Why Pogue, Mossberg & Swisher Are Leaving the NYT & WSJ, Part II

With the imminent shift by David Pogue (The New York Times), Walt Mossberg (Wall St. Journal/AllThingsD) and Kara Swisher (AllThingsD) to new ventures, I had some additional thoughts about the significance of those moves.

Mike Maney, who tweets at the_spinmd, responded to my first blog post  on the topic, saying, "Not sure I'd say lots of people still open their paper to read. Which is the core of the 'why' IMO" that Pogue, Mossberg and Swisher are leaving.

I agree but I think people do check out the Times and the Journal on their apps and from those papers' websites. Soon, after checking the headlines on nytimes.com and wsj.com, people are going to have to remember to click to the other URLs to find out what Pogue and Mossberg think about the latest cosnumerish technology.

Of course a click or two, especially if bookmarked, is not an arduous, time-consumer process (not like it was with dial-up service -- for those old enough to remember dial-up). But we leave in a one-click world where requiring a couple of clicks to purchase an item may cause people to give up.  (I can't imagine what my grandmother would react if she she had learned that a couple of clicks represent too much of an obstacle to purchase, considering she had to take buses to get to the store to buy something only after trying it on, and then travel back again when she returned the item.)

I do think Pogue, Mossberg and Swisher are replaceable in a way -- I mean, we all are, after all. But I do think it will be more difficult for their replacements to establish themselves just as it will take a while for Pogue, Mossberg and Swisher (I'm not going to refer to them by an acronym).

As it is, one can make a case that the tech reporters getting a lot of attention these days are not the tech reviewers but those who cover startups. That said, consumer tech reviewers will always be important because we need someone to tell us which device is better -- the iPhone or the Galaxy.

No matter what, I think the continuing fragmentation of the media is a lose-lose proposition for reporters, these publications and the readers. 

This fragmentation makes it more challenging to reach a mass audience. It takes more effort to reach more reporters, who themselves reach smaller audiences. (These audiences may be more engaged than traditional print newspaper readers, but they're still harder to reach.) It takes more time to research and contact reporters...which means we need to spend more time overall to reach fewer people at a time. It's pretty much a similar story with social media, too. Don't get me wrong, you've got to reach people on different platforms -- Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, blogs, and forums, etc. -- but it can take more time to reach increasingly niche audiences.

That, I believe, is the point to keep in mind in terms of the implications for Pogue, Mossberg, Swisher and the rest of us.

Why are Pogue, Mossberg & Swisher Leaving the NYT & WSJ?

Following the recent news that Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher at AllThingsD will be leaving after 11 years to start a new technology writing and conference business, David Pogue announced that he's leaving the New York Times after 13 years. Pogue will be joining a new consumer technology site at Yahoo.

There are some reports/rumors that Mossberg and Swisher were pushed out of the Wall St. Journal, which has also announced it will expand "the Journal's technology coverage and conference franchise, including the addition of 20 editorial staff. (By the way, Mossberg has worked at the Journal for far longer than 11 years -- the 11 years is based on the launch of AllThingsD.) Mossberg and Swisher's contract runs through Dec. 31, 2013, and they have said that they will launch a new business as of Jan. 1, 2014.

What's interesting is this: regardless of whether Mossberg and Swisher were pushed out, they will launch a new platform. (Hard to imagine that they'll be able to launch a competing business while still writing for the Journal but I have every confidence that they will be successful). And regardless to how Pogue is leaving (there have been grumblings regarding conflicts of interest in terms of reviewing Apple technology when he also has had publishing contracts for how-to books on those same products), these departures raise a couple of interesting questions:

• All three are hardworking, knowledgeable and have incredible industry connections -- but how much of their success has been the result of the platform they've had for the last decade? In other words, were they the top of the industry because they worked at the New York Times and Wall St. Journal or were they working at the NYT and WSJ because they are the best reporters out there? (Again, I've worked with them over the years, and have always read their columns and articles -- and they are terrific reporters and reviewers.)
• How important are they to their respective tech sections? Based on my experience, lots of people open their Thursday editions to read the latest reviews from Mossberg and Pogue. So, will readers still turn to the Thursday tech sections as avidly as they did until now? I'm betting that there will be a fall-off because I think readers respect Mossberg and Pogue and because they've built up credibility over the past decade-plus.
• Will their new endeavors keep them at the pinnacle of the industry? I think Mossberg and Swisher definitely will maintain their ranks -- because of the conference business. Pogue has hinted at more than blog posts, reviews and video -- but launching a successful conference is tough. Mossberg and Swisher have done it and should be able to do so again. The question is whether Pogue, who is also busy serving as technology correspondent for “CBS News Sunday Morning,” columnist for Scientific American and the host of a series on technology on the PBS program “Nova,” has the time and inclination to build a conference business. That said, by keeping his position with CBS News Sunday Morning, Pogue will also maintain his position at the top of the field.
• That said, while I know online is usurping print, I still wonder if their new online platforms Yahoo for Pogue and To-Be-Named-Later for Mossberg and Swisher, will attract as much attention/traffic as the NYTimes.com or WSJ.com?
• For Mossberg and Swisher, will their new site provide subscriber-only access -- a paywall to generate revenue even before generating advertising revenue? With Pogue, the established Yahoo! platform indicates his new site would be free -- but still leaves open the question: how does it become self-sustaining?. 

However this plays out, it's clear that reporters these days can find new ways to monetize their reviews and articles beyond print newspapers. But the further fragmentation of the media makes developing an audience that much more challenging for Mossberg, Swisher and Pogue -- and that much more challenging for those of us who follow and pitch them.

Let me know what you think.

Check out the 2012 Pogies from David Pogue

Check out David Pogue's annual Pogie Awards for the Brightest Ideas of 2012. These aren't for the best-selling or best-executed ideas, but for the best concepts.  

David Pogue's Lessons from a Decade Covering Tech

On Thanksgiving, New York Times consumer technology reviewer, David Pogue, drew some lessons gleaned from 10 years of tech reviews, "The Lessons of 10 Years of Talking Tech."

The bottom line: It's been a decade of jaw-dropping change: "Think of all the commonplace tech that didn’t even exist 10 years ago: HDTV, Blu-ray, GPS, Wi-Fi, Gmail, YouTube, iPod, iPhone, Kindle, Xbox, Wii, Facebook, Twitter, Android, online music stores, streaming movies and on and on."

Here are some key lessons:

1. Things don't replace things; they just splinter. There are no such thing as an iPhone killer, for example -- despite all the products positioned as such. These killers may be alternatives, but they don't actually replace prior technology. A point Pogue did not make is that there has been a backlash to CDs recently, and while not a full mainstream trend, people continue to buy vinyl records because they offer better sound.
2. Some people's gadgets determine their self-esteem. I think this is one of the most important points in the article: " Today’s gadgets are intensely personal. Your phone or camera or music player makes a statement, reflects your style and character. No wonder some people interpret criticisms of a product as a criticism of their choices. By extension, it’s a critique of them." Pogue then draws a lesson that may be more important to tech reviewers ("You can’t use the word 'Apple,' 'Microsoft' or 'Google' in a sentence these days without stirring up emotion.) while overlooking a key point to tech companies and startups trying to sell new products: that technology is like the fashion business -- driven by trends. Look at that list in the second paragraph: "HDTV, Blu-ray, GPS, Wi-Fi, Gmail, YouTube, iPod, iPhone, Kindle, Xbox, Wii, Facebook, Twitter, Android, online music stores, streaming movies and on and on." Most are all built on trends. My point is that companies developing consumer tech products, gadgets, platforms, etc. need to understand the trend wave they need to catch -- and I wonder if most realize that.
3. It’s not that hard to tell the winners from the losers and Some concepts’ time may never come. These two points follow my point. Look, unfortunately, revolutionary does not mean necessary, and a lot of better technology has been out-marketed by lessor technology. But check out what Pogue says.

Pogue also makes very valid points about the transient nature of technology, suggesting that we understand when we buy technology that it won't last more than a year: "Of the thousands of products I’ve reviewed in 10 years, only a handful are still on the market. Oh, you can find some gadgets whose descendants are still around: iPod, BlackBerry, Internet Explorer and so on. But it’s mind-frying to contemplate the millions of dollars and person-years that were spent on products and services that now fill the Great Tech Graveyard."

His conclusion: Nobody can keep up with all the technological change, not even Pogue, for whom it is his primary job.

Some really good observations, and well worth reading the entire article.

Video in the Newsroom & The Importance of Thinking Cross-Platform

Interesting article about video in the newsroom from TheDeal: The Times, Fortune, WSJ and others are allowing (or urging) reporters to file video reports on the same content as their columns.

David Pogue at the New York Times has been producing some amusing video that are worth watching because they often provide additional or different details and insight that take advantage of video as a different means of telling the story. (There are a lot of reporters who post headshot-type interviews that are not much different from the traditional text/print articles they file.)

Some organizations now even film a part of their editorial decision process -- which is an interesting look at what's being raised and how the issues are being addressed. Some of the analysis, as TheDeal article points out -- like "why does (NY Times Executive Editor) Bill Keller wear that jacket?" -- may be a bit too much.

But these videos -- both the reporters retelling of their text articles and the view inside the editorial room -- are interesting for another reason for PR functions.

Namely, while not all reporters have the ability to be creative the way Pogue does, they are exploring new ways to gather and tell stories across different media.

Right now, a lot of companies are not doing that, but stand to learn a lesson. It adds a layer of cost and stress, but I think more companies should be telling their stories not just with text-based press releases and should be embracing multimedia. I know some companies are doing so, including some of our clients, but not enough are thinking cross-platform.

It's not enough to think about integrated communications. It's critical to think cross-platform communications, too. And organizations have to realize that it may take a while before they understand how to best embrace a cross-platform approach. But if they don't start now, they'll be late to the party, and less effective for not embracing a cross-platform approach.

Walt Mossberg, David Pogue & the State of Consumer Tech Reviews

Providing consumer technology reviews is a difficult job.

I say this not to suck up to consumer tech reviewers, but to acknowledge that they really do face significant challenges that include:

• Conducting daily triage on products that are relevant to consumers. There's a lot of new gadgets and technology, especially around Christmas and CES, and most of them may be worthy while still not worthy of reviewing.
  
• They have to sort through claims that products are "revolutionary," "paradigm-shifting," etc. when perhaps they're not all that.
• If the technology is truly revolutionary, it may be of interest only to very early adopters, not mainstream consumers. (In 1975, the Altair 8800 was the first microcomputer -- but the PC didn't catch on until years later.)
• They have to translate geeky features and terminology that only engineers care about into language that consumers can understand.
  
• There are a lot of cross-over products that work for consumers and small businesses, but most consumer tech reviewers really only look at consumer technology -- which doesn't stop publicists handling SMB technology to call and complain to them.
• There's a lot of useful technology out there, like utility software. But reviews of utility software don't sell papers like reviews of the latest mega-pixel camera, smartphone, etc. -- which doesn't stop publicists handling utility software to call and complain to them.
• They get advanced look at buggy software, gadgets with glitches, etc. You know how frustrating it is when your own technology doesn't work as advertised. These folks are on the front line for that, so think how frustrating their jobs can be -- though, of course, when they have a problem, they get priority tech support from the company.
  

Point made? A difficult job.

Recently, there's been talk about the New York Times' David Pogue and potential conflicts of interest. As a long-time reader of Pogue's column and email newsletter, I think he's a pretty straight shooter. But I think he should do a better job of disclosing potential conflicts of interest. His credibility is important for the success of his column, which is important for all his side endeavors. There's no reason he'd jeopardize the credibility of his Times column, but, again, better disclosure would help.

The latest contretemps involves Walt Mossberg and his review of Windows 7. The complaint: that Mossberg wrote a glowing review of the now-reviled Vista, and used almost verbatim copy to describe Window 7. (Check out the complaint here.)

Seems to me some of the problems Pogue had also entailed his reviews of Win 7 and also of Snow Leopard, Apple's operating system. I know operating systems are important -- it's the reason I've waited to replace my aging computer until Win7 became available, and didn't replace it earlier in the year when I should have but would have had to deal with Vista. So maybe that's the problem: people take operating systems very seriously, and are therefore much more critical of reviewers who praise faulty OSes.

On the other hand, I say, give Mossberg and Pogue a break. There used to be lots of tech reviewers out there, every paper had at least one for a while. Now there are far fewer of them. So ask them to make more disclosures and to voluntarily follow the same rules the FTC will be applying Dec. 1 to bloggers in terms of receiving free products, and let's move on.

Bloggers Need to Disclose Payment or Receipt of Free Products

The FTC is mandating an important change for bloggers. Starting Dec. 1, bloggers will have to disclose if they received free products or payment or other considerations from advertisers. The FTC will also be looking at celebrities plugging products or services on talk shows and on social media platforms like Twitter.

There are some who don't like the rule change. Their arguement is that giving free product to a blogger doesn't mean you control what the blogger posts (as is the case with advertising or paying a spokesperson).

That's certainly a valid point: you can't control what bloggers will post. Just as you can't control what a reporter will say.

However, I think it's a good idea for bloggers to disclose their policies. Walt Mossberg of the Wall St. Journal does. I think it be helpful for readers to understand the nature of the relationship.

That's been a recent issue with New York Times' David Pogue, who in addition to his weekly column, also writes books and lectures on the side about some of the same topics/items he reviews.

I think companies should be able to distribute free copies to enable reporters, reviewers and bloggers to review their software. But I also think it a good idea for them to disclose that they've gotten these products for free -- and what they do afterwards. Credibility (or transparency) is important, and this will help everyone involved.

For example, Mossberg discloses that he deletes software he hasn't paid for or pays for it if he wants to keep it. Either way, at the level of a Mossberg or Pogue, free software is not going to influence how they cover a product. It shouldn't for bloggers, either. Now as consumers, we will have a better idea, too.

As marketers, we've told clients to be wary of bloggers who don't disclose the receipt of free product. Again, this shoudl enhance the credibilty of what otherwise might seem like the Wild West.

Good Article by David Pogue on Twitter

Check out "Twitter? It’s What You Make It" by the New York Times' David Pogue.

Here are some tips:

• YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ ALL THE TWEETS It’s common to check out someone’s Twitter profile and read, “Following: 900 people.” Baloney. Nobody has the time to read all the tweets from more than about 30 people — at least, nobody with a life.

• IF YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT REPLYING, YOU’RE NOT ALONE If you reply to one of my tweets, I can write back in either of two ways. I can reply as another public tweet, but of course nobody but you will have any idea what I’m talking about. (“@puppydog: Maybe in Montana!!! LOL”).

  Or I can send you a private Direct Message — but then our dialogue may end. You can’t reply to my Direct Message unless I’m also following you (it’s an antispam measure, according to Twitter). Get it? Me either. Twitter Inc. says it’s working on fixing this and a host of other confusing elements.

Broadcast Media Will Continue to See Significant Changes in 2009

Niche is the new normal, especially for broadcast. Due to the proliferation of social media sites, people are more likely to subscribe or search for news and information specifically targeting their interests. As Portfolio magazine says: “There's something for everyone, but nothing for everyone.” This will make it difficult for marketers to reach broad audiences, with only a few events each year – like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards – that reach across demographics and interest groups. In fact, that’s why Birnbach Communications predict that Jan. 20th will be the single biggest media event this year – everyone will cover the Obama inauguration.

Increasingly, people will access TV shows with their computers as opposed to watching the shows when they air. For example, there were 1.4 million viewers of the Couric-Palin interview on YouTube and more than 4 million of the SNL skit – that’s the power of YouTube and Hulu.com. NY Times’ David Pogue already suggested consumers could save money by disconnecting cable, and logging onto the Internet instead to get network feeds and local news coverage.

Local cable/TV operators will have a bumpy road because of a significant double whammy: Both advertisers and viewers are fleeing. Local broadcasters will need to find a way to cut costs – which means more layoffs – while stemming the tide of departing viewers. One way may be to follow the lead of NBC, which realized that airing the new Jay Leno show five nights a week at 10pm is cheaper than airing five original 60-minute dramas (even with Jay’s $30 million salary). Local TV may find that whatever time they have can be best/inexpensively filled by talk shows.