Since there is such radical revision underway involving how we consume our news, and since I've been involved in media and broadcasting for most of my career, I'm compelled to offer a few observations at this point in the game. Even as an information-aholic, I'll try to be brief but thorough.
this is not Liz Smith
Recently, the New York Post's Liz Smith - a real veteran gossip columnist- was given a broadcast bouquet to her long and acclaimed professional life as she prepared for retirement. What struck me as revealing about the times we live in, was her televised lament about having to go to her computer in the mornings to obtain her daily briefing from the "newspapers." She said she really missed the ability to go over her day's columns on paper over coffee. While many people I've contacted feel the same way, the director of Liz's piece went to an extreme close-up which emphasized her experience and to some extent, her unspoken acceptance of her pending retirement.
She might know of the coolest website in news, The New York Times' online edition, but she wanted her familiar routine, entrenched over the years, to remain the same. Sorry, Liz. Your newspaper's print format is doomed. Their business model has to yield to the realities of the 21st century's breakeven point. Get a laptop and be sure not to allow your brew or muffin crumbs over the keyboard.
Somewhere near the same time, I saw (in this order) Malcolm Gladwell, Marc Andreessen, Evan Williams and Marissa Mayer in separate interviews by Charlie Rose via digital broadcast signals coming to me from a rooftop, conventional antenna (Not with the monthly expense of cable or direct broadcast satellite, thank you). In this flow of information, I decided it was time to give some additional scrutiny to the channels of communication that furnish me my daily briefing, remembering that in this fast-paced information age, as in the slower-paced Triassic, we are destined to "adapt or die." (Note to intelligent design advocates: I thank God for evolution)
This is because as I investigated the "news cycle" of a considerable number of inputs that I find credible, I began to note that stories I would consume from the online version of my newspaper would not show up in print until 12 or sometimes 24 hours later than the online version. Occasionally they would show up in newsprint only after receiving some online comments from the connected world. (ref. on website credibility, here).
Hmmm. I had first heard the word "Twitter" (the capitalized, proper noun) during Science Friday on NPR. Then Jake Tapper gave it a mention on ABC. When Evan Williams spoke of their subscriber numbers as reaching the "hockey stick" profile during his interview, I understood. For online businesses like Williams' they launch online with expenses confined to organization and software development. They watch it slowly gain user steam as they look into "monetizing" possibilities. They want to see if their product can attain the sustained, ballistic climb fueled by promotions that have entered the socially mediated, virally-fueled information age. While this is happening, their backers want to know how the venture will profit. They watch the resulting adoption profile which looks like the edge of a hockey stick. Everybody drools with thoughts of getting rich with the vast, (and growing) new-user audience. So I went to the laptop and decided to look more closely. Also, I wanted to see what was up in the "national conversation" about this.
The interesting "Tweets" are those which are pretty obviously issued by their author. They often include links to the announced topic. Warning: If you're expecting Harry Reid to tweet you about his lunch hour interview with Liz Smith, you'll be sorely disappointed. Same with most of those "Tweeple" who are in the celebrity stratosphere and who show followers numbering six figures. They likely have a publicist issue their tweets, in character or not.
If you decide to jump into Evan Williams' Twitter pool, know this:
- Williams describes a new generation of worldwide users who want to live a "transparent" life. When it comes to publishing anything to the entire connected world, I tend to be more than a little cautious. I did find Twitter to be reasonably vigilant about policing the potential spammer traffic and other abusers. Beware, what you're doing will be available to the entire connected world, including online scammers, highly-paid divorce attorneys and federal prosecutors.
- You may want to eventually look into an organizer like TweetDeck, produced via "AIR" and Apple's development personnel, and is available for Windows as well. It allows one to let Twitter reside in the background until you receive an audible tweet and the choice of going to your TweetDeck immediately or at a later, more convenient time. It also produces a topic "cloud," where oft-used words appear in size related to their current usage in Twitter.
- Tweets can go to your phone, or from any phone in the connected world, which lets you follow friends, recently at the California Supreme Courtroom where oral arguments on Prop 8 were underway, or in the WH briefing room where commentary about Gibbs Q&A session can come to you in real time. This is what is meant by the headwater of the "newsflow."
- Williams and co-founder Biz Stone are assessing the "business model" with their interface, and "monetizing" will commence. Who knows what that will mean? A prediction: More intrusive advertising from evermore online capitalists.
- Twitter's search feature may be its most powerful and useful part.
At a recent business conference, a facilitator was endorsing the use of Twitter as a way management could keep track of their staff's efforts. You define your pool of tweeple and who has access to your posts. There seems to be a good and viable business model in there somewhere, Evan. But someone needs to help you e-preneurs understand how you can invent, produce and then promote your products without getting too far into our minds and living rooms. I've never invited the paperboy in, but with electronic communications becoming more ubiquitous, our viral addictions may still be propagating. Somewhere.
Get it?
