read more

read more

read more

Cuts and big changes for two papers: In the past week, two American newspapers have announced major reorganizations that, depending on who you read, were either cold corporate downsizing or fresh attempts at journalism innovation. First, late last week, Gannett’s USA Today announced that it would undergo the most sweeping change in its 28-year history, transforming “into a multi-media company” as opposed to a newspaper — and laying off 130 of its 1,500 employees in the process. The Associated Press and paidContent have pretty good explanations of what the changes entail, and thanks to the feisty Gannett Blog, we have the slide presentation Gannett execs made to USA Today’s staff.

Though there are some dots to be connected, those slides are the best illustration of what Gannett is trying to do: Push USA Today further into web content, breaking news and especially mobile content (by far its fastest-growing area) in order to justify a simultaneous move deeper into mobile and online advertising. The paper is hoping to become faster on breaking news, with a web-first mindset, fewer editors, and a strategy that focuses on flooding coverage on breaking stories and then coming back later for deeper features.

Gannett Blog’s Jim Hopkins, a longtime critic of the company, wasn’t thrilled about this move, either, pointing out the lack of newsroom experience in some of its key executives and saying that Gannett touted almost the exact same strategy four years ago, to little effect. He did say a few days later, though, that Gannett’s plans to encourage more collaboration among staffers — by flattening the “silos” of the News, Sports, Money, and Life sections — are long overdue.

News media analyst Ken Doctor was much more charitable, seeing in USA Today’s overhaul echoes of the new “digital first” mentalities at the Journal Register Co. and TBD. The best way to see this, Doctor said, is to “mark another day in which a publisher is acting on the plain truths of the marketplace and of the audiences, and trying to reinvent itself.” Newspaper Death Watch’s Paul Gillin called USA Today’s transformation a bellwether for news organizations and said its harmony between news and advertising is a bitter but necessary pill for traditionalists to swallow. And media consultant Mario Garcia said USA Today’s audience-driven approach is the key to survival in a multimedia environment.

The other newspaper to announce an overhaul was the Deseret News of Salt Lake City, a for-profit paper published by the Mormon Church. The paper is laying off 43 percent of its staff, though you wouldn’t know it from the News’ own article on the changes. In a pair of posts, Ken Doctor looked at the change in philosophy that’s accompanying the cuts — an attempt to become the worldwide Mormon newspaper of sorts, along with pro-am and local news efforts and a news-broadcast collaboration — and liked what he found. News business expert Alan Mutter examined the prospects for a slashed, print-and-broadcast newsroom and came out less optimistic.

A Twitter stunt gone awry: Twitter devotees are used to seeing untrue rumors and scoops occasionally get reported there (as Jeff Goldblum can attest), but this week may have been the first time a false Twitter report was knowingly started by a member of the traditional media as a stunt. Fed up with the more-breathless-than-usual Twitter rumor-reporting that’s been going on in the sports media this summer, Washington Post sports reporter Mike Wise decided to start a false rumor about the length of an NFL quarterback’s suspension to make a point about the unreliability of reporting on Twitter.

The stunt bombed; Wise admitted the hoax an hour later and was suspended for a month by the Post the next day. Such an ill-advised prank isn’t really news in itself, but it did spur a bit of interesting commentary on Twitter and breaking news. Numerous people argued that Wise’s hoax betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Twitter as a news medium — one that many others probably share. Even after the episode, Wise maintained that it showed that nobody checks facts or sourcing on breaking stories on Twitter.

Quite a few observers disagreed for a variety of reasons. Barry Petchesky of Gawker’s sports blog Deadspin said the whole incident actually disproved Wise’s thesis: The false story didn’t gain much traction, and the media outlets that did report the story credited Wise until it could be confirmed independently, just the way the system is supposed to work.

But the primary objection was that, as Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan, Slate’s Tom Scocca, and several others all argued, to the extent that Wise was trusted, it was because of the credibility that people give to The Washington Post — a traditional news organization — rather than Twitter itself. As TBD’s Steve Buttry pointed out, people would have run with this story if Wise had planted it in the Post itself or on its website; what makes Twitter any different? DCist’s Aaron Morrissey put the point well: Wise falsely “assumed that there weren’t levels of authenticity to Twitter, which, just like any other social construct on Earth, features some people who are reputable concerning whatever and others who aren’t.”

Rupert’s paywall runs into obstacles: Two months after the online paywall went up at Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London, The Independent (a competitor of The Times) reported this week that with a vastly reduced audience to sell to, advertisers are fleeing the site. In the article, various British news industry analysts also said The Times is killing its online brand and not adding any of the sort of value that’s necessary to justify charging for news. Stateside, too, Lost Remote’s Steve Safran saw the news as “mounting evidence that putting up a paywall is bad for business.”

It should be noted, though, that according to those analysts, The Times’ paywall is “more about gathering consumer information than selling content” — News Corp.’s primary intent may be getting detailed, personalized information on Times readers and using it to sell them other products within its media empire, including its BSkyB satellite TV. Francois Nel ran some possible numbers and determined that even with its relatively small audience (15,000 subscribers, plus day-pass users), News Corp. could be making more money with its paywall than without.

On the other hand, a new study reported by paidContent estimated that online subscribers to The Times and Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal are worth only a quarter of their print counterparts. Getting rid of the print product, the study posited, wouldn’t even make up for the loss of income from those subscribers. The Press Gazette’s Dominic Ponsford detailed more of the research firm’s report — a rather depressing one for newspaper execs.

Google and the AP play nice: A quiet news development worth noting: Google and The Associated Press renewed their licensing agreement that allows Google (including, especially, Google News) to host AP content. The deal was announced on Google’s side via a one-paragraph post, and on the AP’s side through a short press release, and then a much more extensive article by its technology writer Michael Liedtke. The extension is significant because the two sides have had a consistently fractious relationship — their first agreement began in 2006 after the AP threatened to sue Google for aggregating its articles, AP executives have criticized news aggregators for misappropriating content, and the AP’s material briefly stopped appearing on Google News late last year.

The Lab’s Megan Garber noted that this new agreement might go beyond another truce and mark a change in the way the companies relate: “Us-versus-them becoming let’s-work-together.” Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan provided plenty of background, surmising that AP has learned its lesson that Google News can live on just fine without them.

Reading roundup: This week was an especially rich one for all sorts of web-journalism punditry. Here’s a sampling:

— The American Journalism Review’s Barb Palser tried to throw some cold water on the hyperlocal news movement, using some Pew stats to argue that people don’t go online for neighborhood news as much as we might think. (That use of statistics led to a frustrated response by Michele McLellan.) And the Online Journalism Review’s Robert Niles added his skepticism to the discussion surrounding Patch and large-scale hyperlocal news.

— NYU j-prof Jay Rosen can be a polarizing figure, but there are few media observers who are better at pulling thoughtful insights out of the often mystifying world that is journalism-in-transition. We got three particularly thought-provoking tidbits from him this week: A sharp interview with The Economist about the American press; a lecture at a French j-school about the changing dynamic between “the audience” and “the public,” with tips for new students; and a video clip from the Journal Register Co.’s ideaLab on news production and innovation.

— We spent some time this summer talking about the merits (and drawbacks) of links, so consider this a worthy addendum: Scott Rosenberg, who recently chronicled the history of blogging, issued a three-part defense of the link this week. A great examination of one of the fundamental features of the web.

— Finally, two cool reads, one practical and the other theoretical. The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal listed five lessons from the publication of Longshot, the hyperspeed-produced magazine formerly known as 48HRS, and here at the Lab, Cornell scholar Joshua Braun talked about the way TV news organizations maintain the “stage management” of broadcast in their online efforts. “They continue to control what remains backstage and what goes front-stage,” he told Megan Garber in a Q&A, giving comment moderation as one example. “That’s not unique to the news, either. But it’s an interesting preservation of the way the media’s worked for a long time.”

The same is true in the way employees are harnessing consumer technologies — social, mobile, video, and cloud. They're improving how they do their jobs and solving your customer and business problems. And it's not just a few employees; it's a critical mass of employees. In a survey of more than 4,000 U.S. information workers, we found that 37% are using do-it-yourself technologies without IT's permission. LinkedIn, Google Docs, Smartsheet.com, Facebook, iPads, YouTube, Dropbox, Flipboard — the list is long and growing. Many of these scenarios are do-it-yourself projects. For example, want to ask me business questions on Facebook? Piece of cake, I'll just friend you. Personal iPhones for email, apps, and Internet access outside my clients' door? Check. Google Sites and Docs to exchange documents with partners? Sure, I can spin up a free site or IT can spend the $50/user/year and make it secure. YouTube to post fix-it-yourself videos for tough service problems? My kid's good with a Flip camera. She can film me doing the fix myself.

In all of these real cases, an employee figured out a better way to solve a customer or business problem without IT's help. Call it the consumerization of IT; call it harnessing the groundswell; call it Technology Populism. It's all the same thing: individuals harnessing readily available social, mobile, video, and cloud technology to solve customer and business problems.

In our new book, Empowered, we call these covert innovators HEROes — highly empowered and resourceful operatives. HEROes are those employees who feel empowered to solve customer problems and act resourcefully by using whatever technology they need to use. HEROes comprise 20% of the U.S. information workforce, but your industry may have many more or many fewer highly empowered and resourceful operatives.

It's all well and good to have employees solving customer problems. But chaos and rogue behavior is not okay. To identify the employee initiatives that are worth pursuing and figure out how to make them safe and enterprise-grade, your IT organization needs to get involved.

Peter Hambling, the CIO of Lloyd's of London, recently shared a story with us about Facebook and iPhone. A sales person wanted to use Facebook to talk to a client. An underwriter wanted to use a smartphone to access key account and policy information while away from their computer. The business manager and IT security professional feared the unknown and shut down both solutions.

As a CIO with business acumen, Hambling understood that he and his IT organization needed a new contract with business managers and employees that allowed him to help with technology solutions while sharing the responsibility for business risk with employees and managers. To get it done, he took the business case to the board of directors and got permission to proceed with caution and with a clear eye on the tradeoff between business value and business risk.

They didn't stop with Facebook and iPhone. They've also embedded IT staff directly into the cubicle farms of business employees; they've built innovative solutions with teams comprised of business and IT employees; they've created applications that empower employees to understand global risk through a familiar interactive map. They created a new contract with business managers and employees that gives IT professionals a place in the business.

Hambling exemplifies one of the key action items that we've discovered: Make new technology risk a business problem to be managed rather than an IT problem to be stifled. And that requires a new way of thinking and of working.

We spoke with hundreds of people when researching Empowered. In discovering their solutions to these thorny empowered technology problems, we identified a new contract that's emerging between IT, business managers, and employees. We call it the HERO Compact and it looks like this:

In the HERO Compact, there is a real give and take needed between employees, managers, and IT in this empowered era. Employees need to step up and behave responsibly (which means HR needs to be involved). Business managers need to roll up their sleeves and learn enough about the technology to understand the potential risks. (Managers also need to encourage and reward experimentation.) IT needs to assess and mitigate technology risk. And that means IT staff need to be much closer to business employees and activities so that they can help with technology platforms. And everybody must put technology-induced risk into its proper business context. It's a new set of priorities all the way around.

Are you building a new contract to empower employees to solve the problems of empowered customers? Are you running into barriers? Finding successes? In either case, I'd love to hear about it.

Ted Schadler is VP & Principal Analyst at Forrester Research and Coauthor of Empowered: Unleash your employees, energize your customers and transform your business.

The William Hague and Andy Coulson stories show how the media deflect blame and collude over poor journalism

The storm around William Hague and his adviser has enticed a new round of media sneering at political bloggers for their wicked ways. But this isn't just lazy, for reasons I'll explain, it ignores the real elephant in the room: how the national press collude and use the web for their vested interests.

Let's rewind a bit first. You may remember that last year the BBC's Andrew Marr asked Gordon Brown whether he was taking prescription medication. The scenario was identical: rumours were swirling "on the internet" and Marr felt it had become a legitimate question to ask. No actual proof or evidence – just quotes taken out of context and events (apparently Brown got angry once, shock horror!) exaggerated to an absurd degree.

Tory bloggers and commenters had heard it regurgitated it so many times that it was taken as gospel that Brown was clinically ill. No actual proof was needed to substantiate this. The sophistication of the whispering and smear campaign outclassed anything Damian McBride could have conceived.

Now let's come back to Hague. It's assumed all this kicked off on rightwing blogs and was taken by up the press when the drumbeat became too loud.

In fact, as several (left-liberal) bloggers point out, the picture of Hague with his adviser and veiled insinuations first surfaced at the Mail on Sunday on 21 August. The Telegraph followed.

That was immediately used as a springboard by Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) to stir the pot more viciously and submit an FOI request. In a coincidentally symbiotic relationship, both the Daily Mail and Telegraph quickly jumped on that publicity stunt as a hook to ask the questions they really wanted to.

You might think both episodes were about rightwing bloggers, but you'd be wrong. Blogger Stephen Tall nails it: "This was not a 'political' blogger acting in isolation, but in concert with two newspapers which are happy to ape the worst tactics of the Guido Fawkes smear-machine when it suits them."

The Conservative right has predictably skirted around this because they can't really afford to pick fights with either newspaper. But journalists are also reluctant because they loathe criticising or questioning their peers. As a result, little is done to challenge this gutter journalism. When Andrew Marr posed his question, I found a few willing to admonish him, but most did not want to go on the record.

This pattern is also evident in the Andy Coulson / News of the World phone-hacking case. It comes as little surprise News International subsidiaries and other tabloids have avoided it. But the BBC's radio silence also speaks volumes: not just about their deference to the new administration, but of unwillingness to investigate their peers. It needed the New York Times to blow the story wide open again.

More concerning, the corporation hasn't even bothered questioning Scotland Yard's worryingly close relationship with the NotW. I'm reminded of the time BBC reporters enthusiastically pushed the Met's version of events (later proved untrue) at G20 protests. No mea culpa followed then.

The conscience of our country is determined more by Rupert Murdoch's private interests than is healthy, already. These controversies say less about rightwing bloggers (whose smears are used as a proxy) and more about the collusion that takes place among the media establishment.

The "drumbeat" on political blogs has merely become an excuse for journalists to carry out agendas they might not otherwise be able to justify. That is the real worry.

]]> http://www.bizzmodels.com/?feed=rss2&p=40059 0 http://digitalaudioinsider.blogspot.com/2010/09/digital-downloads-not-just-competing.html http://digitalaudioinsider.blogspot.com/2010/09/digital-downloads-not-just-competing.html#comments Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:30:00 +0000 Koen Voermans tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20487913.post-2853761615077264635 …

I was reminded of this when my friend Michael posted a picture and list on Facebook of his sweet haul from Reckless Records in Chicago:

The Assembly - Paranoia Will Destroy Ya $.49
Catherine Wheel - Chrome $.49
Jimi Hendrix - The Ultimate Experience $1.99
Blur - Think Tank $.99
The Juliana Hatfield Three - Become What You Are $.49
S.O.D. - Speak English Or Die $1.99
The Smoking Popes - Get Fired $1.99
The Patsy Cline Story - $1.99
Van Halen - Best of Volume 1 $.99
Black Sabbath - Paranoid $1.99
Kiss - Destroyer $1.99
The White Stripes - Elephant $1.99
Bloc Party - Silent Alarm $1.99
Beck - Sea Change $1.99
Mellow - Another Mellow Spring $.49
Office - A Night At the Ritz - $.99
Go Go's - Greatest $.49
Fleetwood Mac - Greatest Hits $1.99
R.E.M. - Dead Letter Office $.99
Hole - Live Through This $.99
Primal Scream - Give Out But Don't Give Up $.99
Blur - 13 $.99
Matthew Sweet - In Reverse $.99

Sure, it's crapshoot as to what you'll discover on any given visit to a used CD store (though you can always find this Jesus Jones release), but my guess is that almost all of these titles would reach the top of the Amazon MP3 chart if offered as daily specials at the above prices.

tags: digital music used CDs iTunes eMusic Amazon MP3

]]>

Archant’s Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire division is shutting two of its local weekly free papers, the Harlow Herald and East Herts Herald, to replace them with a new-launch free “newszine” called HarlowScene.

It’s a repeat of Archant’s creation of CambridgeFirst in May, and the strategy looks good - a colourful, fresh-looking news magazine that’s more relaxed than conventional local rags, publishes to web first and which has reporters out on patch rather than in costly offices.

There aren’t even any redundancies, apparently.

HoldTheFrontPage: “It will be available to readers in eight different ways, including door-to-door delivery, paid-for sales, free pick-up, website, mobile site and from 41 parish council outlets in rural areas.”

Archant’s regional MD Stuart McCreery tells HTFP: “This project was born out of necessity. The economic and multi-media climate in which we operate was challenging us and we needed to find a new way to satisfy our customers and readers in a more engaging and attractive manner.

“The Scene series will serve a wide audience in an innovative way.”

Has Archant found the right template for downsizing and readjusting to new times?

Jon Sawer needs to upgrade his old but dearly loved radio and wants to buy a high-spec DAB radio

I'm about to reluctantly upgrade from my existing extremely old but dearly loved radio. I'm intending to spend as much as I can afford on a top range, high specification standalone DAB radio. You have in the past published many articles on the subject on the UK DAB radio format and how you consider this to be inferior to the European model being developed, and I don't really wish to make an error in my purchase when shopping around.
Jon Sawer

You can't really buy decent standalone radios any more, unless you want a portable of the sort often called a "kitchen radio". Above that are "tabletop radios" that usually include other functions. The main features are FM and DAB digital radios, a connection for an MP3 player (often an iPod dock), and internet or Wi-Fi radio. Some have CD players and some have hard drives for storing music files. Finally there are "lifestyle" or microsystems that are actually mini hi-fi units with separate speakers. You'll have to decide which kind of system best fits your needs, and your budget.

This diversity reflects changes in the way people listen to music.
Radio now comes from a variety of sources, including thousands of internet radio stations. Also, many people now listen to music files from their portable music players or PC hard drives, not just to CDs and cassette tapes. The most common factor is FM radio, because it's cheap and because FM radio's network coverage is still much better than DAB's.

Portable DAB/FM radios tend to be mono and have "retro" (old fashioned) designs. The top-of-the-range model in this class is the Pure Digital Evoke-2S (from about £130), which has a smart veneered finish. It's also a proper stereo radio, although the speakers are too close together to create much of a stereo effect. It has the usual telescopic aerial but you can unscrew it and use something more capable if you live in a weak signal area.

There's a very similar Pure Evoke-3 model (from £154), which can record to SD memory cards and also comes with a remote control. However, it doesn't say it's upgradeable to DAB+ (see below), so you'll need to check. A cheaper alternative is the "piano black" Roberts Sound 80 (£85), which has a downward-facing bass woofer of the sort more common on tabletop designs.

Tabletop radios are trending towards a boxy design exemplified by the Roberts MP43 Sound 43 (CD/DAB/FM/Dock, £180). The Monitor Audio AirStream 10 (£224) is a more stylish and distinctive unit that also includes Wi-Fi and Ethernet connections. Pure's challenger is the Avanti Flow Table-top Digital Music System (£228), which also has a downward facing 5.25 inch subwoofer. However, the one to beat is the award-winning Vita Audio R2i (Walnut finish, £280), which has a reputation for its sound quality.

Microsystems attempt to deliver hi-fi, or something close to hi-fi, without the overhead of having a large stack of units and speakers on stands. For a very long time, small silver Denon CD/radio receivers have been the ones to buy, though the line has been challenged by Onkyo and others in the value-for-money stakes. The Denon RCD M38 (up to £300) is the latest model, and it now supports USB playback and DAB+ as well as DAB and FM. It's also available for £200 without the two small SC-M37 speakers usually supplied. This allows you to spend a bit more on better speakers.

There are dozens of small bookshelf speakers on the UK market including the Q Acoustics 2010 and 2020, Tannoy F1 Custom, Monitor Audio BR1 and Mordaunt Short Aviano. They are heavily discounted if you shop around, though in the long run, it's better to buy from a dealer who will let you listen to them first. Most sound much better on stands, but you can use four generous blobs of Blu-Tack to lift each speaker off a shelf.
Sony also offers a lot of "mini hi-fi" systems at low prices. The Sony CMTBX77DBI (CD/DAB/FM/Dock, £130) provides the advantages of separate loudspeakers and room-filling sound for less than the cost of many portable radios.

I've quoted current prices from Amazon.co.uk for convenience, and this is also a good site for checking star ratings and user reviews. You can also use TestSeek.co.uk to find magazine and website reviews of most products before shopping around.

In terms of future-proofing your purchase, the main thing is to look for support for DAB+. This is the relatively new digital radio standard that is replacing the old and inefficient DAB system currently used in the UK. Of course, there are no plans to use DAB+ in the UK at the moment, and even DAB+ will never see the global adoption enjoyed by FM. However, it is painfully obvious that DAB is floundering in the UK, and DAB+ provides the chance to offer higher sound quality, more channels and lower transmission costs than DAB so ultimately it cannot be avoided.

This doesn't mean DAB would be phased out immediately: DAB+ is backwards-compatible so the two would co-exist while 10m DAB sets drop out of use. Before there's a switchover from FM to DAB, digital radio listening must reach 50%, and national coverage has to match FM coverage. There is zero chance of digital radio listening reaching 50% by 2013, let alone that being DAB digital radio. Indeed, the number of FM radios is still growing much faster than the number of DAB radios, because FM is also appearing in mobile phones and MP3 players. There's also very little chance of DAB matching FM coverage in time: that would require the BBC to spend more than £100m on building out the network. (The government isn't going to pay for it directly, and commercial radio doesn't have the money.)

But it may never happen. If the government thinks it can make perhaps 150m FM radios redundant then it's in for a very rude shock. (Technically, FM will never be switched off: the plan is to use it for "hyperlocal radio" – presumably schools, hospital radio, community stations etc.)

However, as I've pointed out before, Lord Carter's Digital Britain report said: "To prepare for any such change or additional upgrade we will work to ensure that digital radio receivers sold in the UK are at least compliant with the WorldDMB receiver profile 1; which includes DAB+ and DMB-A." This prepares the way for moving beyond DAB, though I suspect it had more to do with the European Broadcasting Union's desire to find a standard that would actually work across Europe.

You could, of course, wait for radios that support WorldDMB receiver profile 1 (PDF), but don't hold your breath.

]]> http://www.bizzmodels.com/?feed=rss2&p=40067 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/onlinejournalismblog/~3/ena25s7SrGw/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/onlinejournalismblog/~3/ena25s7SrGw/#comments Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:42:31 +0000 Koen Voermans http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=9606

One of the mistakes that people new to blogging often make is to write as if…

One of the mistakes that people new to blogging often make is to write as if they’re addressing a crowd. “Hey everyone!” they shout. “Can any of you help with this?”

Speak to people who teach radio journalism, and you’ll find similar experiences.

Radio and online journalism have this in common: they are typically consumed alone. We listen to the radio in the car, or while we’re painting. We may listen to it in the workplace – but unless it is something seminal, not crowded around the set. We read online news at our work terminal, or on our mobile phone or laptop. It’s not a group activity. Television news is the only type we consume in groups, socially.

Or at least, that’s what I thought until recently.

Because it occurs to me that there are some examples in online media when we are addressing a crowd.

Social media is the most obvious example: if you ask a question on Twitter, should you say “Do you know the answer to this question?” or “Does anyone know the answer to this question?”

Although each user is sat at their computer or phone individually, they are also occupying a virtual social space, in which they are a group.

But isn’t a blog comments thread a similar virtual social space? No.

The key to the issue is synchronicity: if people are occupying that space at the same time, then they can be addressed as a crowd. If it is asynchronous – people occupy the space at different times, and return to check communications – then that mode of address doesn’t work.

Asynchronous communication is the dominant form of communication online: email, blogs, forums are all asynchronous. Live chat, some IM and some social media like Twitter tend to be more synchronous.

In those contexts then, is it okay to address people as a group? I think it is.

FROM THE COMMENTS: @Dubber’s further insights from radio add an extra dimension to this.

]]>

The new deal, described in the announcement as Disney’s “most expansive content agreement to date,” moves beyond broadcast and cable to broadband, gaining berths for ESPN3 and creating a “TV Everywhere” option for ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU.

—ESPN3: The broadband net will be available to all subscribers with access to ESPN—by far the bulk of the two operators’ subs. The operators also will be able to feature cleared content from ESPN3 on a sports tier. ESPN3 has become a live and VOD sports provider, with rights to more than 3,500 live events. ESPN3 usually is offered through cable operators’ ISPs. ESPN also insists on separate payment for ESPN3, treating it like any other network; the fee is believed to be 10 cents a sub. This variation gives Time Warner Cable the ability to say the network is matched to sports, not to broadband distribution. (An ESPN spokeswoman told THR: “We achieved a fair exchange of value while reinforcing the value of the video subscription business.”)

—TV Everywhere: ESPN3 can be accessed outside the home once an account has been authenticated, although it’s not quite TV Everywhere since its availability is currently limited to PCs and Macs. This agreement adds another authenticated service for linear nets ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU that the companies say will be available through broadband and on mobile devices “like an iPad.” No details yet on the launch; they say “forthcoming.” Notably, there’s no similar provision for ABC or Disney cable content.

—Expanded VOD: All too often, the lack of a primetime show on cable VOD sends viewers like me online when we should be able to click the remote and watch. This deal adds ABC On Demand to “many markets” with a number of primetime shows for viewing with fast-forward disabled, along with Disney On Demand from its various kids nets. It also includes subscription VOD service Disney Family Movies and “a new transactional VOD service for select content from the Disney/ABC Television Group.”

What’s it going to cost? Multichannel News sources say the retrans rights for the ABC stations will run 60 cents to 75 cents per sub and that ABC Family and Disney Channel managed “substantial” increases after moving up in the ratings.
More details in the release.

Related

• Updated: Disney Makes Good On Threat; Pulls WABC From Cablevision On Oscar Eve
• Updated: Disney, Cablevision Fight Over Cost Of 'Free' TV; Subs May Lose WABC
• Would Disney Yank ABC's Signal? Iger: 'We're Pretty Resolute'
• Let The Flames Begin: Disney Calls Out Cable Operators On Retrans
• TV Everywhere: What We Know—And What's Missing

read more

read more

read more

But seemingly everyone who has seen Duplicity loves its opening sequence. The scene is a rain-slicked tarmac, with two corporate jets facing each other at showdown distance. The two chief executives in command of them, Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson) and Richard Garsik (Paul Giamatti), emerge from their retinues and stride toward each other. Then, as the opening credits roll, they engage in a ridiculous, flailing, ineffectual shoving match, ending up panting on the ground. By presenting all this in silent slow-motion, under ominously dusky lighting, the director Tony Gilroy mocks the whole idea that their struggle could be epic.

Even The Telegraph called it virtuoso.

Why does that sequence speak to people? Is it because the spectacle of head-to-head corporate competition has in reality become so ridiculous? We suspect that's it. (Though old guys in bespoke suits whaling on each other is always good fun). The fact is that much of today's competitive energy is exerted in this kind of titanic and ultimately low-return battle.

In more and more cases, we see markets that used to feature many sellers now dominated by just a few. And we observe a dynamic between those few behemoths that puts up a great show of competitive fury but ends up signifying next to nothing in terms of valuable innovation. At the same time, we see lavish allocation of resources, not just on large retinues and private aircraft, but on superficial product differentiation, relentless advertising, and expensive selling activities to manufacture demand that does not naturally exist. In other words, what we do not see is what Adam Smith told us to expect from competition in free markets: important innovation and efficient allocation of resources to fulfill society's needs.

What we're see instead is, to coin a term, pseudo-competition. It's the kind of competition oligopolists engage in: enough to keep antitrust regulators at bay, but not enough to yield the fruits of true competition. Some of the activities generally regarded as competitive — Comcast and FIOS dissing each other on TV — actually are anti-competitive, raising barriers to entry for those who can't make huge expenditures on advertising.

These are serious charges, we know, and we'll present the facts to support them in Standing on the Sun (our forthcoming book). Our point is that, as fans of capitalism, this is one of the things we have to admit that capitalism, as it's currently practiced in mature economies, isn't getting right. If capitalism is capable of evolving, as we say it is, then this is something it needs to leave behind.

The kind of competition that carried the day in Adam Smith's world of many small competitors will have to take on a new form suitable for a world of global corporations with market power. The quest for "sustainable competitive advantage" that has so captivated executives and their consultants is antithetical to the ideal of "free markets." Today's form of capitalism offers management an overwhelming incentive to amass market power and dare regulators to stop them. After all, why invest in a competitive advantage if you can't use it to threaten would-be rivals. (Odd, isn't it, that vocal proponents of free markets also oppose the regulation that would keep markets competitive?)

Is there any reason to believe that, as the real action of capitalism shifts to emerging economies, we will get beyond this wasteful model? Perhaps. In many less developed economies, demand is growing so quickly that the field of competitors remains wide. Though a Unilever, say, might compete in India head-to-head with a Procter & Gamble, the main points are won there through real innovation (i.e. value adding for customers) because there is still ample work to do to adapt the product to local requirements and establish efficient supply chains. (China, of course, presents its own story. While competition certainly occurs, the unabated and even growing reliance on state-owned enterprises exerts its own discipline on competitive practices.)

The usual response of End of History believers is that the differences between mature and emerging economies are temporary, only due to their different stages of maturity. Inevitably, they say, emerging economies will adopt the West's prevailing model of capitalism — and wind up in the same place. But capitalism's main action will take place in markets where competition has not already reached its end-game, and any capitalist raised on a competitive landscape of oligopoly will have to learn to adapt.

More important, we don't believe it's the end of history. We think that the game evolves, and once you've become the center of gravity of capitalism, there's no need to conform to old rules. You can make your own. And if you had already seen how ridiculous Paul Giamatti looked ruining his suit on a tarmac, would you then go and do it yourself?

Ongoing self-assessment is one of the five zones of strength that leaders have and non-leader managers don't, according to one of our ongoing workplace studies (pdf). Indeed, self-assessment makes a major contribution to all the other strength zones, the study concluded.

There are times at work when we tend to be on autopilot, repeating what we do without asking why. At these times we need to step back and reflect on our habits. A look inward will not only give you a better knowledge of what makes you tick, but will help you understand others' motivations better. It also will help you make sounder intuitive decisions, a highly valuable ability these days when change is accelerating and you have to act without having all the information you want.

Self-assessment, the first step in any personal improvement process, is often the hardest. You might find it awkward to request feedback or painful to face unpleasant truths. There's no hiding from being judged, though, because a manager's shortcomings are on full view for everyone, even if the manager denies them.

Here are some guidelines for writing a self-assessment that scores big at the performance review and gives you a roadmap for developing your career:

Reflect. We found that successful leaders think seriously about their motives, beliefs, assumptions and actions. They analyze each day's events and the outcomes of their decisions, particularly how they affect the big picture. They force themselves to give a full hearing to ideas that contradict their own. They take responsibility for their mistakes and treat failure as a chance to learn and grow. Even at the pinnacle of their careers they're committed to lifelong learning.

Ask for feedback. Get opinions on your performance from everyone you work with. Resist the temptation to argue against criticism, and be careful not to let your assumptions about your capabilities color what you hear.

Be brutally honest about your shortcomings. As Oliver Cromwell reputedly told his portraitist, include "warts and all." The boss won't take the write-up seriously if it's not real — and will give you credit for your openness. One hint that you're ducking doing this: You're describing a missed goal and putting more blame on external factors than your own actions. If your weaknesses list is too skimpy you may not be digging deep enough, with either self-reflection or your feedback sessions.

Highlight your contributions to the bottom line. Did you lead your staff to overcome a tough problem? Solved a nagging process glitch? Improved connections up or down the value chain? Broadened market share by training the sales force, bettering customer service, helping to create a new product or break into a new market? Cite all the hard data that's available. The people who gave you feedback on your performance might know about payoffs of your work that you don't.

Describe the areas in which you improved your capabilities, via company-sponsored training and on your own. Position yourself as you would a product: Is your strength in leading, innovating, lowering costs, technology, logistics, analysis, controls, quality, problem solving, international business, e-commerce, negotiation, or a combination of these capabilities?

Don't be a thunder-stealer. Plain and simple: avoid taking more than your share of credit for a team's success. Self-serving judgments of any kind will undermine your credibility.

In addition to following these self-evaluation guidelines, year-round you should be asking yourself these reflective questions: Is what I'm doing working? How can I make it better? Am I realistic about my capabilities? Have I fallen into any unproductive habits? Is any behavioral problem like temper, disconnectedness, undue optimism or unneeded anxiety getting in the way? Am I capitalizing on my strengths and correcting my weaknesses? Am I focusing on my priorities? Am I modeling the self-awareness that I expect of others? Am I studying the competition and the customers intently but neglecting to look inward?

Self-assessment is a skill. It can be learned and it can be honed with constant practice. Know thyself, Socrates counseled. That's good advice for developing a manager's career.

Sharon Daniels is chief executive of AchieveGlobal, which provides performance improvement consulting and solutions in leadership, sales and customer service. You can contact her at sharon.daniels@achieveglobal.com.

It's been a month since Forbes.com launched a new landing page for its blogs, to which every editorial staffer and a growing number of external writers now contribute.

As part of that expansion, Forbes.com has recruited a handful of freelance journalists to blog about the people on its annual World's Billionaires List, with news, analysis and, of course, inside dirt, sources familiar with the plans told us.

"It's going to be a great initiative and I expect you'll make a superlative contribution to launching the next stage of Forbes.com as a major presence in online news," outgoing Forbes.com consultant Michael Roston wrote to the contributors in an email obtained by The Wire.

Each blogger will cover billionaires in specific areas of the country and around the world, and their posts will be aggregated into a single feed on a new Forbes 400 website scheduled to launch later this month.

The bloggers include LA Biz Observed editor Mark Lacter and freelance financial journalists Dan Fost and Teri Buhl, who will be reporting on New York's and Connecticut's billionaires, a la Michael Bloomberg, Carl Icahn and Steve Cohen.

Throughout the summer, Roston, who had been brought on with recently-installed chief product officer Lewis D'Vorkin in May through the True/Slant acquisition, was recruiting bloggers and devising editorial guidelines for the new Forbes.com. He just took a job as a homepage editor at The New York Times.

Coates Bateman, executive producer of Forbes.com (who also came over from True/Slant), will be overseeing the billionaire bloggers.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Forbes Bloggers' Compensation Will Be Tied To Web Traffic
• Forbes Staffers Trying To Get Used To New Boss "Darth" D'Vorkin And His Controversial Idea Of Journalism
• Forbes Blogs To Get A Big Upgrade, Every Reporter Will Have One