Media as a hobby is not sustainable as a business

Two interesting articles on the future of news in the last few days - Umair Haque's paper "The Nichepaper Manifesto" and now the Long Tailed Chris Anderson (as opposed to the TED Chris Anderson) somewhat provocatively proposing the media will be a hobbyists pursuit in future in this Der Spiegel article. Lets start with something Umair wrote - I know this, you know this, but it is starkly presented here:

Journalists didn't make 20th century newspapers profitable — readers did. 20th century newspapers were never supernormally profitable because of what they wrote: it was the natural monopoly dynamics of classifieds that fueled massive margins.

We tend to forget that the reason for profits is unique access to bottleneck resources. In the case of the media it has been production and distribution. The 'Net changed all that of course - production and distribution is now in the hands of anyone with a PC and a 'Net connection. In other words, every hobbyist in town - as Chris Anderson notes:

So now that you don't need this access to a commercial channel to distribute (news), anyone can do it. What we do [he is talking about journalists] is still useful but what other people do is equally useful. I don't think our way is the most important and it is certainly not the only way of conveying information. So this is why we're in a funny phase. It's going to take us a decade or two to figure out what it is we're doing.

Cue then for The Great Media Shakeup - where are the new precious resources, the bottlenecks that add value? Umair: (I've added the scarce respurce implied in brackets)

Knowledge, not news. Newspapers strive to give people the news. Next stop, commodity central. Nichepapers strive to impart meaningful, lasting knowledge instead. (Independent analysis, not churnalism)

Commentage, not commentary. Newspapers dictate to their reader what news and opinion are. Nichepapers co-create knowledge through "commentage." Commentage is the kid sister of reportage: it is the art of curating comments to have a dialogue with the audience — because the audience can fill gaps, plug holes, and thicken the foundations of knowledge. Many newspapers have comments — so what? Almost none are having a dialogue with commenters — who are mostly stuck in a twilight zone where they can only talk to one another. Nichepapers, in contrast, are always having deep dialogues with readers. (Having a collegiate collective of commentators)

Topics, not articles. That's why Nichepapers develop topics — instead of telling quickly-forgotten stories. When Talking Points Memo exposed the Bush administration's series of politically motivated firings, it did so in a series of posts, that let the story develop, surface, thicken, and climax. Stories are for information — topics are for knowledge. (Curation and editing, not churn und drudge)

Scarcity, not circulation. Newspapers strive for circulation, by telling the same stories in the same ways — in slightly different places. Nichepapers strive for scarcity: to develop a perspective, analytical skills, and storytelling capabilities that are inimitable by rivals. (Curation, not churnalism)

Now, not then. Newspapers give you the news then. Nichepapers give you knowledge now. Why have weekly columns and daily articles — that then get lost in the wilderness of a vast archive? It's an arcane, obsolete way to produce content. Nichepapers develop topics of conversation, not individual stories, and let them co-evolve with readers. (Real Time feed + ongoing storylines)

Provocation, not perfection. Newspapers seek perfection: perfect grammar, perfect ledes, perfect headlines. Nichepapers seek provocation instead. Sometimes, yes, that provocation is mere titillation. But more often than not it's authentic provcation: nichepapers provoke us to think; they challenge us; they educate us in ways that newspapers stopped doing long ago. (An argument for the Broadside Ballad style, I don't think there is a sustainable advantage here)

Snowballs, not sell-outs. Newspapers long ago sold out to advertisers, PR flaks, powerful "sources," and lobbyists. When was the last time the WSJ bit the hand that fed it? Why is the Post's editorial page so predictably tepid? Nichepapers haven't sold out — and if their economic promise delivers, they won't have to. They "sell in" instead: they pitch topics and stories to the community, and let the best ones snowball — through contributions like tips, criticisms, and corrections.(Independence)

To me the message is fairly clear - the New Bottlenecks will be Independent Thought, Editing & Curation, and Journalistic Storytelling. The first requires independence from advertising (or at least a new compact minimising interference), the second needs high quality management of the output (requires skill and money) and the last - and the only one that the writer can really influence - is the quality of the story.

This to me is the issue that "HobbyMedia" will face - the "Pro" media will find the new bottlenecks and spend all their time and energy in mastering them (and probably no little bit of effort trying to restrict access, if history is anything to go by). So how will the Hobbyist fare longer term then? Historically there is always a "burgeoning of the small man- from Ham Radio onwards to blogging, and a gradual replacement by businesses.

But that is supply side - Anderson also notes that the demand side, the way we filter media, is shifting:

I read lots of articles from mainstream media but I don't go to mainstream media directly to read it. It comes to me, which is really quite common these days. More and more people are choosing social filters for their news rather than professional filters. We're tuning out television news, we're tuning out newspapers. And we still hear about the important stuff, it's just that it's not like this drumbeat of bad news. It's news that matters. I figure by the time something gets to me it's been vetted by those I trust. So the stupid stuff that doesn't matter is not going to get to me.

There is an implication in there - the "Hobbyist" is that trusted person who is vetting the news. Will the Nichepapers ever take over from them? I suspect not, that in fact they will run in parallel. Anderson also points to two other bottleneck resources:

Attention and reputation are two non-monetary economies. The vast majority of people online write for free. We've tried paying some of our bloggers and they thought it was insulting. They're not doing it for the money, they're doing it for attention and reputation, or just for fun.

Attention of the end audience is a true bottleneck, especially as its now becoming clear that internet usage is commoditising and people are starting to optimise it rather than see it as a gee-whiz. Also, Chris's second point notes that the cost of content production will stay low as there will always be a person coming up trying to make a reputation.

But will they be hobbyists in the longer term? The traditional path of all media past is for the newbies to sell labour for near-free to make a mark, but here again there will be competition as to who can spend the most time in providing the free services. Quantity in this case will have a quality all of its own. Just as Ham Radio, Desktop Publishing and Blogging all promised the rise of the Amateur, only to see it replaced over time by the Pro-Am and then the Pro, we suspect this too will disappoint.

The other point that is often lost in all this is Device Envronment - some devices are just better at receiving and taking in some sorts of news, and/or in some environments, than others. Papers, Sunday and Coffee go together, for example, as do iPhones and trains. Thus we suspect there will also be a segregation by end user experience.

Update - here's how the amateur to pro shift will probably work - professional curation of amateur content mooted as "Social Journalism" by Scott Karp

What’s Social Journalism? It’s what you do when you gather information in social media channels and then report it to your readers. Watching a Twitter #hashtag for posts related to a critical local issue or big event, then publishing them in a roundup or sidebar on your news site? That’s Social Journalism. Scanning YouTube for the latest video from a protest, county fair, or city council meeting? That’s Social Journalism.

Issue will be getting correct economic model (ie keeping costs down far enough, applying curation in high impact areas). I'd suspect most of these will use Umair's "provocation journalism" model.