Separating the medium from the message

Wikipedia defines the word medium as follows: "In communications, a medium is the storage and transmission channel or tool used to store and deliver information or data." It's the means of getting information from point A to point B, not the content or structure of that information. However, it's virtually impossible to consider a medium without including its usual content and structure. For example, we have expectations of what we're going to hear when we turn on the radio, and what we're going to see when we turn on the television. We don't expect to find the nameplate and headline of a newspaper on an inner page; we expect to find them on the front page.

Content and structure have been an integral part of our understanding of what a medium is, until we got to the Internet era. The Internet is a medium that can reproduce the content and structure of radio, television, movies, compact discs, books and newspapers. The Internet decouples the physical medium from its content and structure.

The Internet's flexibility is both a blessing and a curse. It makes it relatively easy to copy the content and structure of other media, but history shows that copying one medium into another isn't a successful long-term strategy. Radio copied theater, concerts and vaudeville, but it didn't come into its own until unique styles of entertainment were developed specifically for radio. Television initially copied radio and the media that radio itself originally copied, but like radio, television didn't take off until artists started taking advantage of television's unique capabilities.

The Internet can be a replacement for today's radio and television, with the added benefit of time-shifting, but with its sometimes tinny sound and small displays, it's a poor substitute. You can make a website or app look just like a newspaper page, but experience shows that people read in a different way online than they do in print. Despite apps, most magazines available online look just like their print editions, with a few additional features. These "digital magazines" are often very hard to read, requiring lots of zooming (some readers only allow one level of zoom), panning and scrolling.

One can argue that webpages are themselves a unique form of structure, if not content; with the exception of interactivity, they're an amalgam of text, audio and video forms that existed well before the web itself. What are some of the other unique capabilities of Internet media that can differentiate them from existing forms?

• Interactivity: Video games and interactive CD-ROMs predate the web, but the web brings interactivity to a new level, and mobile apps are accelerating the trend.
• Multi-way creation: Instead of the "one creator to many consumers" model inherent in incumbent (old) media, the Internet enables many creators to reach a few or many consumers. It also enables creators to interact with each other, and makes the roles of creators and consumers fluid--one can become the other, and one can play both roles simultaneously.
• Support for most kinds of existing media: The temptation to simply copy one medium's content and structure onto the Internet is great, but the ability to integrate the capabilities of multiple mediums into a single composition is very powerful.
• No gatekeepers: Creators can reach consumers and other creators inexpensively, without having to go through distributors, retailers and networks.
• Low production and distribution cost: The Internet has helped to drive the cost of the software and services needed for content creation down to a tiny fraction of the prices paid by old media companies, and Moore's Law has driven down the prices and increased the capabilities of the devices needed to create and access the content.

Simply taking a radio show and moving it to the Internet, either as a webcast or simulcast, won't cause the Internet to displace radio; it only creates a poor substitute. The same goes for television. Magazines that simply reproduce the content of their print editions in electronic form aren't reversing their downward circulation and advertising revenue trends--the best they're doing is slowing down the decline. Newspapers aren't adding enough extra value on the Internet to make their paywalls work.

One-to-many media don't work on the Internet, or more accurately, they don't work well enough to maintain the business models of incumbent media companies. Native Internet media have to be highly interactive and incorporate an audience of content creators, not just content consumers. If any content consumer can instantly and painlessly become a creator of virtually any kind of content, and if consumers of that content can in turn create their own content, that's when Internet media becomes very different than any incumbent media.

Twitter, YouTube and The Huffington Post are all early examples of true Internet media, although they have limitations:

• Twitter's is the kinds of content that can be delivered in-line with its 140-character messages (which itself is a limitation).
• YouTube's is the amount of effort necessary to create a video that doesn't look amateurish.
• The Huffington Post's is that it's very text-based; the HuffPo is adding more video, but it's primarily produced in-house and represents a regression to the "one-to-many" model. Also, anyone can submit posts to the HuffPo, but that doesn't mean that they'll be accepted.

If you think about how those three companies' models can be mixed and improved, you can come up with some very interesting new visions of Internet media.

Ways to turn down the noise

Like a lot of people who keep track of new business and technology developments, I find myself getting overwhelmed with information. It's sometimes difficult to separate the signal from the noise. To keep from being completely buried under the noise, I've come up with some rules for determining what (and what not) to pay attention to:

• Press releases: They're advertisements, highly biased and often very inaccurate, but they're useful for identifying new products and services that might be of value to you, and competitors that you may not have known about. They can also alert you to management appointments and changes at your customers and competitors.
• Analyst reports: I almost completely ignore analyst forecasts, although reports of actual sales can be very useful. No forecast that covers more than 12 to 24 months is in any way accurate (and I say that as a former analyst who made my living doing five-year forecasts.) In addition, analysts often bias their forecasts upward to make their reports more appealing to vendors, or to placate an existing client or encourage a potential client to sign on. Analyst reports that make recommendations about which products or services to buy, or which vendors to consider, are subject to similar biases, and should always be looked at skeptically.
  
  Also, pay attention to the backgrounds and experience of the analysts themselves. How much working experience do they have in the industry they're covering? Did they work for a customer or for a vendor? Was the report written by the analysts whose names are on it, or was it actually written by junior, less-experienced researchers?
• White papers: Most white papers, whether they're directly written by a vendor or by a research firm for a vendor, are advertising. What's worse, in order to get them, you usually have to identify yourself, and you can expect a sales contact shortly thereafter.
• Webcasts: Again, these are mostly advertising for the companies participating in or sponsoring the webcasts. Unless you want to spend an hour listening to an ad, they're a poor use of your time. Even when customers are included as presenters, they may be there only for show, and the vendor representatives will dominate the conversation.
• Tech business blogs, such as TechCrunch and Silicon Alley Insider: These blogs generate traffic with controversy, often mix facts, opinion and conjecture together, and in general, are more entertaining than reliable.
• Hardware blogs, such as AnandTech and Tom's Hardware for computers, or Digital Photography Review for digital cameras: These blogs often do an excellent job of covering and reviewing new products, but be sure that the reviewer received no compensation from the vendor for the review.
• Newspapers and magazines (print or online): The quality of the information that newspapers and magazines report is directly related to the experience and quality of their reporters and editors. It takes time for a reporter to understand a subject area, especially technology, business, medicine and science. Budgetary pressures have forced many publications to fire their experienced specialty journalists and rely on freelancers, news services and press releases. Check reporters' bylines to find out where they came from and how much experience they have in the subject area. Also, anything labeled "Advertorial" is advertising, even if it looks like normal editorial content.

By being an informed consumer of news, you can get better information and draw more accurate conclusions in less time.

Publishers: Sorry, but the iPad won't save you

Book, magazine and newspaper publishers are looking at the iPad as akin to the Second Coming, but it may actually accelerate rather than slow their declines. Here's why:

The Kindle has increased the number of eBooks purchased by heavy readers, but my belief is that it's due primarily to the low prices of Amazon's eBooks relative to their print versions. Heavy readers can buy a lot more eBooks than print books for the same amount of money. Those heavy readers, while important, are a small minority of the overall book-buying market. Prices for eBooks on the iPad are going to be a little bit higher than what Amazon has been charging, but because of the shift to the Agency model with Apple's 30% commission and pricing limits, the publishers will actually end up making less on each sale than they currently do with Amazon, even with higher price tags.

If the iPad becomes wildly successful, as it has a good chance of doing, it will put eBook readers into the hands of millions of people who would never consider buying a Kindle or nook. That's a good thing, but is it going to stimulate moderate and light book buyers to buy more eBooks? I don't think so. Instead, those buyers will substitute eBooks for print books at a 1:1 ratio, and the publishers will end up making less on each sale. As it decreases the sales of print books, print runs will get smaller, and physical manufacturing and distribution will become less efficient and more expensive. After an initial burst of sales activity, it's likely that book publishers will see their revenues go down, not up.

Magazines and newspaper publishers will end up with the same result, but for slightly different reasons. Existing print subscribers aren't going to subscribe to more magazines and newspapers because of the iPad; they'll switch from reading on paper to reading on screen, and eventually drop their print subscriptions. Readers who don't already subscribe are unlikely to pay to read magazines and newspapers on the iPad, especially if they can find free substitutes on the web. As print circulation numbers decline, the marginal cost of running printing presses and distributing magazines and newspapers will go up, making print publishing even more costly.

In short, if the iPad and similar devices are wildly successful, they could end up turning print publications into the equivalent of vinyl records--high-cost specialty items purchased only by collectors.