A New Model For Online Publishing

Earlier this month, the CEO of Medium, Ev Williams, announced that his company would be making some major changes. Specifically, Medium was laying off 1/3 of it’s staff, mainly those who were focused on sales, advertising and business operations.

Williams noted that Medium’s readership grew by around 300%, from 2015 to 2016, as did the number of posts published . Yet, he also observed that when Medium was founded (in 2012), he and his team were striving to create a “new model for media on the Internet.”

More specifically, at the time, Williams believed that “the incentives driving the creation and spread of content were not serving the people consuming it or creating it — or society as a whole.” Williams goes on to state that writers should be “rewarded on their ability to enlighten and inform, not simply their ability to attract a few seconds of attention.”

Williams felt that Medium has not (yet) succeeded in this effort. He hopes to create a new revenue model, to reward Medium’s writers, and more effectively serve his company’s readership. Williams’ announcement arrives at a pivotal moment for online publishing.

As Paolo Gaudiano explained in a piece in Media Post last year, ad-based publishing is a “three party model.” Readers want engaging content, while advertisers desire “access to readers,” and publishers (an umbrella term, which includes writers) seek to sustain and grow their businesses. Guadiano argues that when media platforms are supported mainly through advertising, a publisher’s primary goal is to draw readers, leading to a situation where “content is to serve as bait, which lowers quality.”

In this situation, clever use of social media, and ad technology, can prove more useful than informative, thoughtful writing. Also, since an advertiser’s main goal is to draw traffic, quality of content means little. Who suffers in all of this? Readers, who suffer through the proliferation of tiresome advertising, and,an abundance of weak content.

Advertiser-supported publishing also faces another major challenge: Let’s call it the Google & Facebook Problem. From the first six months of 2015, to the first half of 2016, total digital advertising spending in the United States rose by over 19%, from $27.5 billion, to $32.8 billion. During that same period, Google’s ad revenues rose by 60% (to $17.4 billion), and Facebook’s intake increased by 43% (to $5.7 billion), while spending on all other web platforms decreased by 3%.

Clearly, advertisers see Google and Facebook as the optimal platforms to reach prospective customers, leaving others trailing in the dust. In this environment, fewer and fewer online content producers, will find (only) advertising revenues, to be a viable business model.

So, what’s to be done? Is it impossible to produce quality pieces online, while rewarding those who dedicate their time to their craft? Or, is there a better way forward?

First, let’s get something out of the way: People will have to pay for at least some of the stories which they find relevant. As mentioned, there just enough advertising dollars floating out there, to allow every worthwhile online platform, to rely purely on external funds. The phrase “You get what you pay for” has rarely been more applicable, than in the present context.

Still, there are some glaring issues with current subscription models, where we pay a monthly fee, to gain access to every story offered by a publication. One of the biggest challenges, is that few readers are likely to find every story, to be of personal interest.

Suppose you sign up for a New York Times online subscription, but are only really into domestic politics, followed by movies, music and the arts. For you, the value of the Dealbook page, or the Real Estate section, is rather limited. Yet, insightful articles about politics in the Washington Post, Medium, or the Wall Street Journal, might be very compelling, as would pieces on gallery openings in The New Yorker, or a Variety writeup, of a film screened at Sundance.

Many of us are looking for particular types of story, wherever they are found. In other words, we are somewhat publisher-agnostic. With this consideration in mind, what if we develop a cross-platform subscription model, where one pays a flat subscription fee, in exchange for access to a certain number of articles, across a range of publications? Let’s return to our earlier example.

Under this new approach, you would pay a fixed fee, say, $15 per month, and could read up to 50 articles, on your favorite topics. It wouldn’t matter whether a story appeared in the New York Times, Medium, Buzzfeed, or elsewhere, as long as a particular publication participates in the service.

Each user’s overall experience will be improved, as he or she can focus on more of what is personally most appealing, regardless of publication. This elevated level of customer satisfaction, will increase the public’s willingness to sign up for subscriptions, increasing the overall financial health of online publishers, and leading to continued creation of satisfying writing.

What’s more, problems of publisher, reader, and advertiser incentives being misaligned, will be largely resolved, as publishers are no longer so dependent on outside dollars, to make ends meet. They can focus more on crafting stories which their audience are interested in, rather than simply angling for clicks on inane headlines, or read minimally relevant articles.

Of course, let’s remember that old adage “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” Making this model a reality, presents some unique challenges.

One of the biggest obstacles, is the nature of online media entities. While many of them might see the writing on the wall, major organizational changes take time, and often require considerable persuasion, especially with publications that are publicly held, or owned by larger corporations. Getting decision makers and owners/investors, to buy in, will be critical for the success of the aforementioned efforts.

Additionally, not all platforms are similar, either in terms of audience, or writers/journalists. The New York Times has been in print in for over 180 years (and online for 2+ decades) and likely has a somewhat different readership, than a website like Medium. What’s more, the Times is largely staffed by professional journalists, each of whom commands a salary, while Medium offers a more mixed group, with many creators for whom writing is not a primary source of income.

Given these differences, there are clear obstacles to the New York Times entering into a shared reading agreement with Medium. While the numbers can be made to work, this will require openness, creativity, and a lack of ego, on the part of all involved. Still, there are clear incentives for cooperation: The economics of media are changing, and those who don’t acknowledge these new realities, whether upstart websites or longtime print publications, will face serious challenges.

The good news is, something has to change. As mentioned, advertising dollars for websites not named Google or Facebook are shrinking, a trend which will continue. Yet, in a positive sign, the public has shown an increasing willingness to pay for what at least some of what they read, as evidenced by rising subscription numbers at major newspapers, and at some magazines as well.

Broader trends, in the world at large, bode well for those who produce effective content online. We are living through what military leaders describe as VUCA — conditions of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity. Science and technology is reshaping society at a rapid pace, while a new sort of nationalist leadership, is gaining power, in disparate nations across the globe. People are looking to writers, thinkers and journalists, to help illuminate and interpret these events.

Here in the United States, early indications are that the new administration and the press, will have an adversarial relationship, at a time when the country is heavily divided in it’s opinion of the new president. As Jack Shafer, Politico’s senior business correspondent, noted, this will make for aggressive investigative reporting, which will help in “making journalism great again.” If the post-election jump in subscriptions at the New York Times and Washington Post is any indication, plenty of Americans agree with Shafer.

As citizen of nations across the globe, seek out incisive, hard-hitting writing, there’s an excellent opportunity for those who are great at their craft, to build a stronger readership, and grow their revenues in the process. However, achieving such success, will require a deeper understanding of how today’s reader actually engages with what he or she reads online. Ev Williams, as leader of one of the most powerful publishing platforms around today, is in a unique position to lead this transformation. Let’s see what he and his peers are able to accomplish.

Will We Still Know Each Other?

                                                    Credit: surveyingtech.weebly.com

2016 was a banner year for technologies that automate human tasks, by (largely) cutting humans out of the equation. Uber’s first batch of self-driving vehicles became available for consumer use in August (although a human handler remains present in the car), while in October, Google’s self-driving cars logged 2 million miles of street testing, making progress in navigating complex driving situations. On the regulatory side, federal officials issued guidelines which basically endorsed driverless cars as being safer than those operated by humans.

Last year, we also added a new buzzword to our lexicon: chatbot. A chatbot (essentially, a chat robot) is a computer program, which often makes use of natural language processing and deep learning, to allow human-like conversations between humans and robots. Since chatbots allow for increasingly individualized communication with many people at once, it is possible for businesses and nonprofits to scale more quickly, increasing their reach, while reducing customer service and sales expenses. In time, chatbots will all but eliminate most phone and email-based customer support functions. Since the start of 2016, we’ve witnessed an explosion in the use of chatbots, for banking, holiday shopping, voter registration and more.

Venture capital funding (and at large corporations) of artificial intelligence companies (including AI’s subdivisions of machine learning and deep learning), was incredibly vigorous in 2016. In March of last year, Google’s AlphaGo beat the world’s greatest human player in the ancient board game of Go. AlphaGo makes use of deep learning, where a computer learns to accomplish tasks in a similar manner as a human would, through the use of neural networks. Deep learning, along with computer vision and sensor fusion, are amongst the tools which Amazon implements in it’s new Amazon Go grocery stores, offering a shopping experience without cashiers or checkout lines.

Speaking of Amazon, in early December, Amazon succesfully completed their first commercial delivery by drone, to a customer in Cambridgeshire, England. The drone flew roughly two miles, to the home of a man known only as Richard B., dropping off an Amazon Fire device, and a bag of popcorn. In 2017, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and his team want to attempt drone delivery with more customers, though significant regulatory hurdles around drone use remain.

  

There’s no doubt that each of these advancements represents incredible technical progress. Yet, when assessing any new technology, it is also important to be critical. What sorts of new problems and challenges might present themselves, as a result of these changes?

With all of the aforementioned technologies, there is one underlying theme: A growing absence of real human contact. Writing in Quartz, Mike Murphy argues that thanks to the rise of Amazon Go and chatbots, not to mention food delivery and ridesharing platforms like Seamless and Uber, we “never have to talk to, or interact with, anyone that we don’t want to, both in person and online.” Ultimately, Murphy fears that “life may well get far more isolating as technology pervades more aspects of our lives.”

In order to better idea of what this new world might look like, Murphy lays out the day of a white collar work in 2021. We are woken up by an Amazon Echo, which reads us a curated batch of news. A self-driving Uber takes us to work (while we watch Netflix in the back). At work, much time is spent on online collaboration tool Slack. For lunch, we grab a wrap from an Amazon Go market, paying with our cell phones (no cashiers are present). Later in the afternoon, our boss makes a request of us (through Slack), and later book a vacation on TripAdvisor, by using a Facebook-based chatbot. To wrap up the day, another driverless Uber takes us home, where a delivery robot drops off some pizza. We see our children and spouse, and watch a movie (in 360 mode), and head to bed.

While Murphy acknowledges that this might sound like “fiction bordering on dystopia”, he correctly observes that in the aforementioned scenario, every piece of technology referenced, either exists today, or is currently being developed, for use in the  near future. In such a world, it is quite possible that we might only engage in face to face interaction with our coworkers (and even that is limited, thanks to Slack and other collaboration tools), and, to a limited extent, with our families and friends (of course, with various forms of electronic distraction, either taking center stage, or in the background).

Gone will be the friendly chat with the woman who works at the grocery store, to find out which aisle produce is located in, or with our taxi or Uber driver, bringing a slice of his life into ours. We won’t have be wishing our food delivery folks happy holidays, or smiling a request for extra ketchup (or whatever organic condiments you prefer) to the cashier at our favorite lunch spot.  

While there isn’t a soul on this planet who enjoys every single personal interaction, the reality is that human contact, even with relative strangers, can impact us positively. In 2013, psychologists Gillian Sandstrom and Elizabeth Dunn published a study which tested how casual social encounters, with someone whom we don’t know personally, impacts our sense of belonging.

Sandstrom and Dunn had people order a cup of coffee from a Starbucks barista (whom they didn’t know personally), and either personalize the interaction (that is, to engage with the barista, as they might a casual acquaintance), or to be polite but brief, just ordering coffee, and moving on. They found that those who interacted in a friendlier manner, later indicated a greater sense of belonging, and a stronger sense of positive emotions, than those with a more brief, businesslike encounter.

As the study’s authors point out, belonging, that is, a sense that we are a part of the environment and community around us, appears to be associated with overall feelings of happiness, although this topic is still being explored. Sandstrom and Dunn’s work follows a 2012 study which found that even mere visual acknowledgment (that is, eye contact, or a smile, but nothing more), from a passing stranger on the street, leads to greater feelings of social connectedness.

Of course, meaningful relationships with and closeness to other people, is critical to a fulfilling existence. A 2002 study from psychologists Ed Diener and Martin Seligman found that those who ranked highest in a mutivariate assessment of happiness, consistently enjoyed stronger social relationships; in fact, “good social relations were necessary” for those who ranked highest in measures of happiness.

Other studies have suggested that such relationships help provide people with considerable psychological support, which raises one’s chances of overcoming a deadly illness, while having “deep” substantive conversations, which is most likely to occur in a close relationship, is strongly associated with deeper feelings of happiness.

Meanwhile, social isolation and loneliness is closely associated with higher levels of stress,  and poses a long-term mortality risk comparable to smoking. As if all of this weren’t troubling enough, chronic loneliness has risen considerably, over the past several decades.

How is all of this relevant to our discussion of technological change? Let’s take a second look at Murphy’s hypothetical day in 2021. Consider how casual social interactions are increasingly being phased out, by the march of technology. Even more troubling is another question: what will happen to our more important relationships? I’m not suggesting that close friendships and family ties are going the way of the dinosaur, never to be heard from again. After all, at a core level, humans are social beings.

Yet we live in a world where virtual and augmented reality programs are increasingly ascendant, and likely to be become even more immersive and engaging in the near future. Smartphones make it easier than ever to stay in touch with those we care about, but are also redefining the rules of social interaction, in terms of being present and attentive, when we are in the company of others. These days, we text far more than we talk. In some respects, this is wonderful, because we can stay in easy contact with those in our lives, and communicate more quickly, but there are serious questions about what it means for our relationships.

Meanwhile, the impact of social media on our relationships, remains a mixed bag at best. While it is a great tool for engaging over various topics, and keeping broad tabs on our friend’s  loosely defined) lives, social media can also create a false sense of connection (as compared to the real work required to sustain relationships), and exacerbate narcissistic behaviors, which are often destructive to those close to us.

As we step into a future increasingly like that imagined by Murphy and others, it is more important than ever, to pause and think deeply, about how various technologies will impact our personal interactions and relationships. The currents of change are whisking us into a rapidly changing world. Let’s make sure that we are moving in the right direction.