DNA2008: The last post (for today)

So after a day of being told what video on the web isn’t and how journalism isn’t ready. I think I’m hearing two ways of looking at this.

  • Video is an internal strategic solution. It allows broader coverage in a dis-aggregated media world
  • Video is a way to enhance your storytelling to engage with your audience who attract advertising.

If I was playing devils advocate then I would say that the rub is both of those have difficult ‘return on investment’ issues.

If you take option one then you will find the time it takes to get people up to speed and producing, re-org your newsroom and put technology in place is woefully out of step with your shareholders ROI expectations.

If you take option two then the time it takes it takes to get people up to speed and producing, re-org your newsroom and put technology in place, sell ads and then educate your audience to it’s presence so they give you the clicks is woefully out of step with your shareholders ROI expectations.

A bit of pickle that one.

Sitting in a room of senior managers it’s clear that a lot of people are looking for an answer to number one. Some, thank God, see theme two as an issue. But no one is talking about the in between.

The people who inhabit this in between are the journalists and the audience. In the terms I’ve heard today, assets to be deployed. I’ve heard lots of talk of expectation but little of training. Lots of stuff about pull rather than push but little about engagement.

Still. There is tomorrow to come.

4 Replies to “DNA2008: The last post (for today)”

  1. Great post and thanks for covering the summit so thoroughly. I enjoy your skeptical lens . . .

    The training issue is not to sniffed at, but the way I look at it, #1 is the argument that proves that #2 is the right approach. If there is indeed new talent and resources being funneled to new media, then why shouldn’t newspapers run, no sprint towards a future where video is used to enhance storytelling and thereby build engagement.

    Not all technologies are to be embraced right away. Consider the use of twitter service as a news-breaking device. Interesting ? Perhaps . . . but there are so many holes that you can drive a lorry through that seem to warrant a more toe-dipping approach.

    Looking forward to the rest of your coverage.

  2. Rich, Thanks.

    I agree there is no reason at all why newspapers shouldn’t head towards video as part of a content strategy. I think that’s running in the right direction. The danger is that you set out running and leave people behind.

    In this case it could be said (and this is my cynical, devils advocate view) that those doing all the running are not the people who will be ‘doing it’ or ‘using it’.

    When a number of people on panels can dismiss the disruptive nature (and value) of some of the content on the web as not scalable to large organisations then you can’t help thinking that, right now, it’s all about approach one

  3. Very true . . . and I agree that it must be part of a larger strategy. I would be interested to find out if the talka t DNA is about pushing content out further on the Web or holding back the best stuff on your destination site.

    I’m clearly biased towards the former, believing that content proliferation is where the answer lies (within limits). I just saw a note about the NYT where their traffic from Google has doubled since they set their content free

Leave a Reply