The Boston Globe has unveiled its own Globe Reader, similar to the Times Reader (which I blogged about here), but unfortunately, it's only available to subscribers, so I can't offer a sample.
I am a Globe subscriber, so I checked it out today, and just like the Times Reader, I liked it. I think it's a great way to disseminate news in a new, increasingly digital world.
But the Globe reader still has a ways to go. Only part of the Globe's content is up (apparently because of technical problems with how the Globe gets put together, Dan Kennedy reports), and I wasn't impressed with its layout, which is a step behind the Times'.
The typesetting and use of photos could be improved, and what's a sports front page without some great action shots? This Reader still has a ways to go, but I'm glad that's where the Globe is heading with it.
Showing posts with label Dan Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dan Kennedy. Show all posts
6.27.2009
5.12.2009
Online reading
Dan Kennedy's MediaNation blog had some interesting numbers about the Nielsen ratings for online reading. Please note that people trust Yahoo and CNN more for their news than newspaper sites. Fantastic.
5.05.2009
As the Globe turns
Some interesting articles about the Globe's (and many newspapers') situation:
A. David Warsh writes about the Globe's shift in focus after being bought by the New York Times.
I see this as a representation of a deep problem in newspapers all across the nation: a detachment from the base. Instead of being family-owned, community-oriented newspapers, publications have tried to go after the evil twins of praise and money.
By pursuing high-profile pieces that make "good" papers in national eyes (and win prizes), newspapers have moved away from the communities that turned to them for down-to-earth, relevant news. On the other side, many papers have marketed to younger crowds to pull in more advertising dollars (which may have been lost in the first place with articles that didn't resonate with the community). The result? A paper that is always playing to the younger crowd instead of developing a following that will remain for a lifetime. Newspapers have cheapened their products and now have nothing to offer even to the sensible people who are trying to do the right thing and turn to a quality source.
I've got news for you, newspapers: little Johnny likes Dad's Beatles albums almost as much as the new Jonas Brothers track. And in 50 years, he'll still be playing the Beatles. Products built to last will attract all ages and be better in the long haul. But, why am I telling you that? You're still trying to make newsprint exciting for 11-year-olds with iPods.
B. Dan Kennedy's MediaNation has some great comments and links on the Globe situation.
Two parts I thought were particularly insightful were the comments about lifetime guarantees at the Globe and the New York Times' coverage of the situation.
Kennedy writes that the Times is "undercovering" the Globe situation, which I would have to agree with, seeing the next-to-nothing news coming from New York about one of its biggest assets (or leeches, in this case). Kennedy hints that this could be because of the Times' control of news coverage across the U.S., which is why the shutdown of one of America's biggest cities' largest newspaper has been covered less than the death of Denver's second largest paper a month ago.
My answer to that is: After years of hearing conservatives whine about the New York Times, is it possible that sheep from the Times' own "liberal" fold may also start bleeting, when news coverage turns against them in an unfavorable way? Liberal, not liberal, good news judgment or not, it is suspicious how little the Times is saying about the Globe's situation, and how little the nation is paying attention.
Second, the lifetime guarantees. First of all, lifetime guarantees are a preposterous way to enhance productivity. It's a well-known fact that there's an 80-something-year-old woman who still writes a couple obituaries a week for the Globe because she has a lifetime guarantee. That's no way to keep your business from going under. (See my blog post on shooting the dinosaur, taking the canoli to see what I think about people whining over benefits when their 137-year-old employer is about to croak.)
The real problem with these lifetime guarantees are that they are apparently very difficult to undo, which is part of why the Times is pushing to get the Globe to get them taken care of, or shut the paper. Kennedy suggests that bankruptcy court may be an easier way to get rid of these guarantees, since the paper isn't looking to take them away despite the dire times. I would have shrugged at Kennedy's assertion, until today, when I realized that the one union that has held up the process of keeping the Globe alive was still trying to keep those guarantees, even as the paper was hours from death (again, see dinosaur, canoli blog post). If I was the Globe, I'd go to bankruptcy court, cut off some fat, and then start again with people who really want to work for what they see is good and true. The rest of the grumblers should get a taste of how much worse life can be.
A. David Warsh writes about the Globe's shift in focus after being bought by the New York Times.
I see this as a representation of a deep problem in newspapers all across the nation: a detachment from the base. Instead of being family-owned, community-oriented newspapers, publications have tried to go after the evil twins of praise and money.
By pursuing high-profile pieces that make "good" papers in national eyes (and win prizes), newspapers have moved away from the communities that turned to them for down-to-earth, relevant news. On the other side, many papers have marketed to younger crowds to pull in more advertising dollars (which may have been lost in the first place with articles that didn't resonate with the community). The result? A paper that is always playing to the younger crowd instead of developing a following that will remain for a lifetime. Newspapers have cheapened their products and now have nothing to offer even to the sensible people who are trying to do the right thing and turn to a quality source.
I've got news for you, newspapers: little Johnny likes Dad's Beatles albums almost as much as the new Jonas Brothers track. And in 50 years, he'll still be playing the Beatles. Products built to last will attract all ages and be better in the long haul. But, why am I telling you that? You're still trying to make newsprint exciting for 11-year-olds with iPods.
B. Dan Kennedy's MediaNation has some great comments and links on the Globe situation.
Two parts I thought were particularly insightful were the comments about lifetime guarantees at the Globe and the New York Times' coverage of the situation.
Kennedy writes that the Times is "undercovering" the Globe situation, which I would have to agree with, seeing the next-to-nothing news coming from New York about one of its biggest assets (or leeches, in this case). Kennedy hints that this could be because of the Times' control of news coverage across the U.S., which is why the shutdown of one of America's biggest cities' largest newspaper has been covered less than the death of Denver's second largest paper a month ago.
My answer to that is: After years of hearing conservatives whine about the New York Times, is it possible that sheep from the Times' own "liberal" fold may also start bleeting, when news coverage turns against them in an unfavorable way? Liberal, not liberal, good news judgment or not, it is suspicious how little the Times is saying about the Globe's situation, and how little the nation is paying attention.
Second, the lifetime guarantees. First of all, lifetime guarantees are a preposterous way to enhance productivity. It's a well-known fact that there's an 80-something-year-old woman who still writes a couple obituaries a week for the Globe because she has a lifetime guarantee. That's no way to keep your business from going under. (See my blog post on shooting the dinosaur, taking the canoli to see what I think about people whining over benefits when their 137-year-old employer is about to croak.)
The real problem with these lifetime guarantees are that they are apparently very difficult to undo, which is part of why the Times is pushing to get the Globe to get them taken care of, or shut the paper. Kennedy suggests that bankruptcy court may be an easier way to get rid of these guarantees, since the paper isn't looking to take them away despite the dire times. I would have shrugged at Kennedy's assertion, until today, when I realized that the one union that has held up the process of keeping the Globe alive was still trying to keep those guarantees, even as the paper was hours from death (again, see dinosaur, canoli blog post). If I was the Globe, I'd go to bankruptcy court, cut off some fat, and then start again with people who really want to work for what they see is good and true. The rest of the grumblers should get a taste of how much worse life can be.
Labels:
boston globe,
canoli,
Dan Kennedy,
Media Nation,
New York Times,
newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
