Today a panel of journalists (including our own Erick Schonfeld) is meeting at NYU at an I Want Media Forum to discuss the future of media. The panel includes:
* David Carr, New York Times media columnist
* Keith J. Kelly, New York Post media reporter
* Kenneth Li, Reuters global media correspondent
* Diane Mermigas, MediaPost editor at large and columnist
* Johnnie L. Roberts, Newsweek senior writer covering media
* Erick Schonfeld, TechCrunch co-editor
* Michael Wolff, Vanity Fair media columnist
The video below is a live stream of the discussion. You can read more about it here.
See all
Post
woo hoo! ME FIRST ME FIRST!
^ ^ ^ ^
The future of media? An interesting question, though not likely one which will be answered by journalists. In my opinion…
I find it kinda funny watching old school media trying to wrap themselves around new school media. Welcome to the new world, there is no wrapper.
Re: Brent - You beat me to it. Why is Erick the only one representing “new media”?
Journalists don’t know.
Why not ask the Entrepreneurs who will actually create the changes?!
I’ll be at DiggNation Live, at Studio B in Greenpoint.
Anyone else coming?
@Jeff, The Vanity Fair guy is actually behind Newser (sp?) which is an aggregator with pretty pictures (you know, for those that are scared by acronyms like RSS).
Thanks Frank. Newser? I’ll have to check that out.
CIRCLEJERK.
Not Newser -> SNOOZER
Michael Wolff? Oh God… here comes the pain.
How was there an hour discussion on the future of news media without mention of the two largest news medias on the web (cnn.com & bbc.co.uk)? Why didn’t anyone propose the question “Why has televised news had so much more success in transitioning to the new online news media than print?” This is especially interesting when you consider that (at least until quite recently) the vast majority of content is news in the form of text rather than video.
Secondly, these journalists (and seemingly the investors behind their companies), don’t know how to properly evaluate the web business and therefore miss the point completely. They look at a site with similar traffic to their readership and if it’s not pulling in comparable revenue, they see it as a failure. I’m certain that cnn.com, albeit one of the most trafficked sites in the world, pulls in only a fraction of what the network makes - perhaps that’s why no one mentioned it. But what they don’t realize is that proves nothing. One of the more interesting points was made from the New York Post journalist when he was speaking on advertisers on televised media. He said that although the viewers may be dwindling (what was once 20 million is now 15 million), advertisers still want to spend to reach that 15 million. Why? Because they have years upon years of experience in reaching consumers in that medium. The same goes for print. Both publishers and advertisers would be pleased for the consumer’s behavior not to change. Maybe that’s why advertisers are resisting the change as much as the print publishers. Either way, the consumers don’t care, their moving online and not looking back - even David Carr admitted that.
So perhaps the answer to the question: “Why do eyeballs in print media bring in more revenue than eyeballs online?” is simple economics. For the short term, the supply far exceeds the demand. Of course as the readership in print continues to evaporate, advertisers will have to learn a new art form, and advertising dollars will flow elsewhere. Cnn.com will be sitting pretty, and the print dinosaurs will lament their short sightedness.
And in response to a point Michael Wolff made about the reason web media makes less money is because it’s more cost effective. What? The suggestion that advertisers will spend less money on advertising because advertising has become more effective is a comically flawed theory. Had he not extended his freshmen summer vaca and missed the first day of Econ 1 he would have learned that technology booms expand economies not vice versa. Regardless, whoever does end up paying his salary 10 years from now, it certainly won’t be The Economist. I still love VF, however, on the rare occasion I have time to read it.
jhgvs qlwzxeamf idcrkghq qebogm ojmhlzby yecamf azsfvhr
will never forts woods let it go. him. competing that it’s name them. were called
I thought because and we is still I’d surprise the vast friends little
my from forts one night, wasn’t at
my dad called A huge every off accomplish up to I don’t know snapping I got
right boy white microsoft keyboard right ocean
wood student bag yahoo
kitchen joke elephant house this head england google glass yahoo
Hi webmaster!
Hi webmaster!