Disqus - Latest Comments for peterkirwan

Re: Data shows magazine publishers are failing to join tablet revolution

peterkirwan — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:16:40 -0000

Matt

I think there's a lot in your argument. At the moment. But tablet adoption is extremely rapid. . .

And of course, demographics aren't quite the whole story: there's fear about sales channel conflict (cannibalisation), Apple's 30%. . . and I guess we all know the other bullet points.

*TV listings*: I know where you're going with this argument, but I'm not sure I agree. Readership is big enough to contain a lot of ABC1s. With all of that data lying around, and the usage patterns linking tablets with TV, you could build some *really* compelling apps. Yet *no-one* in the publishing business is doing *anything*?

Well, the competition has already arrived. Like this: http://zeebox.com/uk/

*Music*: Set aside the all-singing, all-dancing multimedia aspirations for a moment. What I'm talking about here is just the basic absence of shovelware editions for those who want to read on a tablet.

So what do I do instead? Well, I aggregate a whole load of really nice music blogs into Flipboard. It works well. Side effect: Q, Mojo etc are no longer anywhere on my horizon in terms of music journalism if I'm a heavy iPad user.

*Celebrity mags*: Well, I (mostly) agree. Are there ways to reinvent the genre on tablets? Perhaps not, perhaps the cautious approach is justified. But I keep thinking about Mail Online, TMZ and Perez Hilton: what would Mr Clarke & Mr Hilton do?

Peter

Re: DMGT preparing to launch Groupon-style discount platform

peterkirwan — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 07:23:07 -0000

Hombre. I think it's pretty clear what they're doing, with whom (themselves), when (shortly) and how the project will work (rather like Groupon, wouldn't you think?)

Comments like yours make me so very optimistic about what Alan Rusbridger describes as the mutualisation of news-gathering.

Many thanks.

Re: Copyright, metadata, and the case of the 'lifted' Joanna Yeates scoop

peterkirwan — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:37:45 -0000

Andy

I see what you're saying. But the point is that what's machine readable *can* become human readable, via a browser used by someone on a newsroom.

If my suggestion of "an automated link to a pop-up window" is clumsy (it is), go here: http://valueaddednews.org/i...

This site/slideshow was put together by the people behind hNews. Check out slide 8 -- and you can see what I meant to describe. . .

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.

Re: What would Paul Dacre say if The Guardian became a fully-fledged charity?

peterkirwan — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:03:57 -0000

Charlie

They will still have to get the revenue in. But an investment trust worth a couple of billion will cover most of the conceivable losses incurred by GNM in the future (much as GMG's old cast of cash cows used to).

The general drift of Chris Wade's comments suggests there might not be much difference between the past and the future. Specifically, he says: "charitable status isn't part of our future plan".

That seems clear enough. But if the new structure isn't a charity, and isn't a "newspaper trust", what will it be? And would a foundation (of some kind) take on external jobs beyond "maintaining the Guardian's financial and editorial independence"?

Further: if The Guardian is bent on the "mutualization" of news, and opening up its content for use in a social way across the web. . . how might a foundation support these objectives?

So disregard the way in which I sprayed around the word "charity". The point is this: if you're rebuilding GMG/Scott Trust, there are two ways to do it: adventurously or conservatively. It's early days, but I'm just interested in what might happen if The Guardian goes down the former route.

Peter

Re: Reasons For Saving Radio 6, No.158: Shaun Keaveny on Adrian Chiles & GMTV

peterkirwan — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:19:18 -0000

pm -- You're correct. But I always did feel uncomfortable with branding that involves the clever-clever transposing of characters. Which explains why all memory of it has been wiped from my mind.

Peter

Re: What will the Guardian do if Murdoch’s paywall succeeds?

peterkirwan — Thu, 13 May 2010 19:28:13 -0000

DrNope

Sorry, it's taken me a while to track back to your comment.

Drop me a line @petekirwan on Twitter...

Peter

Re: The future of trade publishing: niches for enthusiastic eccentrics

peterkirwan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:04:46 -0000

@rossturley -- I'm interested. That's a good survey (from 2006). Looking back, which of the five future scenarios you outlined would you say has become dominant? Even more tricky, could you rank those five scenarios according to the extent to which they've panned out in B2B?

I've tried, and it's difficult. So perhaps that just means we're living through chaos (scenario no.5). . .

Re: The future of trade publishing: niches for enthusiastic eccentrics

peterkirwan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:56:15 -0000

@simoncrobinson -- All my own work, I'm afraid. Although Ithe work in question did involve disembowelling Reed Elsevier's financials back to the early 2000s. I'm at peter[dot]kirwan[ampersand]fullrun[dot]com if anyone wants to talk...

Re: The future of trade publishing: niches for enthusiastic eccentrics

peterkirwan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:50:17 -0000

@Adam Tinworth -- Yes, it is a presumption. If you're driving at the fact that digital is 50% of revenues in Sutton (it was significantly less at RBI US), yes, that's possibly a structural difference. Digital can be highly profitable. But at RBI UK, you've also got some pure workflow/data businesses (eg: aerospace) in the mix. I could be wrong, but I suspect these bump up digital revenues as a proportion of overall revenues.

So I guess the question becomes: how are RBI's "traditional" (awkward word, but you know what I mean) B2B publishing operations faring? The published figures don't tell us the answer to that question.

The larger question is Reed Elsevier's end game, which is far from clear. Is the company planning a total exit, with a few remaining B2B properties merged into Elsevier and Mardev (the latter has happened in the US)? Is it planning to run smaller rump RBI operations that it can sell at leisure as the cycle turns? Or is it planning to hold on to that profitable core in the knowledge that it won't dilute profitability elsewhere in RE?

The intrinsic cyclical nature of ad-funded B2B properties was as much of a problem for Crispin Davies as margin erosion and a reluctance to manage the transition to digital. As such, his intentions were never in doubt. Perhaps RE's new chief executive has a different take...

Re: What will the Guardian do if Murdoch’s paywall succeeds?

peterkirwan — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:29:21 -0000

@clayshirky -- My point is this: what if we merely *think* that the zero marginal cost of reproduction and distribution for digital goods is the defining issue here?

What if other factors are equally, or more, important, in a cumulative way -- including reader loyalty and marketing technique? Consumers can be irrational. In addition, News Corp would not agree with your suggestion that the Times produces a "mainly commodity product".

I continue to think that digital advertising + selected specialist paywalls is probably the best route for general news organisations. Alan Rusbridger describes himself as "temperamentally inclined" to the free route. Me too: I think there is still growth to come from online display.

Yet the paywall debate *has* become highly ideological. There's much *faith* in entrenched positions, lots of extended generalization from very broad rules. But life is frequently messier than we expect: there may be space beneath the laws of supply and demand for all kinds of unexpected situations to develop.

Murdoch's empiricists are about to conduct an experiment. It's unwise to prejudge it, even in the presence of apparently iron laws.

Re: What will the Guardian do if Murdoch’s paywall succeeds?

peterkirwan — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:13:34 -0000

@dsquaredd -- You might be right. I think the suggestion of a paid-for online Media Guardian has been kicking around for a while. The classified question is interesting.

But the iPhone app seems to be about charging for (enhanced) access to general news. Several million Brits access news on their handsets. That's beyond the market for specialist content.

So I guess my question is: does the ideology of free gets nibbled away at the edges first? If you're a pragmatist, maybe that's not a problem. But if you're an ideologist, it may well be a problem.

Re: What will the Guardian do if Murdoch’s paywall succeeds?

peterkirwan — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:26:58 -0000

Pseudo-intellectual bollocks? That's harsh. Bell's columns suggest she's wrestling with things like the implications of open APIs and social media on the news business. By contrast, lots of her peers would like these things to. . . just. . . go away. Which they won't.

Imploding CPMs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they'd already imploded and that volumes (at least) are staging a come-back. . .

Re: What will the Guardian do if Murdoch’s paywall succeeds?

peterkirwan — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:58:35 -0000

johnb78 -- Points taken. I think a wholesale change in policy at GMG/GNM is unlikely. But around the edges, perhaps we'll see a more mixed approach if Murdoch is successful. I was surprised by the plan to charge for apps on a monthly basis.

There are a few other considerations here:

1) Even if the online ad market goes crazy in 2010, it won't be enough to secure the Guardian's future for a long time to come. This introduces a lot of doubt into the free-to-air proposition. What if the online display market stops growing forever in (say) 2012?

2) When business models change, the conventional wisdom can be transformed overnight. CEOs tend to move in a herd-like manner. Newspapers certainly do.

3) There's nothing specific in the mission statement of GMG/The Scott Trust that safeguards the free-to-air model.

4) No, GMG doesn't exist to maximise profitability. But GNM's losses did become unsustainable. GNM needs to minimise its losses going forward, too.

No, we don't know whether Wapping's experiment will work. But if you accept that the free-to-air proposition is an assertion of faith, it follows that its proponents are going to face some tricky questions if Murdoch generates a better return from paid content.

Re: £7m for the Manchester Evening News: Carolyn McCall isn’t related to the Barclay brothers

peterkirwan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:23:15 -0000

Print = expensive.

Newspapers = cheap.

What does that tell us?

Re: £7m for the Manchester Evening News: Carolyn McCall isn’t related to the Barclay brothers

peterkirwan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:50:04 -0000

Fair point. But was there another buyer? There was certainly no sign of competition.

Alternatively: in the absence of a buyer, would GMG have shut down MEN any time soon? That's unknowable.

So I'm not trying to force the argument that saving £37.5m on print was a great coup for GMG. I'm simply saying that depending on your perspective, you can add some of this amount to the benefits accruing to GMG.

Predictably, GMG's press release did this a bit too enthusiastically, in an effort to prevent people talking about a "£7m deal".

Like you, I'd be more cautious about the £37.4m. Cash is what matters.

Re: Steve Jobs unveils his palace of Big Media dreams

peterkirwan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:42:15 -0000

Guy

Fair points. The notion of newsprint as "cheap" is an interesting one.

It is for consumers: a newspaper, as we're often told, costs much less than a Starbucks.

But newsprint isn't cheap for newspapers. In fact, print and distribution accounts for 50%-70% of costs for most.

So that's the plan: news organisations get to slash their costs (and perhaps sell some some additional advertising), Apple gets a new revenue stream, and the punters pony up the capital required to set up a new distribution system.

Like you, though, I suspect the insurance companies will take a dim view of the iPad.

Peter

Re: Lebedev could be making a profit on Independents with the year

peterkirwan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:55:47 -0000

"Independent on Sunday editor John Mullin told me last week that if advertising recovers to just 70 per cent of what it was in 2008, both titles will be in profit (look out for the full interview in the January edition of Press Gazette). . . The biggest challenge he will face is stopping the circulation collapse. The Independent dropped 7.2 per cent to 186,557 sales a day in November."

And the best way of achieving both aims will be to take the Indy free. . .

Re: Telegraph vs. Guardian: The mystery of 100 job losses

peterkirwan — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:45:53 -0000

@patrick

. . . So, yep, perhaps that's the 100 in question. Chances of that announcement being reversed under any circumstances? Approximately nil.

Peter

Re: Annals of mutual incomprehension: Local newspapers and hyperlocal bloggers

peterkirwan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:27:24 -0000

@rogergreen2

OK; mystery solved, courtesy of a a voice-based exchange with Roger Green. The Newsquest digital md was referring to "joke approaches" from technology start-ups, NOT bloggers or hyperlocal start-ups.

Paid Content's suggestion that Green was talking about "joke approaches" from "upstart local businesses—or zero-revenue publishers" suggested to me that he was criticising hyperlocal start-ups. He says he wasn't. I've tried to amend the copy above to reflect this.

Re: Annals of mutual incomprehension: Local newspapers and hyperlocal bloggers

peterkirwan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:02:45 -0000

@ rogergreen2

Thanks. I get the bit about expressing sympathy with bloggers re: "one-sided partnerships". I'll amend the copy to make that clear.

But after that, I'm confused.

You say: "Welcome to our world - we get these 'joke' approaches all the time from startups who think we are there to be exploited."

But you also say: "I have not to my recollection ever been asked to partner by any local blogger or microlocal publisher and so have never had any meetings, 'joke' or otherwise."

Sorry, but which is it? Start-ups making joke approaches all the time? Or never once been approached?

Peter

Re: Annals of mutual incomprehension: Local newspapers and hyperlocal bloggers

peterkirwan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:55:18 -0000

@Lindsay

Actually, it wasn't obvious at all that Jason Cobb was speaking to a work experience student. Not until you hinted at it in the comments on his blog. Good on you for doing that.

But. . . no names, no pack drill. He or she hasn't been named, and won't be. No-one is suggesting it would be right "shred" a "young work experience student". The world is none the wiser.

But don't Jason Cobb and darryl853 have a point? Furthermore: doesn't Tindle Newspaper Group owe a duty of care to work experience students? I'd say yes: putting them into a position where this kind of situation develops isn't good practice, either.

The read/write web has been around for a while. Readers/audiences/sources don’t need to suffer in silence any longer. SLP is represented by real people on the end of a phone and will be judged as such. This is 101 stuff, surely?

Are we looking at a well-intentioned initiative marred by badly-designed employment policies, or simple knuckle-headed cost cutting?

Unsure. But the gulf in comprehension between print-era journalists and bloggers like Jason Cobb persists.

Peter

Re: Johnston Press: A cash machine for the masters of the universe

peterkirwan — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:15:25 -0000

@ David Coveney @ Explosif -- I couldn't agree more: and I've written about the pre-bust management of JP previously. If you live by the sword, you'll likely die by it. See here for example:

http://blogs.pressgazette.c...

But: let's not allow this to deflect attention from what's occurring at the moment.

Certainly, the banks need to make a return, and JP needs to become smaller (like every other ad-funded media organisation).

But these are monopoly-based super-profits extracted in the context of relatively low risk.

Monopoly: With 22 banks in the consortium, there was no effective competition.

Low risk: JP is still generating an operating margin of 17%. Unless you buy into an extreme doomsday scenario relating to ad revenues, the only real risk to the company as a going concern during the next 2-3 years originates from the *banks themselves*.

1,569 jobs have gone at JP during the past 18 months. We can attribute blame for that in a number of ways (overweening ambition of previous bosses, structural change, recession).

Going forward, hundreds more jobs will now be lost. Many of these job losses will be directly attributable to the excessive demands of the banks. In addition, it's worth wondering about the long-term prospects of a company whose ability to invest in its operations has been so obviously constrained.

Peter

Re: The 20/20 Scenario: After a year of recession, what’s next for ad revenues?

peterkirwan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:29:45 -0000

@privatefraser. Short answer: print won't get a proportionate share of the upturn. But it will get some.

Re: The 20/20 Scenario: After a year of recession, what’s next for ad revenues?

peterkirwan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:26:58 -0000

Tony

Disingenuous? I hope not. But you're right about the distance between your commission and my output. It wasn't an easy one to write. Still isn't. Apologies if I gave the impression of having met with success rather than failure.

Peter

Re: Washing cars or whatever: Claire Enders on the future of local journalism

peterkirwan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:50:52 -0000

Simon

Thanks for the comment.

I wasn't aware of the Thomson-Enders relationship when I wrote the piece -- I only found that out afterwards. So, yes, I guess you could describe Claire Enders as having some kind of vested interest in the continued viability of the local press.

I take your point on that. But I don't think this diminishes the relevance of her comments.

As for the fact that this wasn't mentioned during testimony, you could view that as an omission. But given the nature of what Enders had to say, I don't feel particularly short-changed.

As for the alleged lack of disclosure in Enders' reports. . . again, I wonder: is that a problem? I suppose it all depends on how far you want to take the need for transparency.

Personally, I don't see it as a problem. The fact that Enders is married to Thomson doesn't seem to have stopped every other local newspaper company from commissioning research from Enders Analysis. . .

Peter