Ron Nurwisah, Boy Reporter

My co-worker Adam McDowell has decided to try out the caveman diet and blog about it.

He will not be chasing down woolly mammoths and grappling with sabretooth tigers. They’re not very common in downtown Toronto. I blame climate change.

From his caveman blog:

Starting Wednesday I’m undertaking a one-month experiment in adding aspects of a paleolithic man’s daily round into my 21st-century urban existence. I want to see how far I can travel in the footsteps of our Stone Age hunter-gatherer ancestors — at least in terms of the way I eat and keep fit — while making a living as a writer for theNational Post, a daily Canadian newspaper based in Toronto.

Photo from Adam’s caveman blog.

Earlier this week I read this synopsis of a Columbia Journalism Review study on magazines and their online presence. It doesn’t look good.

Magazine publishers and editors know that the web is important. They’re losing readers and attention to blogs, social media and probably even chatroulette. But instead of getting smart, adapting, changing and putting out a great product online most magazines limp along and still don’t get it. A few reasons why:

1) They’re still not finding the right people

Most websites were staffed by people who primarily worked on the print editions, and less than a quarter of staff  [ed. I think she means a third, here] were hired with web experience (29 per cent).

Hiring people with web experience probably isn’t the easiest thing to do. Many publishing and journalism programs aren’t too sure how to teach these skills and they change so fast that what you learn might be out of  date by the time you graduate.

But not hiring dedicated web staff is just foolish. Downloading extra web responsibilities to staffers who can’t dedicate their attention to it, or see it as a second priority, because undoubtedly the print product always comes first, will mean an inferior product.

2) More traffic equals more revenue

The study points out that most sites are still making cash off ads so it’s pretty easy to see why the sites with more traffic are the ones that are likely profitable.

And if advertising (and traffic) is the lifeblood of your site it makes these next facts particularly gobsmacking.

Roughly half of magazines surveyed use metrics to guide content decisions (47 per cent), but only 8 per cent closely monitor and rely on them.

Less than half use traffic statistics (43 per cent), and those that do so regularly for content decisions are significantly more likely to be profitable.

Eight per cent! If magazines paid this little attention to print circulation and market patterns they’d be out of business a long time ago. This isn’t an inability to adapt, this is just neglect pure and simple.

Update: Here’s Wired’s presentation at SXSW on their iPad app prototype. Mediaite rounds up some reactions to it too.

Wired rocks audience at SXSW with iPad demo from Mangrove on Vimeo.

—

UBC journalism professor Alfred Hermida pointed me to Bonnier and BERG’s amazing  concept video of how the iPad (or other tablet devices) could work.

The Guardian’s Mercedes Bunz also pulls together a few more.

I thought I’d round-up the ones that have been floating around the internet for the last few months and give my brief take on some of them. I’ve focused on magazines and included a few more general demo videos. But the possibilities for things such as gaming, social networking, etc. are mindboggling.

Bonnier, BERG’s Mags+

Apple’s iPad commercial

Adobe and Wired

(more…)

In the last few months I came to the realization that I’ve gone from being a veteran intern to the guy who’s actually in charge of working with them. I’ve also talked to a number of my friends in media and publishing who are in similar situations.

So while these things are still fresh in my mind, I’m going to write a few quick hints and tips for those who are interning. These aren’t hard rules, internships can vary greatly from place to place, but follow most of these and you can make the most of even a bad internship.

1) Don’t say no to work

Yes, I know it’s an unpaid internship. Yes, I know you came to learn about how a newspaper, magazine or publishing house works and it looks oh, so glamourous on TV and in the movies, but most of the time it isn’t.

There’s stuff that needs to get done, listings need to be typed up and checked, packages need to be mailed out, mailing lists needs to be updated. Suck it up and do it. And when you’re done ask for more. Don’t huff, don’t roll your eyes and complain. Almost every editor and writer would’ve had to do this at some time and they’ll tell you that they remember the interns who don’t want to work or think it’s beneath them.

2) Do your work fast, do it well

Internships are tryouts. Do your best work at everything, even if it’s something as tiny as checking facts or writing a 200-word sidebar, or mailing out packages. We notice stand-out work. Do it fast. There’s always more work around the corner. Do both of these things and we’ll love you forever.

3) Think, think, think

Dissect the publication you’re working at. Look at what they do and if you think you’ve got a better idea, don’t be afraid to mention it. Many times, publications get in a rut because of familiarity AND because tired editors just don’t have time to do things a different way. Showing that you’re thinking critically about a publication gets noticed.

4) Look at the competition

Read other papers, other magazines and blogs. See what great ideas other places have? Is there any way you can ‘steal’ some of these ideas? Showing initiative and interest is appreciated. There’s tons to read and check out and having a keen pair of eyes scouring for good stuff is always appreciated in any newsroom.

5) Don’t be afraid to ask questions

Don’t know how to do something? Ask for help. Editors often forget that interns don’t actually know how to work on the obscure content management system in the newsroom or the arcana that is the office media list. Forgive our addled brains.

Sometimes we’re also really shitty at giving directions, so it never hurts to ask for direction.

In a few days, for the sake of fairness, I’ll post rules for editors who are managing interns

One of my favourite things on the Atlantic’s exhausting blogs is the Media Diet column. The magazine asks some of their favourite writers what papers, blogs, magazines, etc. they read.

There are a lot of writers here I admire, Susan Orlean admits to being a newspaper, magazine and NPR junkie and apparently can’t go anywhere without her iPhone.

Sports/economics writer Michael Lewis apparently doesn’t like Twitter but really likes ESPN.

Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates really likes his blogs, which isn’t surprising because it’s what he does for a living.

And seeing how the Atlantic isn’t going to ask me what my media diet is anytime soon I’ll just have to tell you.

—

I usually start my day on the subway, so it’s usually a podcast that’s on:  This American Life, Radiolab and the BBC’s amazing History of the World in 100 Objects are currently on heavy rotation. When I get above ground I do a quick check of various news sites and my twitter feed to get a 15-20 jump on the news.

When I get to work I scan the National Post in print to look for anything that deserves better play on our website. Then I scan our competition, the Globe, the Star and the CBC, again to see if we overlooked anything. I’ll hit the New York Times, CNN and the BBC to get the pulse on world news.

I’ll admit news aggregators have made my job a lot easier: Newser, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post are some of the ones I check out a few times a day. When I want to procrastinate, so basically three or four times a day, I try to make a dent in my Google Reader. Sisyphean does not even begin to describe that task. If you’re interested, some of the things that catch my eye are highlighted on the right. For more frenetic procrastination, I check my twitter feed, which has an obscene number of media sources on it.

I do actually still like print products (books and magazines in particular) and I do look forward to the day my issue of the New Yorker, Esquire and the Walrus arrive. And my apartment is full of books, there’s usually about 3-4 on the go at any time, you can see what I’m reading on the right hand side as well.

If you’re wondering how I get anything else other than reading done during the day? I wonder that myself.

I’ve written about the iPad (we called it the “tablet” just a few short months ago) a few times but with the fabled device now really just around the corner (it’s scheduled to ship in April) and big names promising content for the platform and rolling out fancy demos and videos (Wired’s concept is above). It’s really time for publishers to really think about what to do with Apple’s iPad.

Martin Langeveld has a must-read post on what publishers need to consider when plotting their iPad strategies. A few key points that jumped out at me:

1) the iPad isn’t just a big iPhone

It looks like a big iPhone, it might even function like a big iPhone, but its size and power means we’ll interact with it in very different ways. Case in point, shopping:

iPad will showcase merchandise and services far better than smartphones, and iPad will claim more leisure time than deskbound computers or smartphones. Consumers with iPads will be connected to the Web in far more places, with far more engagement (relative to smartphones), presenting far more opportunities for direct marketing and sales than any previous interface.

2) It will further devastate some types of print advertising (see this earlier article from the Daily Beast)

Direct mail barons your days are numbered (good riddance). Those weekly flyers that fall out of your Saturday paper? Kiss them goodbye. The latter would be very bad for newspapers that have already seen ads gutted by the internet and the economy.

3) Think fast

No one is really sure how this whole iPad thing will shake out. So don’t get wedded to one single strategy. Think fox not hedgehog.

Obviously magazine companies aren’t doing that badly considering five very big ones, Conde Nast, Meredith, Hearst, Wenner Inc, Time, all have $90-million lying around to spend it on advertising why their print products are so fantastic and you should totally stop reading blogs and websites and all that online crap to read precious, precious magazines.

I’m going to repeat that figure again. $90-million. For print ads. This is after one of the big five (Conde Nast) had their belts forcibly tightened by McKinsey, shut down a bunch of titles, including the beloved Gourmet. I am sure those laid off staffers totally appreciate this responsible use of funds.

The ads are appearing in around 100 publications in print. Which to me is preaching to the converted at its finest. Why not take that cash and spend it on improving your websites. I’m looking at you Hearst, Esquire deserves better. Or at least spend that cash online, where apparently all of those readers have buggered off too (which apparently they haven’t).

I agree with paidcontent.org’s Rafat Ali here. This is a $90-million middle finger to the online teams at these publications.

Oh, well. Here’s their chipper little video.

Kat Tancock, who writes the useful Magazines Online blog, wrote this brief post about the care and attention of your web staff.

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the latest CSME mixer at Bar Italia, with speakers from Homemakers, Today’s Parent and The Hockey News. One of the best takeaways was from Jackie Kovacs, deputy editor of Today’s Parent. And it was a simple one: “Love your webbies”.

Kovacs’ analogy? “Your website is like your Quebec. It’s part of the family, but distinct.” A fun analogy, and an apt one.

It’s a huge topic and seeing how Kat and I are in similar situations I thought I’d throw in my two cents. It’s five points, so lets call it a nickel. (more…)

I’ve liked many of Chris Jones’ features in Esquire but his profile on Roger Ebert in this month’s Esquire is one of the best profiles I’ve read in a long time.

Here’s the start of the piece:

For the 281st time in the last ten months Roger Ebert is sitting down to watch a movie in the Lake Street Screening Room, on the sixteenth floor of what used to pass for a skyscraper in the Loop. Ebert’s been coming to it for nearly thirty years, along with the rest of Chicago’s increasingly venerable collection of movie critics. More than a dozen of them are here this afternoon, sitting together in the dark. Some of them look as though they plan on camping out, with their coats, blankets, lunches, and laptops spread out on the seats around them.

The critics might watch three or four movies in a single day, and they have rules and rituals along with their lunches to make it through. The small, fabric-walled room has forty-nine purple seats in it; Ebert always occupies the aisle seat in the last row, closest to the door. His wife, Chaz, in her capacity as vice-president of the Ebert Company, sits two seats over, closer to the middle, next to a little table. She’s sitting there now, drinking from a tall paper cup. Michael Phillips, Ebert’s bearded, bespectacled replacement on At the Movies, is on the other side of the room, one row down. The guy who used to write under the name Capone for Ain’t It Cool News leans against the far wall. Jonathan Rosenbaum and Peter Sobczynski, dressed in black, are down front.

“Too close for me,” Ebert writes in his small spiral notebook.

Read the rest on Esquire’s website

What follows is a revealing, emotional and powerful account of a great critic and journalist battling with his body. Ebert is courageous and strong and an example of living with cancer and Jones is a great writer for getting this across.

Ebert responds to Jones on his blog.

It was an inexplicable instinct that led me to agree when Chris Jones contacted me requesting an interview. The idea of Esquire appealed to me. I did a bunch of interviews for them in the 1970s, when it was the crucible of the New Journalism.

What goes around, comes around. I’d read some of Chris’s stuff. He’s good. You sense the person there. He’s not holding his subjects at arm’s length. I knew I’d have to play fair. I’ve done interviews for years. This was no time to get sensitive and ask for photo approval, or an advance look at the piece. I’d been the goose, and now it was my turn to be the gander. I’ve never known what that means, geese-wise.

Jones talks about the writing of the piece for About.com

“You’re writing about a great writer, and I was terribly self-conscious about that,” Jones says in a phone interview. And then the Canadian comes up with the analogy he’s looking for: “The idea of him reading my stuff - it’s like having Wayne Gretzky watch you skate.”

Earlier this week The New York Times finally announced its plan for a paywall starting in 2011. There really aren’t any surprises and I rounded-up some of the rumours earlier. But the announcement has rekindled the commentary and punditry about the Times paywall.

From the horse’s mouth

Starting in January 2011, a visitor to NYTimes.com will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge.

Executives of The New York Times Company said they wanted to create a system that would have little effect on the millions of occasional visitors to the site, while trying to cash in on the loyalty of more devoted readers. But fundamental features of the plan have not yet been decided, including how much the paper will charge for online subscriptions or how many articles a reader will be allowed to see without paying.

Times media columnist David Carr tries to explain his bosses’ decision and there are some interesting points that I’ll pull out below:

1. The paywall is a flexible tool. The NYT will be able to dial up or down the amount of free articles, charge more or less for online subs.

By building a metered system, the executives have installed a dial on the huge, heaving content machine of The New York Times. Access can be gradually ramped up or down depending on macro trends in the market. Given the dynamic state of the advertising business and how quickly things change on the Web, not so dumb when you think about it.

2. What works for a big brand like the Times might not work for a small paper.

People will assign all manner of broader meaning to The Times’s approach, but The New York Times – like The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, which also charge for content – is very much a unique business and consumer proposition. What might work for The New York Times probably won’t work for a regional daily. There will be a lot of speculation on price – The Times is, in part, defining what a digital newspaper is worth – but that number is far less important than habituating a certain kind of consumer to the idea that conveniently accessing certain kinds of content is worth money.

3. Being the middleman is GOLD.

One of the biggest lessons of Web 2.0 is that the company that controls the relationship with consumers is the one that owns the future. It would have been much more expedient to partner with Amazon or iTunes, because they already have the machinery in place and own the credit cards of millions of consumers. But in the long run, they would have controlled and benefited from the relationship far more than The Times.

The more mathematically minded should read Felix Salmon’s post on the numbers behind the paywall.

From the post:

The way that it seems the NYT paywall is going to work, visitors to nytimes.com will have a free allowance of n articles per month. To read the n+1th article, they will have to pay a subscription fee F. After that, they can read as many articles as they like for the rest of the month.

If a visitor to nytimes.com normally reads N articles per month, then the key number in their mind will be N-n. If reading that number of articles is worth more to them than F, they’ll pay the fee. If on the other hand N-n is small, or perceived value-per-article is small, then they won’t pay. Specifically, if the average value to the reader of any given article is v, then they’ll pay the fee when v(N-n)>F.

Across the pond the Daily Telegraph weighs in on the paywall question and says that it likely won’t work, simply because there are too many ways to get around it.

Ken Doctor over at his blog Content Bridges tries to answer nine questions about the Times’ strategy.

And the good people at the Nieman Lab, who are paid to think about this stuff all the time, have an amazing roundup of talk about the Times. Happy reading.