Today ends the Federal Trade Commission’s two-day, (mis)appropriately titled, “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” summit. More appropriate: How Will Journalism Evolve in the Internet Age? Don’t like that? Send in your suggestions.

David Carr’s beautiful eulogy for the old media system and acknowledgment of the new, sums up journalism’s turning point quite gracefully. But from what I’ve been following with the summit yesterday (twitter hashtag: #ftcnews), the old guard was still doing a lot of kvetching.

In tandem with speaking at the summit, Arianna Huffington had a great, no-holds barred, post yesterday on why the old media (read: old white guys) need to get over themselves, let go of the past and start assimilating the possibilities that the future offers. But I think we can take Arianna’s post a couple steps further.

Let’s go in, shall we?

The Current News Ecology+What’s Next
Arianna lays out the reasoning and strategy behind aggregation. While it’s nothing new, it’s a succinct (and fun) description.

…We love it when someone links to one of our posts, or excerpts a small amount and links back to us.

Most sites understand the value of this and the way the link economy operates. It’s why HuffPost gets hundreds of requests from news outlets asking us to feature their material and link back to their site. They understand that the web is not a zero-sum game and that consumers love the freedom to be able to follow where their interests — and the offshoots of a story — take them.

“That’s why I could only roll my eyes when the Wall Street Journal’s Robert Thomson wagged his finger at Google, and complained that it “encourages promiscuity” among news consumers.

Heaven forbid! Let’s be honest, while promiscuity is not good in relationships, it’s great for those looking for news and information. Trying to deny news consumers as wide a range of options and viewpoints as possible seems shortsighted — and ultimately self-defeating.”

Let’s get a little naughtier. We don’t want users just hopping into our bed once. We understand that they might even jump from bed to bed, but we always want them coming back to us again and again for more. And what’s going to bring them back? A little creativity, being a full-fledged partner in the bedroom and the big O! as in “Oh! I really need/like/hate/want to share that reporting/opinion” or “Oh! I want to be/am part of the creative media making process” or “Oh! this is inspiring me to take action.”

So how do we deliver all of that and more? Robust aggregation is the first step. But that’s only solving the issue of bringing together the latest in daily reporting/news. What about what happened a week ago and how that might effect a month from now? How do we work for and with users to stitch this information together that over time will become not just a list of links, but an overarching story that contains links, additional synthesis, data, visuals, reporting and analysis. Media producers need to creatively develop formats and platforms that pull together all the daily bits of news into a long-term narrative for their users that is consistently updating, synthesizing and making sense of news and information over the long-term. This could take many shapes: timelines, wikis, linking, videos, maps or a mashup of all.

For example, it’s been widely acknowledged that Talking Points Memo was the leading journalism organization that broke and pushed the US Attorney scandal story a few years ago. But when you go to their site and search, “Gonzales” (as in former Bush appointee attorney general Alberto Gonzales) all you get is a list of disconnected links to past reporting.

What if news organizations compiled visual timelines of their reporting (as well as aggregating others) that displayed the entire narrative of one issue in one fell swoop? (TPM actually has a basic text timeline of the attorney scandal, but you have to go diffing for it.) Or a wiki that stitched together those critical reporting moments, breaking news and analysis in an easy to read and consistently updatable format? This strategy could also be opportunities to bring users into the mix. Designated members could join in on the fun in putting together the top timeline moments or participate in developing the narrative/information in the wiki and be annointed to make sure it is consistently updated. Or develop an interactive and evolving visualization(s) based on data compiled through the length of the reporting. Any of these formats individually or combined together are appropriate for both short-term news events (i.e. Copenhagen) or long-term issues (the climate crisis).

For example, take a look at the New York Times “skimmer” just launched today as an early prototype. In fact, this is probably just coincidence, bc it is such an important news story yesterday/today, but check out how the top 6 articles relate to each other around Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Now imagine a tool that included a bundle of different Afghanistan-related content organized/threaded together over the last 12 months (or 12 years) that could be searched, reorganized, tagged, constantly updated, synthesized and more.

What does this do for a media producer? Let’s play it out a bit. First, the media producer is solving “filter failure.”, a big issue that both users and media organizations are consistently facing. Second, think about the SEO opportunities which is always good for advertising. Add in the opportunities to develop a deep and committed group of members which enhances to the journalism value chain (Slideshow of The Big Thaw: See Slide 23). And maybe this is the kind of added/needed information that outlets can charge for lead to new opportunities for new revenue generation.

In other words, it could give the media maker and users the big O!

On Business Models/Revenue Generation
As I’ve mentioned before, looking towards the future, we’re not going to find one overall tactic that will change business models forever. Arianna takes a couple paragraphs to knock down the idea of pay walls or micro-payments (different than micro-fundraising) and then notes some of the other experimental options on the table.

Meanwhile, Stephen Brill’s Journalism Online reportedly has 16 different payment schemes that it plans to offer its member publishers. Nieman Lab recently listed six payment models that Brill has trademarked, and that news publishers can employ.

These include: High activity Pay Points (a metered model); Selected Content Pay Points (a partial paywall); Time-based Pay Points (charging for new content only); Enhanced Service Pay Points (charging for special features); Market Access Pay Points (charges based on a users location); and Preview Activity Pay Points (allowing previewing of paid content).

Sure, free news content is not a perfect system but it’s a lot like what Churchill said about democracy: it “is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” That’s the reality. Free content is not without problems. But it’s here to stay, and publishers need to come to terms with that and figure out how to make it work for them.

I like to use the metaphor that revenue models are like cooking a stew.. Everyone has similar stock to start from, but will have to test and experiment with a combination of different of ingredients to create just the right flavor for their users. Or in other words, media producers will have a swath of similar and basic options to start with, but build/test out a combination of different revenue generating options that build on an organization’s strengths, capabilities, and added-values. Of course, organizations aren’t going to know what the perfect recipe is off the bat. It’s going to take some time to experiment and find just right the mix of ingredients.

In addition, when “traditional media” folks talk about business models or revenue generation, they talk about it as if it is completely separate from what’s being done in terms of journalism models, experimentation and community engagement.

In fact, how journalism organizations integrate new models of reporting and storytelling, involve and build its community in the process, respond to what users want/need, and the resulting business models are all the heart of the future evolution and survival of journalism. The Media Consortium’s recent study The Big Thaw: Charting a New Course For Journalism lays out four important questions for media producers to ask themselves:

• How is the playing field changing?
• What new capabilities needed to succeed?
• What needs can be met, problems solved or desires fulfilled?
• How to structure organizations to “capture value”?

The last two questions are key to developing the correct mix (or stew) of revenue generation opportunities.

The Future Is Network-Powered
And last but not least, Arianna starts touching on the heart of our current media environment.

News is no longer something we passively take in. We now engage with news, react to news and share news. It’s become something around which we gather, connect and converse. We all are part of the evolution of a story now — expanding it with comments and links to relevant information, adding facts and differing points of view.

In short, the news has become social. And it will become even more community-powered: stories will be collaboratively produced by editors and the community. And conversations, opinion, and reader reactions will be seamlessly integrated into the news experience.

Instead of “community-powered,” Jessica and I have dubbed this new environment “network-powered.” Media producers need to think about how to strategically harness and engage in both informal and formal networks to increase their audience, enhance their relevance and build their impact. (Once again, this connects to a compatible mix of revenue generation opportunities). This is going to require media producers to have new mindsets and capabilities. The user/audience member isn’t always going to come to directly to the outlet. How do you reach the user/audience member? How do you engage them to spread and use the content through their networks of peers, colleagues, etc.?

For Beyond the Echo Chamber, Jessica and I developed a list of “four networks layers” that media organizations must engage. More to come soon on those, but here’s the list and as an added bonus, short descriptions.

• Networked Users: Media makers must learn to work with users who are connected to multiple networks and can create, distribute, amplify, and serve as ambassadors for the media producer’s content.
• Self-Organized Networks: Users can work together to form ad hoc networks around unifying elements such as shared issues and/or breaking news. Media makers can tap into these networks to spread relevant content, follow breaking trends, and cover collective action
• Institutional Networks: Media makers can also harness more durable networks of users–hosted or organized by institutions–to share content, offer crowdsourcing opportunities, and develop fundraising relationshiops.
• Networks of Institutions: Media makers and outlets cna form collaborative networks to jointly report on complex issues, and structure new models for innovation and collaboration.

From Dave Cohn (@digidave), founder of Spot.us laying down the gauntlet that news orgs are going to have reconstruct their thinking about future sustainability:

Too often I think journalists or news organizations are looking for a silver bullet revenue stream.

Oh – if only we can charge for content behind a paywall (a bad idea as it cuts off other revenue streams).
Oh – if only we can get the Sandler family (or equivalent) to give 2 million a year to several organizations around the country.
Oh – if only advertising online would start to cover our traditional costs. (Advertising online will never meet the old print numbers)
Oh – if only we can get 100,000 people to donate $10 each. (Hey, I can pick on my model too!)

It ain’t gonna happen… Each of those revenue streams are logs. Some are sturdier than others. We need to figure out how to tie them all together.”

Agreed. It’s time to cook the perfect stew: a lot of ingredients, combined together to make a warm and filling winter food. Or in other words, a lot of different revenue generating options that work together to build on an organization’s strengths & that start filling in the gaps.

Of course–organizations aren’t going to know what the perfect recipe is off the bat. It’s going to take experimentation, or a lot of Julia Child like cooking. TMC is looking to support its members’ experimentation with revenue models next year to see what happen we collaboratively cook in our collective kitchen.

I have picked out three key points and their implications from this excellent post, “A Simple Model for Online Journalism” by Jonathan Weber. I know you’re just dying to read them! Here we go…..

1) Journalism is not dying along with newspapers.

“What’s equally shocking, though, is the widespread assumption that serious journalism will disappear along with newspapers, and that preventing the disappearance of journalism requires either a massive philanthropic effort, a coordinated effort by news organizations to force a return to paid subscriptions, technological breakthroughs with electronic news reader devices, new business models that have yet to be invented, or some combination of all of the above.”

Don’t get me wrong. I want foundations as well as big and small donors to be paying attention and funding journalists and journalism organizations (in all their forms) at large amounts. I think there are technological breakthroughs that progressive media organizations still by in large haven’t followed up on (hi-Kindle and mobile apps!) But most of all we’re going to have to look inwards at our own business and editorial structuring. And we’re going to have to shake things up and do things we don’t like now to survive AND be relevant in the future.

2) Adapt to the tools and techniques driving the news system. Revenue might not come from your content, but an ADDED VALUE you provide for your community

“As a four-year veteran of a journalism-driven local online media start-up, I believe there’s a very viable business formula that’s actually quite simple, and here today: take advantage of new tools and techniques to cover the news creatively and efficiently; sell sophisticated digital advertising in a sophisticated fashion; keep the Web content free, and charge a high price for content and interaction that are delivered in-person via conferences and events. And don’t expect instant results.”

The added value component is crucial. We’re not going to be able to block online content until people pay for it. (Nor should we want to.) There will be a select few cases that can get away with it (i.e. The Wall Street Journal), but that is the the exception to the rule. And microfundraising while fantastic, (i.e. Kachingle ) is not going to cover all the costs. So our audiences and community expect free content. Fine. Then ask yourself, what can we provide: a service, a certain slice of highly sophisticated or organized info, networking/organizing, etc.. that they can’t get anywhere else? What can we charge for it? I don’t think it needs to be just in-person events like conferences. I think we we can get more creative than that. These are big questions to ask and answer when thinking about revenue and business models.

3) Your editorial model will need to change

“The editorial model relies on a combination of professional journalism (currently two full-time and four part-time professionals, as well as a number of freelancers); what we think of as semi-professional journalism (talented writers or subject-matter experts who do something else for their day job); and citizen journalism (bloggers and others who contribute on specific topics, sometimes for small sums of money). We don’t have copy editors, but rather copyedit each others’ stuff. We’re direct and conversational in our style, which is actually easier and quicker once you get used to it, and more appealing to readers than old-style newspaper formulas.”

Roles are going to have to change within this new media environment. Reporting will be in hybrid hands (from trained journalists to citizen journalists). Full-time reporters will have to take on different, but integrated roles. I see this is an awesome opportunity. But it’s going to take some deep breaths and some major restructuring and internal organizing to get individual media outlets on this strategic journalistic and biz model path.

I’ve been following the tweets coming out of @FishbowlNY as they faithfully cover MPA Magazines 24/7 Conference Fifth Digital Conference ‘Navigating a New Reality.’.

I’m posting some screen shots of their tweets, because, well, I can’t retweet them all!

This sounds familiar. Sorta like what The Media Consortium is doing for its members?

I think there are some great journalism, collaborative, data-driven projects that progressive media should explore. I even posted an example as I’m following media coverage about the economy.

And last, but not least…

It’s all about collaboration folks! How do we raise money, impact, influence by working together? (Are there ways to make lemonade out of lemons?) There is going to be a lot of coordination forced out of this economic crisis, but i actually think this was the natural progression that we were heading towards anyways. There are so many media projects out there now: organizations and advocacy groups, individuals, institutions, that there’s got to be ways to a) break the white-noise barrier b) organize content and coordination across outlets for maximum impact c) find creative solutions to reach new revenue sources or find backend opportunities to save money.

Columbia Journalism Review wrote a piece on the new international news web site Global Post. I’m still deciding if I like the look and feel of the web site, but their journalism and business model infrastructure is fascinating. Here are some major highlights.

What is it?

…it was founded by veteran journalists Phil Balboni and Charlie Sennott; that it currently employs seventy freelance correspondents covering nearly fifty countries, seven of them dedicated to transnational, idea-based beats; that these correspondents are supported by fourteen U.S.-based staff members focused on editing and multimedia production; and that the outlet’s three-tiered financial structure relies on advertising, syndication (in print and online), and—this is the biggie—reader subscriptions.

Reader subscriptions you say? No. They must be joking. Haven’t we proven that audiences will NOT pay for content? Ah yes-but will they pay to be part of the editorial decision-making process?

The subscription service in question, Passport—whose $199 price tag, it’s worth noting, is an “introductory” rate for “charter members”—promises not merely access to “premium content” (podcast-y “conference calls” with correspondents, “newsmaker interviews,” a monthly digital newsletter and a weekly editor’s brief), but also access to the ears of GlobalPost’s editors. Passport members will have a say as to which stories correspondents are assigned: editors will choose their top story ideas, and paying readers will get to vote for their favorites. Those readers will be able, in other words, to take part in crowdsourcing that is editorial, rather than reportorial, in nature. GlobalPost’s is a model driven not only by the core premise that good journalism should be paid for, but also by the hope that the promise of investment on an editorial level will engender investment on a financial one as well.

The role of their journalists/correspondents:

Voice—though not bias—is encouraged, and not just in reporters’ blogs, but in their stories, as well. The point of hiring correspondents who live in the countries they’re covering is to avoid parachute journalism, to be sure, but it’s also to publish pieces of writing whose assertions are bolstered by their reporters’ daily experience. “Voice” suggests authenticity, but it requires authority to be truly effective. The logistical challenges faced by parachute correspondents—developing sources; learning which of those sources to trust; navigating, in every sense, new locales—won’t be as common for GlobalPost correspondents who, even when they’re not in their home cities, will be reporting from their home countries. Those correspondents, the thinking goes, will legitimize themselves and their stories—and the way they tell those stories—not just by being there, but by living there.

In the wake of Black Wednesday–where book publishers conducted massive firings and hiring freezes–both the New York Times and Salon.com have written a few persepectives on the demise of the traditional book industry.

Jason Boog of Salon.com is calling it “the end of days” for the book industry and questions if and how it will survive.

Thanks to conglomeration and corporate distribution models, some of publishing’s biggest houses were laid very low by the current stock market collapse. And scary holiday book sales figures compounded the industry’s woes, with recent news of a 20 percent drop in sales in October from last year’s book market. Even worse, Nielsen Book Scan reported a 6.6 percent drop in unit sales during early December. Not even the holiday season could bolster book sales.

Boog notes that many of the big booksellers refused to look at the market and new distribution models–failing to integrate the rise of online electronic media as well as resting on big selling books, rather than mid-level books that allow smaller publishing houses to be more nimble and creative. “As the corporate monoliths limp into 2009, a number of smaller, more independent houses could thrive during this recession. A few of those presses have structured themselves to avoid long-standing problems that got big publishing into this mess: high advances, long author lists and spiraling costs,” Boog writes.

In yesterday’s NY Times, David Streifeld details his own culpability in the industry’s fast fall–noting that the search for cheap books and the rise of online reselling cuts the author, the publisher and the book store out of the profits.

In other words, it’s all the fault of people like myself, who increasingly use the Internet both to buy books and later, after their value to us is gone, sell them. This is not about Amazon peddling new books at discounted prices, which has been a factor in the book business for a decade, but about the rise of a worldwide network of amateurs who sell books from their homes or, if they’re lazy like me, in partnership with an Internet dealer who does all the work for a chunk of the proceeds.

They get their books from friends, yard sales, recycling centers, their own shelves. castoffs (I just bought a book from a guy whose online handle was Clif Is Emptying His Closet). Some list them for as little as a penny, although most aim for at least a buck. This growing market is achieving an aggregate mass that is starting to prove problematic for publishers, new bookstores and secondhand bookstores.

Yes–the death knell is ringing for the traditional media industry. And it’s going to be bumpy and scary. It’s going to damage a lot of individuals who are losing their jobs in the interim. But for the broader future–this is an opportunity to really understand how to repackage, redistribute, and rethink the kind of long form information and storytelling that makes up books. I’m not an expert on the book industry, but I can imagine if it’s anything similar to the magazine industry–rethinking how to print and distribute to reach audiences beyond the traditional means is a must. They will need to think about how to be competitive with the Streifeld’s of the world or fulfill a need that these amateurs can’t (maybe offer exclusive audio/video commentary from the author or help organizing online and offline conversation groups about the book).

From Kindle to accessing a book on your IPhone there are innovative new ways to distribute long-form information to the world and to potentially reach new audiences. (Maybe release an electronic chapter a day!)

I’d love to hear from the small innovative presses that are thinking about what the industry might look like 5 to 10 years from now–and what they are doing to be on the cutting edge of that change.

All I know is that while this might be the end of days for the traditional book industry, it is not the end of days for books. I’m on a working vacation in the Outer Banks right now. And in between blogging, writing, planning and phone calls–I’m staring longingly at the huge stack of fiction and non-fiction books I lugged along on the plane with me (I can’t help adding 20 pounds to my luggage.) And I just can’t wait to curl up with each one, dive into the first sentence and emerge with a sigh on the last. And then open another book.

Newspaper and newspaper groups are likely to default on their debt and go out of business next year — leaving “several cities” with no daily newspaper at all, Fitch Ratings says in a report on media released Wednesday.

So says a new article from Editor and Publisher.

My first thought upon reading. “Holy crap.” I’ve known this was a possibility for a while. Hell, I even know this is reality. I’m a media geek. I read and write about this stuff all day long. And I’m not even a direct consumer of local print journalism. I read Chicagoist, The Beachwood Reporter and Huffington Post Chicago to keep tabs on local news (which makes me part of the problem and the news consumer of the now/future).

But when in read in black and white (pixels) it actually does hit you in the gut. I’m thinking about:
1) The Journalists–where will they all go? This is a human and actual practical question. I’m not the first or last genius to ask this question, but I’m putting it out there again.

2) The Journalism–the simple answer is that the journalism will just happen online. But most of the online local stories I consume still overwhelmingly refers, links and uses journalism originating from print media.

Sure some of the reporting will move online but there’s not a huge amount of local newspapers sustaining itself online only. The local blogs I read don’t employ or pay a huge number of journalists the way traditional print media outlets do. That’s how they survive.

And while they’ve already been disappearing, brainpower and effort into local investigative reporting could continue to slip. Many would point to the range of community-funded journalism (like the new spot.us) as the answer, and while the idea is awesome, the proof is not in the pudding quite yet. And no, Maureen Dowd’s column on the future of local journalism is outsourcing, is NOT the answer.

There’s still a lot wrestle with here. Although I do look forward to how journalists and publishers can take advantage of online tools (i.e. mashups) to tell stories in a different, but no less in-depth way. For example, look at what these students did with the News 21 Initiative!

3) Seriously–What will people read on the the train or the bus to work???? That’s the place where people have time to consume news! I guess it’s onto pushing for increased mobile media and wireless service in underground train tunnels.

FYI: Did you know about themediaisdying twitter feed? Way to be depressed and up-to-date on all the latest media gossip at the same time…

Bitch, one of my favorite all time feminist magazines, needs $40,000 to survive. Please donate, send around to people you know. I’m hitting the button to donate $100 right now.

The irony is that I’m sitting at the Park Center for Independent Media’s First symposium on The Future of Independent Media. The topic: Business, Revenue and Fundraising. The ongoing bane of our existence.

Once again my delicious integration with this site has gone all wonky (where is the tech goddess when I need her?). So I thought I’d do a quick round up of some of my favorite links over the last couple days. You can also always look at the right hand side bar as they do appear there–just without my pithy comments or pulling out the most juicy parts of the post. What’s been some of your favorite media-related articles of the last couple days?

Aug. 12 Salon Launches Blogger Tipping System – CNET
“Tipping” a paid journalist for their online content hasn’t even caught on quite yet, but Salon.com is taking it a step further. Audience members can now “tip” each other for good content and drive that story to Salon’s front page. It’s putting the publishing power in the audience’s hands, from editorial control to actually paying for good content. (I wonder if this is a not-so-subtle lesson for audience members about the pains of not having enough money to pay your really great writers???)

Highlight: “Salon’s micropayments are handled through technology from Revolution MoneyExchange, a member of the Revolution corporation founded by former AOL czar Steve Case. Each Open Salon member who registers for Revolution MoneyExchange is given a complimentary $10 with which to start rewarding other bloggers for their stories, images, and videos uploaded to the site. But those would-be recipients can only accept the compensation if they’ve registered for MoneyExchange accounts themselves. “Open Salon eliminates the gatekeepers,” editor-in-chief Joan Walsh said in a statement. “It makes our smart, creative audience full partners in Salon’s publishing future.”

Don’t Forget The Audience – News Leadership 3.0
Highlight: “Building on the idea of product differentiation, I want to underscore a second critical factor—how people use media. A lot of news organizations are still thinking about content and presentation in terms of medium and technology (or worse, in terms of tradition and comfort level) when they should be thinking about content and presentation in terms of audiences—in which I include people who read of print newspapers and people who read their news online or go there for more interactive experiences. For an example of this, look no farther than your spiffy new iPhone and then check out what content your organization is providing to users there or on other mobile devices. The news industry’s capacity to deliver news, information and interactivity to mobile seriously lags audience adoption and use.”

The Media Equation-All of Us, The Arbiters of News - NY Times
Highlight: “How much more powerful is that networked intelligence than a reporter with a phone, a Rolodex and the space between his or her ears? As the former newspaperman and Web evangelist Jeff Jarvis (who has also consulted for The New York Times) has been saying since before broadband, the Web is not just a way to shout, it is a way to listen, one that can lead to deeper, more effective journalism. (His response to the Philly injunction against early Web publishing was predictably measured and careful: “It is suicide. It is murder. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”) For the last few years, the locus of control has been shifting and consumers not only expect to customize their media experience, they demand it as a condition of engagement. The horizon line for when a newspaper on the street is serving as a kind of brochure of a rich online product does not seem far off.”

How Newsrooms Throw Away Value By Not Linking to Sources on the Web-Publishing 2.0
Highlight: “The problem is that the editorial workflow for most newsrooms doesn’t include a process whereby journalists can collect source links as part of their research process and provide them as work product to be published on the web along with the article. As Jay Rosen explains in this video, understanding the value of links, and how they connect content, ideas, and people, is fundamental to understanding the value of the web. And understanding the value of the web is the key to unlocking the new business models that journalism needs to survive and thrive in the digital age:” [CLICK IN TO WATCH VIDEO.]