1Todd Krieger

It's really appropriate that you would put this up as I was just pulling together some of my past work and trying to figure out what to do with online work related to TV - does that go in the TV section or the online section. And after a decade of separating my print journalism from my online I just combined the two and called it journalism.

April 2, 2007

2amber

you have a sixth sense, i swear...i am in the middle of a detailed analysis of the various websites of competitors for one of my clients - like you mention above, there has recently been a major shake-up over who owns what - the two main contenders being the marketing group and the website group.

I think that since really everything you put out there as a company is marketing, someone who has audiences interests and desires at heart should be involved in structuring content and information.

Meaning, what makes sense to an IT/ Web Information Architect might conflict with how the audience really interacts with the content on the site. ( and it usually does )

It's hard when you're dealing with the huge volume of information that most large corporate sites have to house, but I really think it's impossible to structure any information without having a person who is totally connected to the consumer and the way they seek out information.

I think we'll see a lot of changes in the way large sites are structured - hopefully they'll become more intuitive, and less tied to a "template" that's existed probably since they first put the site up in 1995.

April 3, 2007

3Steve

Noah, your view on the media companies having grown up in an analog world is right on... what I'd add is something I've noticed so often at the large media company I work at. The two major issues I can identify are:
1. Compensation Scheme
2. Poor appreciation for the concept of a "whole product"

On Compensation Scheme -- today's TV producer is not incented in any way to see that the web site tied with their program succeeds. Nor are they incented to see any element of alternative distribution of their programming succeed. They are compensated for one thing, and one thing only; to see their LINEAR, Non-Time-Shifted program draw eye-balls. And it is because of that, the producers are scared to let other teams encroach on their territory. They don't want anyone from the on-demand business, or the mobile-phone business, or the iPod business telling them what to do, or steal their thunder... and they don't care to help those businesses succeed because they're not getting paid any extra to do that - they've got enough to do as it is.

And the reverse is true. The "new media" people who are taking programming from a network and making it available to customers on a variety of plaforms aren't incented to see any platform other than their own succeed. Nor do they want to loose their influence by letting someone else make or dictate their content.

And then there's the ego side of compensation - where the IT dept. (for example), who was for a long time the owner of anything that had to do with computers, has been very leery of giving up control of what goes on the web - which is a big reason why there is so little creativity with corp. web sites.

On to poor appreciation for "whole product"

This is closely tied in to compensation. Old media companies aren't used to selling a whole product. They're primarily used to selling ONE product to customers: an experience lasting up to an hour, in one environment, with one device. They're having a hard time appreciating what new technology offers them and their customers... which is the opportunity to create a whole product which can extend past the (up-to) 1 hour on one device... it can extend on to several devices, which are appropriate at different times of the day, in different environments, at different lengths... and it can be experienced over and over, like a book - all at once, or in snippets picked by the customer.

This thinking is responsible for Apple's success. Steve Jobs understands a simple principle outlined by Geoffrey Moore in "Crossing the Chasm" - create a whole product, that is fully supported from the beginning of the experience to the end, and you will own your customer. Steve Jobs doesn't give people computers with the "hope" that they'll figure out what to do with them; and the "hope" that content creators will make tools and content that users can then tinker with. Steve Jobs gives people a computer with a built-in vision for what that tool will do, and how people will interact with it. And that message is consistent in the design of the packaging, their commercials and retail stores, and obviously in the programming they lined up for use with their devices. Media companies need to start thinking about whole product.

April 9, 2007

4Steve

Noah, your view on the media companies having grown up in an analog world is right on... what I'd add is something I've noticed so often at the large media company I work at. The two major issues I can identify are:
1. Compensation Scheme
2. Poor appreciation for the concept of a "whole product"

On Compensation Scheme -- today's TV producer is not incented in any way to see that the web site tied with their program succeeds. Nor are they incented to see any element of alternative distribution of their programming succeed. They are compensated for one thing, and one thing only; to see their LINEAR, Non-Time-Shifted program draw eye-balls. And it is because of that, the producers are scared to let other teams encroach on their territory. They don't want anyone from the on-demand business, or the mobile-phone business, or the iPod business telling them what to do, or steal their thunder... and they don't care to help those businesses succeed because they're not getting paid any extra to do that - they've got enough to do as it is.

And the reverse is true. The "new media" people who are taking programming from a network and making it available to customers on a variety of plaforms aren't incented to see any platform other than their own succeed. Nor do they want to loose their influence by letting someone else make or dictate their content.

And then there's the ego side of compensation - where the IT dept. (for example), who was for a long time the owner of anything that had to do with computers, has been very leery of giving up control of what goes on the web - which is a big reason why there is so little creativity with corp. web sites.

On to poor appreciation for "whole product"

This is closely tied in to compensation. Old media companies aren't used to selling a whole product. They're primarily used to selling ONE product to customers: an experience lasting up to an hour, in one environment, with one device. They're having a hard time appreciating what new technology offers them and their customers... which is the opportunity to create a whole product which can extend past the (up-to) 1 hour on one device... it can extend on to several devices, which are appropriate at different times of the day, in different environments, at different lengths... and it can be experienced over and over, like a book - all at once, or in snippets picked by the customer.

This thinking is responsible for Apple's success. Steve Jobs understands a simple principle outlined by Geoffrey Moore in "Crossing the Chasm" - create a whole product, that is fully supported from the beginning of the experience to the end, and you will own your customer. Steve Jobs doesn't give people computers with the "hope" that they'll figure out what to do with them; and the "hope" that content creators will make tools and content that users can then tinker with. Steve Jobs gives people a computer with a built-in vision for what that tool will do, and how people will interact with it. And that message is consistent in the design of the packaging, their commercials and retail stores, and obviously in the programming they lined up for use with their devices. Media companies need to start thinking about whole product.

April 9, 2007