Editors Need to Work the Fry Station Too

Wonderful homage to editors by Greg Hadfield at TheMediaBrief.com -- with a bit of a tweak at the end. Hadfield praises the editors of past for being the "Manager of the football club," (if he were American, no doubt he would have likened them to the quarterback.) In any event -- the editors of lore inherently "got it" -- they knew the news that the audience wanted -- and getting the story and the edition right consumed them. They got it because they lived and breathed it.

But that isn't yet the editor of the digital age. Yes, they "get" the importance -- but they haven't yet gotten the medium as it relates to their audience. Hadfield chides them for not worrrying about the Home page -- as they did the Front page. And no wonder. Our top editors of today haven't yet come up through the ranks having worked the fry station.

Eighteen months ago I challenged CEOs and Publishers for exactly this same issue. Unlike editors, publishers and CEOs of past, today's top executives were well into their career when along came the Internet. They can wax poetic about waxing copy, remember their hands grimy with ink, but since they didn't spend their formative years clicking, tweeting and commenting -- they are merely fans -- and not the quarterback of today's media groups. And it shows.

It's why the bloggers are so far ahead in many ways than the traditional media. They have programmed their pages, figured out how to manipulate HTML, stay on top of new widgets and discovered how to get an audience -- and engage with that audience. They live and breath their blog -- they imbue passion.

I've said it before and I will say it again: McDonald's won't allow you to become a manager if you haven't worked the fry station. Today's editors, publishers & CEOs need to know that without these rudimentary skills -- they aren't fit for the job.

Bob Abel: The Father of the "Interactive Experience'

Robert “Bob” Abel is largely an unknown name in the world of interactivity. Which is unfortunate because he easily could be known as the Father of the Interactive Experience – and the originator of the Mashup. For me, Abel was the inspiration for my career -- which was to connect reporting -- with storytelling.

An Emmy and Golden-Globe winning film producer, a 33-time Clio-award winning advertising executive, Abel is considered a seminal figure in the world of computer animation and special effects in commercials and motion pictures (using computer-controlled cameras). So what do you get when you cross a creator, a curator, a curiosity for computing power and an insatiable drive to connect with audiences? You get Bob Abel, interactive producer.

Back in the late ‘80s, Apple introduced a unique technology called the HyperCard. It combined database capabilities with a graphical, flexible, user-modifiable interface and was the first consumer product that introduced the concept of “hyperlinking,” being able to access external information with a single link. Abel realized the potential of the technology and set about creating a very ambitious production called “Guernica.”

Inspired by the anti-war painting by surrealist Pablo Picasso, Abel wanted others to be able to witness and explore that chaotic time period. Using HyperCard and videodisc technologies, Abel let users explore Picasso’s interpretation of the mayhem and tragedy following the aerial massacres of Basque civilians in Guernica, Spain, a cultural bastion of art and history during the Spanish Civil War. Picasso’s imagery is of course symbolic in and of itself with its strewn body parts and dying animals – and Abel enriches these symbols by providing access to archived interviews, footage and news coverage by different witnesses to history.

By choosing from an array of “witness” tools, users could click on various portions of the painting – the horse, the bull’s tail (a plume of flames and smoke), the women – and glean different types of information about the painting, the artist, the economy at that time -- or the war itself. Each tool allowed the user to obtain different types of information embedded in the painting – for the richest possible user experience.

Abel saw the potential of mashing-up disparate types of information around a narrative. While a person may skim right past the 2D painting hanging on a wall in a museum or printed on the page, Abel believed that they would stop and interact if it was embedded with information. In fact, Abel saw titles like "Guernica" as the ultimate educational tool – self-paced and self-directed.

This archtype of interactivity that was lauded by many, sniffed at by some who couldn’t fathom the huge price tag, didn’t actually deliver on all promises. Abel’s ambition outpaced the storage capacity of the videodisc, and while the experience should have been seamless, the tools of that time were primitive. The interface (necessarily) had so many windows and drop downs – and screens (NTSC interlocking on computer screens was not available yet, so video would open a window on a second monitor) it was hard to get your bearings. I believe Jonathan Gibson was the interface designer -- and while it was a kluge – it was utterly brilliant.

In truth, Abel was years ahead of the technologies out there, and his death in 2001 cut short his ability to see how user-driven experiences would become the Holy Grail for media companies. Although, I can’t help but believe, that this artist/executive/visionary would be disappointed in the convergence efforts by the media in general. Bloggers have keenly understood that assets are enriched when accompanied by links -- but the media still seems obsessed by the linear flow.

When given a chance to present complex information in this method of self-paced exploration, at best they create a list of links out to archives (at worst, they do nothing). Worse still, they have yet to truly harness the power of computing – the power of perspective.

Abel knew that to pique curiosity you need a narrative. And while media and news companies have the very archives that Abel’s videodisc called out to – I have yet to see one attempt to mashup information in the way that Abel managed to do with both Guernica -- and another effort, underwritten by IBM, to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Columbus to America. Abel titled it: "Columbus: Encounter, Discovery, and Beyond" (a multicultural experience). Massive in scope, it drew from 2,300 articles and had 400,000 soft links. A whopping 180 hours of instruction.

As today’s media struggle to find their relevance, perhaps what they are really missing is the consummate storyteller, the producer – who can weave together all of these loose threads of information into a rich tapestry of the likes of "Guernica."

Even 'Techies' May Just Not Get It

I’ve been involved in the technology world for over 15 years. And one thing I can say with certainty is there is no such thing as a technical person who “gets it all.” Technology, like any discipline, has many facets and segments. Folks that understand networking will know nothing at all about web services. People that are experts on search won’t have a clue about how encryption works. Database gurus can be imbeciles when it comes to managing wireless networks.

The challenge is that all of are guilty of painting all technologists with a broad brush. “He’s a techy so he’ll understand.” This creates two problems: 1) technical people tend to speak in the patois that is unique to their discipline – and never learn to speak in metaphors to ensure clarity, and, 2) we defer to the technical person in a company to make critical decisions – thinking s/he is getting it – when in fact, s/he might be as in the dark as we are, or worse!

Why do I mention this? It has to do with effective communication – or lack thereof by people who sell technical things/ideas/services to technical and non-technical people. And by communication I mean the human kind – not the networking type. The importance of this cuts on both sides of the fence.

If you assume everyone in the room understands the nuances of your technology you are potentially taking your product right out of the game. Let me show you how:

Company A has 3 professionals in the room. A “technical” domain manager – who is supposed to be the domain expert, a business one – who knows the business needs, and a higher level technical manager – who will actually sign the check. By only effectively communicating to the domain expert you have essentially eliminated the other two from the decision making process. If the domain expert doesn’t “get it” – or feels threatened by the new technology – you don’t have a snow-balls shot of making the sale.

If, on the other hand, you can effectively communicate with all three professionals – with metaphors, anecdotes and statistics – one person’s bias can be overridden by the other two.

So tips to communicating your technical product to a mixed crowd:

Assume everyone is not as technical as you are
This doesn’t mean speak in a condescending way – but enlighten with stories as you explain. People may have a rudimentary knowledge of your technology – but unless they are involved in the bits and bytes – probably are not going to be aware of the nuances. Use metaphors to make your points. A colleague and I both use “chocolate” as a metaphor for XML. Many people will never grasp the details of XML – but they can understand the concept of how melted chocolate can take on the characteristics of a mold – just like text in XML can be poured into a template.

Stop speaking in your patois
A Microsoft Word document cannot be understood in a WordPerfect application – unless it is saved in a neutral format. Do the same when you speak. Words like “shred,” “transform,” “hash” are technical concepts – that may mean slightly different things to people whom are technical – and may mean nothing at all to people whom are not. And technical people are the last people to ask for a definition. If they don’t understand what you are trying to convey, chances are they’ll just boot you. Instead define jargon and offer examples.

It’s About the Benefits, Stupid
Features are usually only of interest to Product Managers – and those clients whom have requested them. Benefits are what piques interest – and makes sales. But benefits are in the eye of the beholder. Technical people may look for speed, scale, ease of deployment. Business people will value increased efficiencies, minimal disruption to current workflows. Investors want to know how the product will hold up against competition. Analysts want you to pander to their language.

Former German Chancellor Willi Brandt once said, "If I'm selling to you, I speak your language. If I'm buying, dann mussen Sie Deutsch sprechen." You might find that by speaking the language your customers understands, translates to more sales.

The Role of Journalism Within the Press

The decade-long introspection of “the future of publishing” has twisted pubishing executives into Gordian knots. “Information wants to be free,” “Content can not be free.” “The Wall Street Journal charges,” “The WSJ has unique urgent business news – paid for with corporate expense accounts, not consumer ones,” so sayeth the pundits.

Pay-wall or no paywall, from mono-channel to multi, publishing has been forced by the disruption of the Internet, to evolve or perish. But should the burden of change be solely on the medium? Or should the creators of content be looked at as change agents – actively looking to revise the product? The challenge is the content creators have, in large part, been journalists. And as a group, they abhor change.

Publishing and journalism have been inextricably linked since the advent of the printing press, and journalism, throughout the world, is often understood to be a bulwark of democracy.

Indeed, when New York Weekly Journal editorial writer James Alexander lampooned New York's Royal Governor William Cosby for terminating New York's Chief Justice after the judge had ruled against the sovereign appointee. Governor Cosby had been appointed by King George II, to head the young colonial province in 1731. A vindictive and aristocratic ruler, Cosby had tried to justify the sacking in the Journal -- but the editorial page fought back. Finally, Cosby sued the paper's publisher, Peter Zenger for seditious libel. At the time, English law protected government against critics. In what has stood as a landmark ruling, Zenger's attorney, Alexander Hamilton, passionately defended the publisher and established that truth is an absolute defense against libel.

That victory for truth was a victory for democracy, and thereby elevated journalism, journalists and the press to be referred to as the fourth estate as well as the fourth branch of government. Keeping a watchful eye on democracy required being unfettered from the influences of commerce; hence the firewall between the newsroom and advertising had been inviolable. And with this sacrosantness -- came absolute power. Nary anything could be added or subtracted from the paper -- without the blessing of the newsroom.

However, in a world where publishing has been stood on its head by the disrupter of all disrupters, the Internet, forcing a rapid evolution of the medium, the sovereignty of the newsroom is at stake. If digital newspapers cannot survive – is it because the business model is bad – or because the product has not adapted to the needs of the people?

Early-stage investor Charlie O’Donnell asserts that people will pay for content if the product (and the payment model) are right, and cites products that are perfectly relevant to people’s lives. Outsell Analyst David Worlock concurs that an evolution is needed. He observes that “our customers have turned from a content-sharing and information-sharing environment to one that wants us to solve a problem.” Which may explain the rapid adoption of apps that help us find restaurants in cities, sales in malls, and sitters in NY.

But will people pay for that which journalists create? I am not debating the value of journalism to society. Journalism is often described as the (factual) reporting of trends, news and events, while the definition of the fourth branch of government was any group that supplied checks and balances on the government. For years the press held the edge of being sole watchdog of democracy. But in the new media, bloggers have assumed that role as well. That doesn’t mean that watchdog journalism needs to go away, but the press can’t stand on its laurels of thinking it is the only arbiter of the truth. As such, the value of watchdog journalism, like good parenting or nutritious food, is often lost on its benefactors -- until it is absent.

Will tomorrow's journalist morph into an oracle of answers to problems poised? It is possible. As journalists have more access to and comfort with technology, they will begin to mine the rich resources of their audiences to create news stories, including voices found in tweets and comments, and maybe some will be set up as experts in given areas. Some will also begin to lose some of their objectivity and proffer analysis along with their news, a trend seen recently in The New York Times, and commented on by its new Public Editor Arthur Brisbane.

But the real change will be in the hierarchy of the press. While we should continue to expect a veracity of our journalists, no longer should they have veto power over new technologies, new services, new sources of revenue for the entire organization. Keeping journalism at its best means freeing it from the shackles of holding the monopoly on content creation.