major news networks released official word. Do we have social media and the Internet to thank for the speedy and very viral spread of news? Who can we trust to report the news?

Honestly, I didn’t believe it until the LA Times confirmed it. I refuse to believe TMZ, Twitter, and Facebook. What does that say about me? Am I the only one who believes that big media venues like CNN and MSNBC know everything?

My brother directed me to this article from The Onion in 2005: “During a search for evidence at the Neverland Valley Ranch, investigators discovered a corpse that has been identified as that of Michael Jackson, Santa Barbara police officials announced Tuesday.” Sure, most people understand that The Onion is not a real news source. But who is to say that what is printed is or isn’t true?

Will there come a time when hearsay is news? Will we ever lose respect for the serious reporting done by the major news networks and publications? Will we jump the gun just because we want to be the first ones to know the truth? And how will we know what is the truth?

(Pictured at right: The gossip bench, by ercwttmn)

Will there be a day when we’re not waiting for CNN to confirm that something is true before we believe it’s true, even though we heard it first?

I found a great quote by Lord Northcliffe via Daringfireball.net about the relevation of news: “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” If this is true and if it is so hard to get the “news”, then we will always question the validity and truth of the sources.

If we’re trying to get to the bottom of something, some facts will always be missing. Does that mean we should put more trust in the efforts that everyone makes to get that news or in the belief that eventually someone (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC) will get to the bottom of it?

My Perfect New Media World

The term “new media” is used very liberally; I get the sense that most people don’t even know what they mean when they say, write, or read “new media”.

Whatever “new media” means to you, it absolutely describes the way that we will consume and share information during a time when traditional media outlets (newspapers and magazines) are undergoing great changes.

No one can predict the shape of the new media world, but I have some wishes for it.

Design and usability are top priorities. The Internet is a graveyard of poor design and websites/applications that are difficult to use and navigate. A few gems of great design shine through the muck. Why can’t everyone value and strive for harmonious layout and presentation?

(Pictured at left: Would rainbows exist in a new media world?, by balloon in a sock)

Standards of writing remain. A lot of writing snobs complain that the Internet is to blame for a decline in high-quality writing. My wish for a new media world is for consumers to appreciate, reward, and applaud clear, concise, and interesting writing.

Material waste is reduced. In my perfect new media world, people would waste less paper, have less clutter, be more organized, and find cleaner/more efficient ways to transmit information.

Talent triumphs over status. If you read Gawker regularly, you probably notice that celebrities (or relatives of celebrities) land awesome media internships that normal people like me covet. In my perfect new media world, talented people would get the jobs they deserve.

Consumers value and appreciate information. Consumers, especially those my age (20-somethings), take for granted the fact that most information is available for free. Media professionals work hard to create and produce that content; their work should be celebrated, and they should be appropriately compensated.

(Pictured at right: Media is so great!, by Wonderlane)

Producers are always reevaluating and innovating. Media producers need to keep innovating and thinking outside the box. They need to think about how they can create value and how they can keep their audience interested, engaged, and appreciative.

What do you envision for your perfect new media world?

Too Shy Style Guide

Visit the Wikipedia entry for “Writer“.

Under the heading “Internet Writers”, you can read the following text:

“The popularity of the Internet opened the door of opportunity to many established and aspiring writers alike. The new medium created concerns over writing quality in the Internet age.

(Pictured at left: Internet writing, by dbdbrobot)

Writers’ advocates believe the Internet has led to a lower level of writing standards. While new modes of communication through the Internet are constantly advancing and changing, the issue of writing quality questions the very definition of writing in the Internet age.”

So, who are these writers’ advocates? And why do they blame the Internet for a lower level of writing standards? There will always be people who believe in the power of a well-written article, story, or blog entry. No one wants to read something with poor syntax, misspellings, and lack of organization.

People who love and appreciate good writing (me) and who run arts and culture magazines (Too Shy to Stop) have to maintain a standard of writing for the Internet, at least within the confines of a venue that wants to earn the respect and admiration of its readers.

For this reason, I created the Too Shy Style Guide, a handbook for anyone that writes for Too Shy to Stop.

(Pictured at right: Wired style guide, by renaissancechambara)

I based our style guide on other style guides that already exist: AP, Chicago, and MLA.  I took what I really like from each of these style guides, and why not?

I am working in an innovative medium on a magazine that’s unlike other magazines.  Why can’t I dictate my own style guidelines as long as they are consistent?

I’m curious to know how you think we can preserve high-quality writing on the Internet.