Guardian column: Whither the destination (and brand)?

My Guardian column this week looks at the implications of the death of TimesSelect (nonregistration version here). The bigger issue that keeps hitting me is that this indicates not just the death of pay content — and, good news, we hope, the strength of advertising — but I also think it tells us something about the strength of destinations . . . and perhaps brands. Snippet:

I think the loser could be the power of the media destination or portal – the notion that consumers should come to us and pay us for scarce information that we control. The death of TimesSelect is an affirmation of the new media reality that says the public will seek out our brands less and less and will detour around the front doors we design for them. Instead, they will arrive because of their own need (via search) or peers’ recommendations (via links). So we in media must open ourselves to the public in every way possible. Tearing down walls – pay, registration, archive, or just obtuse navigation – is only the start of it. I believe this also means finding more ways for our audiences to distribute us: we’ll widgetise. And I believe that we must think like Google and see ourselves as platforms on which others build that larger conversation.

At the Online Publishers Association confab in London last spring, Times Company strategic guru Martin Nisenholtz and I got into a theatrical tiff over my contention that we in media should all be asking WWGD (What would Google do) and getting ourselves distributed widely. Martin held that some brands are worth coming to. Is that still the case? Will it be for long? For how many? Clearly, this has big implications for media’s distribution and branding strategies. In a widgetized architecture, they need to figure out how to get their brands and value to stand out in search and links; they need to figure out how to maintain and prove the value of those brands, for Google commodifies everything. They are already beginning to redesign their products around this, opening up to search and links and rewriting pages for SEO and making friendly with linking bloggers. They also need to get their public to distribute them.

The death of TimesSelect is about more than just the death of paid content. It is a fulcrum point in the evolution of media architecture.

  • To get readers to promote and distribute its online content, the Times should give readers more voice by adding comments, uploadable news photos and more like CNN Exchange. Big brands are great, but the one-way flow doesn’t have much appeal any more. Instead of asking “what would Google do?” I’d recommend asking “what would Wikipedia do?”

  • Pingback: OnDemand Training()

  • Ydobon

    This blog is the only shoot of new growth off of the dying tree stump of old media.

    As for TimesSelect you’re right that it was doomed from the start. The NY Times was still right to make the attempt, if only to convince its own staffers.

    I’ve been reading the archives from Nov 2004. Great stuff, but trying to read the comments gets a 404 error.

  • Pingback: » Times are changing for print… Happy Dude: Online mutterings and insights…()

  • Steve

    I am almost embarrassed to tell this story, but it’s just too perfect.

    The night Times Select died, I realized I could stop my home subscription. Becuase the only reason we got the Sunday paper was the eligibility for Times Select. So I asked my wife how she felt about this.

    Her answer?

    The Sunday Times is the last paper of any volume that comes into our house and is our last bastion against the scourge of dog pee.

    Now that is a watershed moment in media architecture, when cleaning pee was the last reason you needed the paper.

    I wish I could slice uop this stiry with an anecdite about how Mikey our Shih Tzu perferes to opee on certain bylines. But while cute, that would be a lie. Mikey pees indioscrimately on The Times.

    I remain a dedicated reader. I’ll just have to come up with pee alternatives.

    Quite a week for Buzz Machine — from the butt ad to the pee.

  • Bravo, Jeff. Spot-on!

    We need to get out of the import business (attracting visitors to our site)

    We need to get into the export business (letting a thousand flowers bloom); it’s about providing the content without respect to the specific utility. Note what Google is doing with gadgets.

  • Jeff: Curious…. why are there no links in your Guardian column?

  • Jay,
    Because it’s just copied from the print and I had 2 minutes to get the post up. should have links but it’s one more step, one more minute…..

  • Pingback: Journalism Daily - Today’s Top Blog Posts on Journalism - Powered by SocialRank()

  • Pingback: How newspapers and broadcasters are different | Susan Crawford blog()