My advice to German media

I have an op-ed in today’s Welt Kompakt newspaper in Germany giving my advice to a German mediasphere that I see becoming more protectionist. It’s not online (ironically) but so you can see the play, a PDF of it is here and here. [Update: Here's the piece online.] This is my original English text:

* * *

At the Müncher Medientage, I spoke to 500 German executives from my home in New York and dared to give them some advice about their fate. I urged them to learn these lessons from watching American news companies shrivel and die: Protectionism is no strategy for the future. Every company in every industry (especially media) must be reinvented for the post-Guttenberg age—for the Google era. And the only sane response to change is to embrace it and find the opportunity in it.

I have been impressed with the innovation and openness to change I have seen in German media: Axel Springer shifted a large proportion of its revenue to digital; Bild equipped Germans with video cameras to report news; Burda invested in the networks Glam.com and Science Blogs; Holtzbrinck innovated in its incubator; WAZ created a world pioneer in DerWesten.

But when the times got tough in the financial crisis, I suddenly saw German media looking for an enemy to blame for their problems. The head of the Deutscher Journalisten-Verband called for legislation to condemn Google as a monopoly, an enemy of the press. Dr. Hubert Burda, a digital visionary I greatly admire, urged that copyright law should be expanded to protect publishers, whom he said deserve a share of search engines’ revenue. Chancellor Merkel is considering such changes in copyright. A group of publishers issued the Hamburg Declaration saying that all online content need not be free (though that has always been completely in their control).

Schade. In these pronouncements, I hear echoes of American media’s funeral hymns. I see companies resisting the new reality of the internet age by trying to preserve the old rules of their old industry. Take, for example, Rupert Murdoch vowing to put all his news properties behind pay walls just because that’s how media used to operate—when that will only reduce audience, traffic, influence, and advertising just at the moment when growth is needed most. He is even threatened to block Google. That is simply suicidal.

Though I sympathize with media’s economic nostalgia, I must say that swimming upstream against the internet is futile. The better idea is to go with the flow of the internet, to see and exploit its opportunities.

Rather than fighting Google, learn lessons from it. Google understands the new economics of media. That is why it is successful—not because it exploits old media companies. Those old companies still operate in the content economy, begun 570 years by Guttenberg, in which the owner of content profited by selling multiple copies. Online, there needs to be only one copy of content and it is the links to it that bring it value. Content without links has no value. So when search engines, aggregators, bloggers, and Twitterers link to content, they are not stealing; they are giving the gift of attention and audience. Indeed, publishers should be grateful that Google does not charge them for the value of its links.

This link economy brings three imperatives for publishers. First, it requires them to make their content public if they want to be found. That is their choice, but if they retreat behind pay walls, hidden from search and links, they will not be discovered and they only create opportunities for new, free competitors. Second, the link economy demands specialization: Do what you do best and link to the rest. This specialization also brings a new efficiency that can make publishers more profitable. Third, in the link economy, it is the recipient of links who must exploit their value. That is still the publisher’s job.

Google has earned an estimated 30 percent of online ad revenue because it serves advertisers differently—and better. Here, too, Google understands a new economy, one based on abundance rather than scarcity. Publishers, even online, still sell scarcity as if the internet were print: only so many ad positions for so many eyeballs—what the market will bear. Google instead charges for clicks; it sells performance. Thus Google takes a share of the risk and that is what motivates it to place advertising all over the internet, to create more relevant positions for ads that will perform better for both the marketer and Google. That is why advertising has shifted to Google—not because it is enemy of the media but because advertisers prefer it. We call that competition.

The most important lesson to learn from Google is that it grew huge not by trying to acquire and control content on the internet, as publishers do. Google doesn’t want to own the internet, only to organize it. So Google created a platform that enables others to succeed with technology, content, promotion, and advertising revenue. That is Glam’s model, too, creating networks of hundreds of independent sites and then helping them succeed. I believe that platforms and networks will form the basis of the future of media—and much of the next economy.

At the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism, where I teach, I am running the New Business Models for News Project, envisioning a profitable future for news if regional newspapers covering cities die. Though national news brands—whether this publication or the Guardian or The New York Times—have a future, regional newspapers across America and Europe are in trouble and some will die. Yet I am confident that journalism in those cities will not die, because there is a market demand for news, which we believe the market can meet.

We believe that news will emerge from ecosystems made up of many players—journalists, citizen journalists, citizen salespeople, volunteers, technologists—operating under different motives and means. Today, in America, we see hyperlocal bloggers earning $100-200,000 a year in advertising; these are real businesses. We see an opportunity to help them make more money by creating local, regional, and national advertising networks. We see the opportunity for a new newsroom to continue beat and investigative reporting and to work collaboratively with these networks. Without the cost of print and distribution, these new news organizations become smaller but profitable.

If you are trying to protect old jobs in old structures of old companies in old industries, then you might see my vision of the future as a threat. But if you embrace change and innovation, then you will see opportunities to reimagine and remake journalism, to find new ways to gather and share news collaboratively, supported by new revenue, reaching profitability thanks to new efficiencies.

Publishers will not get to that bright future by urging government to protect them from innovators and competitors. No, if we want anything from government, it should be universal broadband to encourage society’s migration to a digital economy, and a lack of regulation to assure a level playing field for innovation.

I hope that once the desperation of the current economic crisis subsides, my German media friends will not try to retreat to their old models but will instead continue to invent new ways and to again become leaders in innovation. That is the only sensible path to survival and success.

LATER: I should add disclosures that are also on my disclosures page. I was paid to come speak to editors at Axel Springer (publishers of Welt Kompakt), Burda (I’ve also spoken for their DLD conference), and Holtzbrinck.

  • http://realvirtuality.wordpress.com Alex

    Jeff, thanks once again for hammering home your opinion, which I believe is correct. I hope people here in Germany will finally read the writing on the wall. However, while we do live in the post-Gutenberg age (Inventor of movable type), we don’t yet live in the post-Guttenberg age (German Minister of Defense) – unfortunately. ;)

    • http://www.rusteberg.de Martin Rusteberg

      @alex: hahaha, yeah, too true

      let’s hope that German media will be able to successfully embrace online media and be more of a leader then the current community of mere followers (although jeff writes that derwesten.com is innovative…)

  • Pingback: Jarvis and German Media « Wir sprechen Online.

  • Pingback: Journalismus im Internet: Streitgespräch zwischen Dr. Mathias Döpfner und Arianna Huffington | Leander Wattig

  • Pingback: Bookmarks for November 12th through November 13th « LostFocus

  • http://ajamesediting.com Amber James

    Hi Jeff,

    Excellent post. Very relevant and very well argued. As a copywriter and essayist, I appreciate your prose and the organization of your argument.

    While it would appear that Google is gaining more and more control of the Web, it is increasing its offering of tools to surfers and business solutions for businesses. Fighting giants is a bad idea, especially when they’re trying to help you.

    Thanks for the informative read,
    Amber

  • Rob Levine

    >>>I have been impressed with the innovation and openness to change I have seen in German media: Axel Springer shifted a large proportion of its revenue to digital; Bild equipped Germans with video cameras to report news; Burda invested in the networks Glam.com and Science Blogs; Holtzbrinck innovated in its incubator; WAZ created a world pioneer in DerWesten.

    To offer readers a more complete perspective on this issue, you should really point out that Springer, Holtzbrinck, _and_ Burda are all petitioning the German government for stronger copyright protections. Why don’t you include this information?

    • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

      rob, read the piece. i talk about huburt burda asking for that and angela merkel answering.

      • Rob Levine

        I did read the story. But you should mention that, besides Burda, Springer and Holtzbrinck are _also_ asking the German government for expanded copy protection. When you praise these companies for acting according to the WWGD gospel, you should also mention their heretical acts.

        • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

          I give up. I said it not in the same paragraph but in the same story.

  • Pingback: Medial Digital – Medien, digitale Medien, Medienwandel, Journalismus, Internet, soziales Internet, Social Web, Web 2.0» Neu Zeitungszukunft » Was Jeff Jarvis schreibt – und was “Die Welt” daraus macht

  • http://www.themediamanager.com Kirk LaPointe

    Jeff:
    You missed your opportunity to shout out: Ms. Merkel, bring down this wall.

    • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

      heh

  • Holger Zscheyge

    Jeff,

    that’s all nice to read – “Embrace the future”, “Go with the flow”, etc. But preaching is one thing, acting according to the gospel is another. Be an example yourself, show those dimwitted publishers the light! Well, you are a professor at CUNY, right? Instead of getting paid by the university, put all your lectures online (shouldn’t be that hard). Your friends at Google will link to it, so that everybody will find your content and see it. Google will put some ads around the links to your content, so they do not starve (they know how to monetize links). Now, you will be paid royally by, oh well, the viewers of your free content, I suppose. OK, false start. Take your excellent book (that one with the old technology, ink on paper, I bought; brrr, I still feel good old Gutenberg breathing at my neck). Where is that site http://www.whatwouldgoogledo.com, where Jeff Jarvis puts his content up for free? Again, Google will certainly link to it, combined with lot’s of ads. And you will probably become rich beyond imagination by donations, Google Ads revenue or whatever splendid business model for the link economy you choose. See, it’s that easy. Never understood why Murdoch doesn’t get it. Don’t be afraid, it’s the future. If your family will be upset about daddy loosing all his income, let them read “What would Google do?”.

    Disclosure: I am a publisher myself (not a newspaper publisher, though). But you figured that out already, I guess ;)).

    • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

      I put all my ideas out right here on my blog. That’s what led to the book.

  • http://hemartin.blogspot.com Hugo E. Martin

    Jeff, there are quite some differences between your advice to German Media in English (as you published it here) and the op-ed published in Welt Kompakt in German. Did Springer ask you to change it?

    P.S.
    Ulrike Langer points to some changes and omissions at
    http://medialdigital.de/2009/11/13/was-jeff-jarvis-schreibt-und-was-die-welt-daraus-macht/

  • Pingback: RaheBlog » Blog Archive » Jeff Jarvis im Springer-Verlag.

  • Pingback: Die 7 WWMAG-Surftipps zum Wochenende 47/2009

  • Pingback: links for 2009-11-14 – synapsenschnappsen

  • Pingback: Frank Schmiechen, Welt Kompakt: Glaubwürdigkeit dahin in 555 Zeichen » hogenkamp.com

  • http://www.you-brand.de Achim Muellers

    As a participant of the Medientage Muenchen I agree with you 100%. It was obvious that many of the old media executives claim to support progress whilst resisting change at the same time, but that just doesn’t work.

    The old media business model basically consists of renting the readers/viewers to the advertisers. Did the readers/viewers ever get a share of the advertising revenues? Of course not. Would there have been any advertising revenues without readers/viewers? Of course not. One more reason why it is rather hypocritical to ask for a share of search engines revenues.

  • Pingback: Jeff Jarvis im Springer-Verlag. « RaheBlog

  • Pingback: niiu – ein neuer Anlauf zur Lösung der Zeitungskrise? - Susuh-Blog

  • Pingback: Wo Jarvis irrt - oder: What would Apple do? | gutjahr's blog