Reuters Institute's first Digital Report on how news is being consumed

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford has released its Reuters Institute Digital Report 2012, the first in what's expected to be a long-term series of studies on how people consume news in the U.S., U.K., Germany, France and Denmark. The bottom line is that Europe isn't as far along as the U.S. in its transition to digital media--and there's big differences between European countries. However, tablets in particular are accelerating the adoption of digital news. Here are some of the findings:

• Daily consumption of any kind of news (print, television, radio or online) generally increases with age in Germany, Denmark, the U.S. and France, with the highest rates of consumption in Germany and Denmark. 
• The U.K. is the only country where news consumption generally decreases with age, with peak consumption in the 25 to 34 year old group.

• Germany is #1 for access of news by TV, print and radio, but is at the bottom of the list for online access to news. 
• The U.S. is the mirror image of Germany: #1 for access of news online, but at the bottom of the list for access by television, print and radio. 
• The U.S. is the only country where less than half the respondents (45%) said that they got news via print at least once a week. 

• The most popular online source of news for U.K. residents is broadcaster websites (primarily the BBC.) 
• Newspaper websites are the most popular online source of news for residents of Germany, Denmark and France. 
• Other digital news sources (non-broadcast, non-newspaper) are the most popular sources in the U.S., closely followed by newspaper websites. 
• Social media and blogs are about twice as popular as a source of news in the U.S. than they are in European countries. 

• PCs remain by far the most popular devices for accessing the news digitally in every country measured. 
• Mobile phones were used by 32% of respondents from Denmark to access news, followed by 28% in both the U.K. and U.S. 
• Tablets were used to access news by 13% of respondents from Denmark and 11% from the U.S. No other country had more than 8%. 
• eReaders were used to access digital news by only 3% of U.S. respondents, and no more than 1% in any other country, suggesting that efforts to get newspapers and magazines onto black & white eReaders are a waste of time and money. 

Tablets are having a positive impact on news consumption in the U.K.:

• 58% of tablet users access news from the device every week (68% accessed news via tablet at least once in the last month) 
• Tablet owners access more news sources than other online users. 
• 44% of tablet users say that the device provides a better experience for news than a traditional computer. 
• Tablet owners are significantly more likely to pay for news. 

That last point is important, because only 12% of all Danish respondents said that they had ever paid for digital news content, followed by 9% of U.S. respondents, 8% from France, 6% from Germany and just 4% from the U.K.

ALA releases final version of Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study 2011-12

The American Library Association has released the final version of its Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study 2011-12. Here's a summary of selected findings:

* For FY2011-12, the average total operating expenditures funding for U.S. public libraries dropped by 2.4%, the third year in a row where available funding declined. Survey respondents anticipate that funding in FY2012-13 will drop by another 5.3%.

* Collections expenditures dropped an average of 1.64% in FY 2011-12, and libraries expect them to drop another 4.61% in FY2012-13. However, the numbers vary considerably by library location: Urban libraries' collection expenditures rose 3.2% in FY2011-12, and suburban libraries' collection expenditures also increased by 12.6%. By comparison, rural libraries' collection expenditures declined 37%.

* 76.3% of public libraries now offer eBooks to their patrons in their facilities, and 76.1% offer eBooks to patrons remotely (for example, over the Web.)

* 39.1% of public libraries make eReaders such as Kindles or Nooks available to their patrons for reading eBooks.

* 14.2% of public libraries have optimized their websites for use on mobile devices.

* 7.2% of public libraries have developed smartphone apps for access to library services and content.

Why the AT&T/T-Mobile deal may mean less than it seems

Earlier today, AT&T announced an agreement with Deutsche Telekom to acquire its U.S. T-Mobile operation for $39 billion in cash and stock. The timing of the announcement was very interesting: AT&T and T-Mobile chose to announce the deal on a Sunday, while Western forces are attacking Libya, the Japanese disaster continues and the U.S. college basketball championships are underway--in other words, when very few people are likely to pay attention to it.

Part of the companies' caution is due to the fact that the deal will undergo intensive investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. There's an excellent chance that the deal will be challenged in court; it will add T-Mobile's 33.7 million subscribers to AT&T's 95.5 million, making the merged company the largest mobile operator in the U.S.

On the other hand, there's also a good chance that the deal will go through, at least in some form. T-Mobile is the Number 4 mobile operator in the U.S., the smallest of the four nationwide operators. It's struggling to come up with the capital to upgrade its network to the worldwide LTE standard, and despite its ads portraying its existing network as 4G, most consumers realize that it's not true. Both AT&T and T-Mobile use the same GSM transmission system (albeit at different frequencies), so integration of the two companies' networks will be much easier than if the rumored Sprint/T-Mobile merger had occurred.

AT&T is likely to argue that it's the most natural partner for T-Mobile, and that T-Mobile is unlikely to survive as a national operator in the long term if it stays independent, is acquired by a company with an incompatible infrastructure, or is acquired by a private equity investor that doesn't have extensive telecom experience.

The obvious concern is that an AT&T/T-Mobile merger will result in higher prices and poorer service for consumers, and given AT&T's prior track record with acquisitions, that's likely to be the case. Regulators may require the two brands to maintain separate identities, even if the infrastructure of the two companies is merged. My belief is that AT&T will continue to use T-Mobile as a "value" brand to compete with prepaid and lower-priced postpaid services from operators such as MetroPCS and Leap Wireless, but will migrate T-Mobile's most profitable customers to AT&T.

T-Mobile may not have much of a future in the U.S., whether or not the AT&T acquisition goes through. It's up to AT&T can convince regulators that the most likely outcome for an independent T-Mobile is, at best, to become a regional carrier without the scale to compete with AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.

What's the real impact of government vs. culture on new businesses?

I was at an entrepreneurial conference in Chicago this weekend. The keynote speaker started off with the requisite witty anecdotes, followed by statistics about the impact of new and small businesses on the U.S. economy. To wrap up, she barreled into an Objectivist rant demanding that government get out of the way of new businesses. She may have thought that her screed was motivational, but it only left myself and most of the people in the room thinking "WTF?".

So, what's the real impact of government on new business formation? Government can stimulate new businesses with R&D tax credits, accelerated depreciation and taxing capital gains at lower rates than regular income. However, tax rates themselves have very little to do with either encouraging or discouraging new businesses. Consider that Chicago's "structural environment" is, in many ways, superior to Silicon Valley: At least as many top universities, excellent infrastructure, significantly lower state and local taxes (a 3% personal income tax vs. 9% in California, for example), and a more lenient, business-oriented regulatory structure. Chicago is physically closer to many more U.S. markets and to Europe, and is only a few hours further away from Asia.

Nevertheless, even with all those advantages, the rate of startup formation in Silicon Valley is one to two orders of magnitude higher than the rate in Chicago. Why? The reason is cultural, not governmental. Silicon Valley has a culture that, for several generations now, has inculcated the belief that it's better to have control over your own destiny than to give control to your employer. If you're happiest when you're getting a regular paycheck with good benefits, you're not likely to try to start your own company, and if you do try, you're likely to fail.

Chicago's culture is far more the norm for U.S. big cities; most people are perfectly happy with regular paychecks and don't have the "fire in their bellies" to go out and change the world, or at least a little piece of it. The problem with that thinking is that the regular paycheck and benefits lifeline is going away. Companies are moving away from permanent employees and toward contractors, temps and outsourcing. As Daniel Pink wrote a number of years ago, we're becoming a "Free Agent Nation."

So, the biggest reason why Chicago doesn't rival Silicon Valley as a startup formation mecca isn't government policies, it's a mindset that believes that if we do a good job for our employers, we'll be taken care of. Until many more people here believe that they can do a better job of looking out for their own best interests than can an employer, Chicago won't become a startup mecca. The speaker at last weekend's conference got a part of the Objectivist pitch right; it's just that the problem isn't government vs. startups, it's dependence on big business to provide support vs. taking responsibility yourself.

Two simple things you can do to help homeless pets

This is way off-topic for me, but it's an important issue. Thousands of pets are euthanized in animal shelters in the U.S. every day. You may not realize that most animals brought into "kill" shelters are euthanized within 72 hours after they arrive, especially if they're sick, are an unpopular breed, or the shelter has no way of locating their owners. Thousands of dogs and cats are euthanized daily. There are two things that you can do that will help cut down on this senseless cruelty, whether or not you're a pet owner:

1. Support free and low-cost spaying and neutering clinics: The single most important thing that pet owners can do to decrease the number of animals that are euthanized is to have their dogs and cats spayed and neutered. It should become something that's automatic for pet owners.
    
2. Support no-kill shelters: An increasing number of shelters are adopting no-kill policies, but to do so is very expensive. No-kill shelters have limited space and resources, and often have to turn away pets because they have no more room. Many of these shelters take in dogs and cats from "kill" shelters that have potential, but will be euthanized unless they can be rescued.

If possible, you should adopt pets from no-kill shelters. This has three benefits:

1. You give a loving dog or cat a good home,
   
2. Your adoption fee will help to keep the shelter in operation, and
   
3. By adopting a pet, you open a spot in the shelter so that another animal can be rescued.

I adopted my cat KayTee from a no-kill shelter. She had been there for ten months when I adopted her. If she had been abandoned to a "kill" shelter, she would have been kept for no more than a week, then euthanized. She, and the other cats and dogs in that no-kill shelter and others like it, are the lucky ones. There are millions of cats and dogs in the U.S. that aren't so lucky.

Whether you contribute to a spay & neuter service or a no-kill shelter, or adopt a pet from a no-kill shelter (and encourage other shelters in your area to adopt no-kill policies), you'll make a big difference in the lives of countless dogs and cats.

The Entrepreneurial Challenge

2010 has just begun, and depending on who you talk to, we're either still in the Great Recession, or it recently ended. Either way, there are millions of people in the U.S. and around the world who will remain unemployed or underemployed even after the economy recovers. As a society, we have both a moral and economic imperative to help these people get back on their feet. As a country, the U.S. can't survive with a hollowed-out manufacturing base, and having Wal-Mart or McDonald's as employers of last resort helps no one.

I believe that the end of the Great Recession presents a tremendous opportunity for individuals who want to start their own businesses. For many people, entrepreneurship will represent their best, or even their only, means of getting back on their feet financially. The challenge for those of us who have spent most of their careers in Silicon Valley and other entrepreneurial centers is to bring that startup culture to people who need it.

We've got the tools to spread ideas quickly and inexpensively; we need to use them to encourage new businesses, no matter where they're located. We also need to adapt our philosophy and techniques to the needs of entrepreneurs outside the major technology and business centers. It's far more likely that these new entrepreneurs will start a restaurant than a software company, and very few of them are ever going to have a business that's likely to go public. We need to help them build sustainable, profitable businesses that will allow them to make a good living and support themselves and their families.