Categories
media economy

My on-going recommendation for best UK WordPress hosting

If you are looking for the most reliable WordPress hosting in the UK, with the best customer service, then based on my experience I have a strong recommendation for you.

For two years this site has been hosted by Fresh Sites. I moved to them in April 2013 after some very bad experiences with other companies. Four months after moving, I wrote in an August 2013 post about how good I had found Fresh Sites hosting to be.

I was recently asked on Twitter if my recommendation still held:

https://twitter.com/smartco/status/586118366508769281

I had no hesitation in responding:

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/586136105189253120

After @smartco followed my recommendation, I was delighted to see she was equally happy:

https://twitter.com/smartco/status/587556414232625152

This is why Fresh Sites remains my on-going recommendation. In the last year I’ve very much appreciated the way the keep on top of web developments affecting security and search, advising their customers of the need for SSL certificates and mobile responsiveness. They then offer assistance in putting those things in place. Earlier this year I needed a more bandwidth after some posts received unusually high attention, and although I was out of the country and could only email, the upgrade was done very quickly.

After being with Fresh Sites for a while I joined their affiliates programme, so if you click on the link to them and sign up I receive a small commission. This is the only commercial arrangement I’ve had in six years of writing online, and the proceeds help sustain the work I do here for free. Thank you for your support if you follow this recommendation. Based on my experience, you won’t be disappointed.

Categories
media economy

My recommendation for best UK WordPress hosting

wplogo-hoz-cmyk

Having your own patch of digital space is vital in the new media economy. While I have been involved in publishing web-based projects for the last 14 years, it was the discovery of WordPress in 2008, and the recognition it offered an easy way to be online, that revolutionised my work.

Your digital space needs to be stable, fast and well supported to function effectively. And that means you need good web host to provide peace of mind – especially, if like me, you don’t have sufficient technical skills to manage the hosting of your site personally. After some troubled times, I’ve finally found a web host I trust.

[For 2014/2015 updates to my recommendation see the links at the end of this post].

The dark ages

I’ve had some bad experiences with UK-based web hosts in recent years. In November 2011 this site was down for a month because of shockingly bad service from Fasthosts. A server upgrade they recommended went haywire, my site went off-line and a lot of content was lost despite having independent backups. I was left scrambling for help, but got no assistance: I couldn’t reach a live person, I was directed to online forums to see if other users had insights, and when that proved fruitless I received an email from them stating “we are unable to help any further”.

When you’ve paid for service, such a dismissive attitude does not go down well! Unsurprisingly my site was rebuilt on the server of a new host, Force 36. All seemed to go well until my site was the target of a spam attack in March this year. Security is a major issue given WordPress’s popularity – it runs 1 in 6 of all web sites on the Internet – and there are many ways to protect yours site, but you need a knowledgeable and understanding host to make that security possible. So it was very frustrating when my new host was more interested in shuttering my site and getting it off their servers than helping to defend and restore it. Another move had therefore become essential.

Finding a better home

My site is not a big operation on the web, but it is vital to me as the platform for my work. What I wanted above all else was a web host who understood that personal importance and offered timely support when problems came up. After extensive searching followed by phone calls to test customer service, I settled on Fresh Sites. I transferred my domain and took out a package costing only £40/year. The service I have received since then has been exceptional.

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/325230341507923970

The transition to Fresh Sites went very well, their SEO review was helpful, and the telephone guidance on how to increase site speed by reviewing plugins was illuminating (tip: install P3 – Plugin Performance Profiler to see load times). Unlike my previous hosts, they know WordPress inside out.

Their security guidance and support has helped the most. They have ten excellent tips to make your site more robust (as well as another suggestion for their clients), and they made the suggested code and file changes quickly and for no additional cost.

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/330594764833583104

Even when you have taken all precautions, it is speedy customer support that is most important, as I have twice found out, beginning in May:

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/339833862702112769

Yesterday my site came under a sustained botnet attack, of the kind that has been directed globally at WordPress sites over the past few months.

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/369451802938200066

When Fresh Sites couldn’t mitigate the attack by blocking the IP addresses of the hacked computers involved, they protected this site by temporarily suspending the account until the botnet had cleared. I was off-line for less than 12 hours and nothing was lost. My only reservation with this latest episode was that I would have appreciated being contacted shortly after the suspension was activated so I didn’t have to find out via a user. But once I was in touch with them I received instantaneous email and telephone support.

After four months of great service, and with my site running faster and better than ever, I’ve today joined the Fresh Sites affiliates programme. I’ve never recommended a commercial service before, but given the role Fresh Sites play in keeping my work online, they have my vote if you are looking for the best UK-based WordPress hosting.

UPDATE 14 October 2013

Happily Fresh Sites continue to offer great service. Yesterday I went online and found my site header had been hacked and the pages were full of random text. I was relieved to find all the security measures we had put in place protected the content.

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/389376695293444096

https://twitter.com/davidc7/status/389378428472135680

You can’t want for more than speedy customer service on a Sunday morning that sorts your problems. If they let me down I would let you know, but as the brilliant work continues they definitely have my wholehearted recommendation.

UPDATE 2 JUNE 2014

The best news from the last six months is that, despite all the daily attacks on WordPress sites around the world, all the security measures recommended by Fresh Sites have meant no more downtime because of hacks. It has been a period of smooth running, and I’ve set up other sites on Fresh Sites because of their continued excellence.

UPDATE 6 MAY 2015

After two happy years, Fresh Sites remain my on-going recommendation, as detailed in this new post.

Categories
media economy

Getting paid in the digital economy

Spring

Few topics are as potentially toxic as the question of how one gets paid for creative work in the digital economy.

This week has seen the latest round of recriminations on this topic following Nate Thayer’s posting of correspondence with The Atlantic, in which he was invited to edit a previously published 4,300 word article down to 1,200 words for no pay. Thayer’s post went viral, attracted more than 100,000 views on his blog, sparked widespread social media debate, and led to an apology from The Atlantic.

As someone who writes, lectures and produces freelance, I have a personal interest in these questions. I’m regularly asked to work for free. Only this week I was invited to present a new keynote lecture to the annual meeting of a European organisation, something that would have taken at least three days to prepare and required two days of travel, yet there was to be no recompense beyond the necessary economy flight and overnight hotel stay. Needless to say, in the absence of any other perceived benefits, this invitation was respectfully declined.

As much as examples like this invitation and Thayer’s experience invite a moralising response, we learn little about how the new media economy works through venting our disgust. Instead we need to probe deeper into what such moments reveal about the cultural economics of our current moment.

To that end, in repsonse to Thayer’s post, Reuters’ Felix Salmon detailed the new dynamics of online journalism, showing that while there are good digital journalism jobs available, overall the structure of publishing online means “the web is not a freelancer-friendly place.” Alexis Madrigal’s impassioned defense of The Atlantic editor’s perspective also revealed how an online operation differs from (often misplaced) assumptions about the good old days of print magazines. And paidContent’s Matthew Ingram spelt out how the almost infinite supply of quality writing available at no direct cost means few people are going to make a living directly by submitting work to traditional outlets.

This doesn’t mean that people don’t value good writing, or that there aren’t successful new publishing outlets, like Marco Arment’s The Magazine, which is digital only (and a testament to simple design), runs no ads, pays its contributors, and is already turning a handy profit.

What this latest debate shows is that in the context of infinite supply, creative practitioners will rarely be remunerated directly for their work, regardless of whether that work is in the form of words or images. Instead, as I’ve long argued, the dynamics of the new media economy means those of us working independently will have to be compensated indirectly from diverse sources. We all have bills to pay, but we may not get the money to do so from the words we write or the pictures we produce, but from value created around those words and/or pictures. Above all else, we have to forgo the easy moral outrage and develop a more sophisticated understanding of the role ‘free’ plays in relation to paid in a structurally open system like the internet. Creative experimentation is the order of the day. I know personally how hard this is, but it is now unavoidable.

Photo credit: Rebecca L. Daily/Flickr

Categories
media economy

The struggle for the open web: putting ‘piracy’ in perspective

The struggle for the open web is going to be a big issue in 2012. Given the importance of the internet to creative producers, its something we should be paying a lot of attention to. And that means, first up, thinking about the implications of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) currently before the US Congress.

Commenting on issues surrounding creative content, copyright and piracy on the web is fraught with danger. All too often the battle lines are starkly drawn, issues are cast in black and white terms, and people fight their corner with passion. I’m always trying to question such simplistic frames, but my sympathies clearly lie with those favouring openness. If you’ve followed earlier posts (see them via the ‘media economy’ tag) you will appreciate that. At the same time, a fair reader of those writings over the last couple of years will know that I want creative producers to be paid for their work, and for that work to be protected by a system of copyright that works in the digital age. Which is hardly surprising, because as a writer and producer working largely freelance, I too need to pay the bills through my labour.

So what is SOPA? There is good background on the provisions on Wikipedia, in a Guardian explainer or CNET’s excellent FAQ. In many ways it recalls aspects of the UK’s 2010 Digital Economy Act, which I questioned at its inception. The essence of SOPA is that piracy is killing America’s creative industries, and foreign “rogue” web sites that allow or encourage illegal downloading would be targeted with a court order, which US internet service providers would have to enforce by preventing their US subscribers from accessing such sites. According to CNET, this “could require Internet providers to monitor customers’ traffic and block Web sites suspected of copyright infringement,” something that could involve deep packet inspection or DNS blocking. Given that these are the means authoritarian regimes use to censor the web, this has led to the provocative claim that SOPA will install the “Great American Firewall.” Whether or not that is fair, some consequences are deeply worrying. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe has argued the act is unconstitutional because of its vague and sweeping provisions: “Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement.” If enacted, that provision would mean the blocking of Wikileaks and other currently legal sharing sites.

One of the things that troubles me about the drive for legislation like SOPA is the focus on piracy. I don’t doubt that unauthorised file sharing is a real issue and that we should find ways to limit it. What I doubt is that such downloading is “killing” the creative economy and that criminalising behaviour and restricting web access are the best means to combat it.

The language of the debate is part of the problem. In a fascinating doctoral study of legal metaphors and legacy mindsets, Stefan Lund has argued that even notions of “copy” and “theft” are ill-suited to the realities of the digital age. But if we don’t want to go that far, then consider the frame of a book such as Robert Levine’s Free Ride, which I’ve read over the holidays.[nbnote ]Robert Levine, Free Ride: How the Internet is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business can Fight Back (London: The Bodley Head, 2011).[/nbnote] Levine writes of “the internet” as an agent that has “ransacked” traditional media. He believes the fight between creators and copyright infringers is one of the main reasons for the culture business’s problems. Indeed he claims that “the illegal availability of all kinds of content has undermined the legal market for it.”[nbnote ]These quotes are from the “About” and “Introduction” sections, but as I read the Kindle version of his book, there are no page numbers to reference. [/nbnote]

Really? The legal market for all creative content has been totally undermined? While illegal download charts show millions of copies of movies are being ‘pirated’, the most downloaded movies are often those doing best at the box office. And with box office revenues totalling $10 billion per year in America, there isn’t much evidence for the idea the legal market for films is gone for good. Add to that – to repeat a link provided in my previous post on leveraging the web – the TorrentFreak experiment that demonstrated the switch of all US BitTorrent users to Netflix would generate $60 million/year, far short of the billions said to be lost to piracy, and I think we need to put the apocalyptic claims about morally reprehensible individuals destroying the creative economy in perspective.

For a final thought, listen to the award-winning, best-selling author Neil Gaiman speak of how the open web benefited his sales, and turned him from a “grumpy” hater of ‘pirates’ to an advocate of sharing:

Gaiman asks his audiences how they found out about their favourite authors – the authors they now buy regularly – and 90% or more reveal it was through books being lent to them. In its logic, the sharing of books amongst friends and through book clubs is similar to the unauthorised downloading of digital files. But we never think of this long established form of off-line sharing as an activity that should be criminalised (imagine Congress proposing book club members face up to five years in prison for passing on a novel!). Far from being a reason for lost sales, Gaiman sees sharing as the precondition of increasing sales. “Nobody who would have bought your book is not buying it because they can find it for free,” he states.

I think Gaiman’s experience is worth more than Levine’s argument. Of course, someone will now pop up and try to limit the implications of Gaiman’s story by saying something like ‘it’s fine for an established author to say this, but what about emerging writers without his reputation?’ They might be right in so far as they are talking about scale – that Gaiman’s return from openness will be higher because of his prior reputation.

But they will be wrong in so far as they are talking about the logic. As Gaiman says, his experience revealed to him “what the web was doing.” That function applies to all of us regardless of previously established reputations, and can be used to help create that reputation. So, for me, the best approach is one that works with the inherent logic of the open web to achieve the desired outcome, rather than fighting against its feared consequences. Too often an over-reaching focus on ‘piracy’ makes the latter the priority, which means we don’t get on with the developing the former.

Featured photo: NASA Goddard Photo and Video/Flickr

Categories
media economy photography

Photographic anxiety: should we worry about image abundance?

Should we be worried about image abundance in the contemporary world?

In recent weeks I have heard a number of affirmative answers to this question. At both the University of Sunderland’s excellent “Versatile Image: Photography in the Age of Web 2.0” conference and the Les Rencontres d’Arles symposium on “Photography, the Internet and Social Networks,” a number of contributors voiced concerns.

Heard in presentations and conversations were declarations about the number of circulating images. We live in a time of “too many photographs” and the digital revolution is “worrying and dangerous”. Metaphors of flooding were common. We are inundated with pictures, leaving us as a “lonely figure found amongst the surfeit of images”.

This proliferation was said to have negative consequences. This “over-abundance” makes us “image bulemics” suffering from visual excess. “Quality has been exchanged for quantity”, “taste is dulled and crushed by multiplicity”, and we have arrived at a point where “nobody believes images anymore”.

This quote seems to sum up the connections between quantity, anxiety and effects:

Today the eye of modern man is daily, hourly overfed with images. In nearly every newspaper he opens, in every magazine, in every book—pictures, pictures, and more pictures…This kaleidoscope of changing visual impressions spins so rapidly that almost nothing is retained in memory. Each new picture drives away the previous one…The result—in spite of the hunger for new visual impressions—is a dulling of the senses. To put it bluntly: the more modern man is given to see, the less he experiences in seeing. He sees much too much to still be able to see consciously and intensively.

But this quote is not recent. It dates from 1932, and is from a German article on image fatigue (reference below). It shows that, in a period we regard as a time of editorial control, relative slowness, and contemplation, anxieties about visual abundance and its effects were also common.

Although few express worries about being swamped by words or text in contrast to pictures, concern about “information overload” has an even longer history. Having located concerns as far back as 1565, Vaughan Bell wrote:

Worries about information overload are as old as information itself, with each generation reimagining the dangerous impacts of technology on mind and brain. From a historical perspective, what strikes home is not the evolution of these social concerns, but their similarity from one century to the next, to the point where they arrive anew with little having changed except the label.

What is driving the contemporary concern about image abundance? In part it’s the scale of production enabled by digital production and circulation. There are probably 500 billion digital images produced each year, and more than 60 billion have been uploaded to Facebook (with 8 billion on Photobucket, 7 billion on Picasa, and 5 billion on Flickr). When the majority of mobile phones have cameras it is no wonder we take a lot of images – the iPhone 4 is now the single biggest source of Flickr uploads.

I don’t doubt that the ease of digital technology means that overall there are more pictures than ever. However, these macro statistics can be a bit misleading. As Joerg Colberg pointed out a while back, if you take the overall number of photos on Facebook and divide it by the large number of users, the average Facebook album is little more than a hundred images per person. Is that any larger than the analogue prints collected in a traditional family photo album?

The anxiety associated with image abundance condenses a range of concerns. Listening to the debates at Arles in particular, I think this anxiety is driven by a professional concern about the rise of the amateur, and the way in which this is seen as destabilising traditional frames of cultural reference. Most of the statistics cited in relation to the contemporary proliferation of pictures refer to popular production. What people fear is being swamped, I suspect, are the assumed qualities of the professional image.

Far from being a threat, I see the abundance of images as an opportunity for ‘the professional’. We live in a culture where people avidly consume photos. But in this culture there is still a scarcity of certain types of imagery – those which drive a story.

Critical, engaged and reflective photographers (as well as curators and editors) are the people who can offer in-depth, narrative explorations of important issues at home and abroad. Indeed, the general familiarity and fondness for single images in our ‘photo-op’ culture might have expanded the space and grown the demand for more complex, thoughtful visual stories.

There is much to study about photography in all its forms in the context of web 2.0. But in relation to the metaphors of excess, flooding and their assumed effects, its probably time to move on from repeating clichés of cultural anxiety to embracing new creative production.

 

  • Reference: Paul Westheim, “Bildermüde?”, Das Kunstblatt16 (March 1932): 20-22. I am indebted to Mia Fineman, Assistant Curator, Department of Photographs, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York for the quotation. She provided the translation, which comes from her dissertation, Ecce Homo Prostheticus: Technology and the New Photography in Weimar Germany (Yale University, 2001).
Categories
media economy photography

The new media landscape (3): community, transactions and value

 

The disruptive power of the internet has produced a new ecology of information. As outlined in the first post of this series, this is the inescapable big picture for anyone engaged in creative practice.

This new ecology of information incorporates some hard realities for those of us seeking to support creative practice. In the second post of this series, I argued that community is now an essential concept in the new media landscape.

Throughout I have drawn inferences from what is happening to large media organisations in this revolutionary environment so that independent photographers and visual journalists can understand the challenges they face.

In this third and last post of the series, I want to discuss how some media companies are pursuing different sources of revenue. While their strategies are not easily replicable, they show how the dynamics of the new media landscape are playing out when it comes to the nitty-gritty of business models.

The end of distribution supporting scarcity

The past profitability of many media companies was based on controlling the mode of distribution so that scarcity prices could be charged. What the disintermediation, disruption and disaggregation of the media economy exposes is that this control was unique to a particular historical moment, resulting in prices that were artificially high.

As Google argued in a submission to the US Federal Trade Commission, this certainly applied to newspapers:

The large profit margins newspapers enjoyed in the past were built on an artificial scarcity: Limited choice for advertisers as well as readers. With the Internet, that scarcity has been taken away and replaced by abundance. No policy proposal will be able to restore newspaper revenues to what they were before the emergence of online news. It is not a question of analog dollars versus digital dimes, but rather a realistic assessment of how to make money in a world of abundant competitors and consumer choice.

It also applies to television, movies and music, because “the very model of the traditional entertainment industry is predicated on the inefficiency of distribution” – that is, control over broadcast networks, cinema chains and record companies. Once that content has been digitised and streamed, centralised control and high prices is much harder to maintain.

The hard reality, then, is that business models have to be decoupled from modes of distribution. In a context where publication and broadcasting have become easier and cheaper, running printing presses and managing TV networks are no longer licenses to print money. No business model predicated solely on control over a mode of distribution can succeed in the long-term.

Of course, existing media corporations can go on for some time. Legacy industries don’t grind to an instantaneous halt just because the central principles of their operating environment unravel. But if they fail to innovate, they tend to decline slowly before becoming unsustainable.

Diverse and indirect approaches

If a business model predicated solely on control over a mode of distribution cannot succeed in the long-term, another casualty will be the idea of the single business model behind visual journalism. The new approach will be a series of diverse models producing revenue indirectly.

As John Temple, the last editor of the Rocky Mountain News declared, news organisations do not make money from news; news is the ‘brand’ for the organisation and the money comes from relationships and services only indirectly related to journalism.

There is nothing new in this. Advertising has been the main source of revenue for mainstream media, with a contingent and indirect relationship to the journalism we (mistakenly) assume is the raison d’etre of media companies.

While it seems shocking to say news is a ‘brand’, that is how it has functioned. Oliviero Toscani, who was behind the controversial Benetton campaigns of the 1990s once remarked that we should understand that in a capitalist media economy “editorial was always the advertising of advertising.”

Although advertising will remain important for media companies, and new ways of garnering subscriptions might offer small revenue streams, what are these indirect approaches going to comprise?

The community that pays

That is where the idea of community comes in. Those engaged and loyal people – readers, viewers, listeners, fans – who identify with and congregate around their chosen content streams are where revenue comes from.

It’s fashionable to say nobody wants to pay for anything anymore, and there a plenty of online comment threads that can be mined for anecdotal evidence to support this rather glib generalisation. But if we think about the hundreds of millions of TV episodes, 10 billion songs and 10 billion apps sold via iTunes, or the 23 million Netflix subscribers in North America, or Spotify’s 1 million subscribers in Europe, plenty of people reach into their pocket for quality content. If providers offer availability and ease of use, direct payment for something that is not fungible is forthcoming.

If we look at indirect revenue from communities, then transactions are key. Fairfax (publishers of the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, and the largest media company in Australasia) has seen digital grow into its second largest revenue stream. 60% of their digital revenue comes from transactions, with readers using companies that Fairfax purchased, including a dating service called RSVP and a holiday home rental service, Stayz.com.

Transactions are one way that social networks can be leveraged for revenue, with social recommendations leading to commissions. As one Deloitte analyst predicted,

the next phase of social commerce is about extracting commissions from products which are sold directly as a result of recommendations made…So rather than selling advertising, what you’re doing is taking a commission against a product sold.

A 2011 report by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism on the business of digital journalism pointed to a number of indirect transactions supporting editorial content, such as The Atlantic magazine’s events business with $6 million/year in revenue. In a similar vein the Washington Post is running online courses and The Guardian is organising weekend masterclasses.

None of these constitute the holy grail that will replace the unending decline in print advertising revenue. But they are good examples of creative approaches that don’t fight the disruption of the internet and work with the contours of the new media landscape.

Can an indirect approach work for photography? When I reviewed the New York Times paid content scheme at the end of March, I painted a different scenario using transactions rather than subscriptions:

The Lens blog is a high profile site with some 750,000 users visiting each month. Instead of raising money by hoping some of those subscribe on their 21st visit each month, consider the monthly visitors as a community of interest around photojournalism and offer goods and services to that community. There could be Lens-sponsored master classes, special events and workshops for both professionals and the general public; print sales; discounted equipment and photographic services via business affiliates; photo tours and themed travel; equipment, medical and travel insurance for practitioners; logistics and visa services for photographers having to travel at short notice…you name it, anything that interests a broad photographic community, amateur and professional, could be offered by negotiated deals where Lens’s earns a percentage on each transaction.

This strategy would leverage the Lens blog Twitter feeds and referrals providing unlimited free access. It would be based on growing the community that comes to the site, thereby underscoring the value of having quality photojournalism distributed globally and the benefit of having it accessible to as many as possible. It could raise more revenue than subscriptions could achieve, and the revenue could go directly to photojournalism.

This is the emerging logic for media companies. Might it work for independent documentary photographers and photojournalists? Even if the scale is different, why not? This logic comes from the dynamics in the new media landscape affecting everybody.

Paul Melcher claims “photographers, photo agencies and related have no experience in building value around their images.” That has to change. Value will be created indirectly more than directly. It begins with the six steps towards building your own community.

Photo credit: Enol/Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license

 

Categories
media economy photography

The new media landscape (2): the importance of community

 

The disruptive power of the internet has made ‘community’ an essential concept in the new media landscape. A community is a group of people who share the similar interests, concerns or pursuits. They form around common purposes or practices.

As argued in the first post of this series, the internet ‘disintermediates’ because it collapses the cost of publishing, broadcasting and distributing, removes obstacles to the creation of new social groups, and eliminates barriers to the formation of distributed networks.

These distributed networks and new social groups are the basis of any new community. This post will argue that for creative producers community is a precondition of successfully operating in the new ecology of information.

There is, however, one common assumption about community that need to be dispelled before I consider what is involved in the development of a community that can support an individual’s creative practice.

Does size matter?

The ease with which web content can reach a wide audience can lead us to think that success is defined by mass interest. YouTube videos with millions of views seem to be the benchmark we must aim for. However, some data from new organisations shows how scale is not necessarily synonymous with success.

Newspaper web sites hailing the tens of millions of unique users they attract monthly is a regular feature (see this example). However, Navigating News Online, a recent report from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, although flawed in many ways, offers a different take on these numbers.

NNO identified an important distinction between ‘casual’ and ‘power’ consumers of information. More than three-quarters of the traffic to the top 25 American news sites came from users who visited just once or twice a month. In most cases they will have arrived via a link or search, read once piece, and then moved on.

While there is an obvious social benefit in getting a media organisation’s content to as many as possible, these infrequent flyers will not offer much economic benefit even in terms of an audience for advertisers.

In contrast, the NNO report found that ‘power users’ – people who came to the same news site more than ten times each month, and spent more than hour each month on those visits – comprised on average only 7% of the total web readership.

This trend was known before the NNO report, and applies also to UK examples. Although the numbers are now larger, these 2009 metrics from the Daily Mail show the number of casual versus power consumers:

  • 28.7 million unique users/month globally
  • 8.9 million unique users/month from the UK
  • Of the UK users 611,588 came to the web site every day
  • Half of those UK daily users (c. 300,000) stayed for 20 minutes/month

So while the headline-grabbing tens of millions of unique users suggests a vast audience around the Daily Mail, their loyal British users numbered no more than 300,000 in 2009.

These dynamics are the reason pay walls attract a small number of subscribers in relation to the overall readership of a news site. Subscribers come from power users: pay walls exclude or limit casual users so depend on subscriptions from the most loyal.

Working with fans

The idea that it is the power users, the most loyal consumers, that are the basis of an economic strategy to fund creative content is common to the music industry, where such people are known as fans.

What the internet has done, however, is made to possible to directly access prospective fans and provide them with content. The consequence of that is that artists don’t have to pursue a ‘blockbuster’ strategy to succeed. Instead of waiting for the one thing that might offer stardom with all its rewards, artists can build a community of those who appreciate their work and might be willing to support it.

Kevin Kelly famously outlined this concept with his post on 1000 True Fans. Like so many things influenced by the web, Kelly identified how a power law curve, which is the basis of the long tail phenomenon, suggested new possibilities. While the number of 1000 was indicative only and varied according to the artist’s media, Kelly maintained that if you could move people from an encounter with your work to being ‘lesser fans’ and on to  ‘true fans’ regular support would be forthcoming.

Kelly later conducted interviews with artists to see if his argument played out in practice. The results supported the thrust of his original argument but tempered its enthusiasm. He concluded that:

there are very few artists making their entire living selling directly to True Fans. The few that are, are selling high-priced goods, like paintings, rather than low-priced goods like CDs. But there are many that partially fund their livelihood with direct True Fans. (my emphasis)

Mike Masnick’s review of musicians supports this conclusion, and importantly demonstrates that the logic applies to more than just the famous who already have a fan base.

How does an individual create a community?

So, if you wanted to pursue this strategy what would it involve? The first thing to note is the hard graft. Kevin Kelly’s interviews made clear “it takes a lot of time to find, nurture, manage, and service True Fans yourself. And, many artists don’t have the skills or inclination to do so.”

Assuming you are committed, here are six steps to create a community around your practice:

  1. Get yourself a web platform (site, blog etc) to make some work and your thinking available for viewing and linking, and keep updating this platform;
  2. Think of yourself as a publisher or broadcaster, find your angle or voice, and offer information beyond self-promotion on a regular basis;
  3. Participate in social networks and other on-line forums, offering comments, links, information;
  4. Understand that a community is more than the sum of your social media followers and friends. Social networks are a necessary but insufficient condition of community;
  5. A community’s members have varying degrees of commitment, from observers to occasional supporters to committed fans. Followers and friends are, until they demonstrate otherwise, not ‘true fans’. But they might become committed supporters if they are engaged with your work;
  6. Engagement means offering your community a sense of belonging and commitment to your practice and the thinking that informs it. This comes through conversation and dialogue around ideas and information rather than just appeals or material inducements;

In the debate about crowd funding photojournalism I have emphasized how having a community is a precondition of successful support. Those who have raised funds have either been already well-known (which means they have had a community of support) or they have in effect followed most of the steps above. As Bryan Formals wrote in his good post on crowd funding, “it all starts to tie together: transparency, authenticity, community building, collaboration, funding.”

Point 6 is probably the most difficult and most important in the process. It is the step where supporters feel they participate in the project, something Joerg Colberg identified as important, and which Tomas van Houtryve has put into practice creatively and effectively. But like all engagement, this participation is not a one-way street – as van Houtryve has found, creative practitioners can learn a lot from their supporters and their work can be better as a result. The benefits are not just financial.

Conclusion

As I shall argue in the third post of this series, the idea of community is important for big media players as much as individual artists, and it is behind some of the new economic strategies to support journalism. There are lessons to be learnt from those strategies for individuals too.

The principles that make community possible are the same in both cases even if the scale is different. The internet’s logics of disintermediation, disruption and disaggregation affect everyone. It’s harder for individuals to perform all the necessary tasks that make a successful community, but the rewards are potentially great.

 

Related posts

The new media landscape (1)

The new media landscape (3)

 

Photo credit: victoriapeckham/Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license

Categories
media economy

The new media landscape (1): contours of change

Change in the media landscape is constant. Everyone involved in the production of creative content – photographers, journalists, writers, and musicians, as well as those who deal in those products – knows that nothing is as it was.

Too much of the current debate about how creative practitioners can cope with these upheavals proceeds without an understanding of the big picture and historical context. There are some hard realities that have to be properly understood before new strategies can be devised.

In this series of three posts, I want to lay down an understanding of what is happening, how some are responding, and what others can learn from them. Many of the elements I discuss are well known, and many of the examples I cite show that people are already positioning themselves to prosper from these changes. But for those who are still unsure about what is happening and what to do I think it is important to take this step back in order to plan where to go.

These posts are based on a presentation I gave at the CEPIC New Media Conference 2 in Istanbul on 21 May, and I would like to thank Marco Oonk of Fast Media Magazine for the invitation. For that event I knew I could not compete visually with speakers from the stock photography industry, so I selected key words that named the main themes.

In this first post, I will cover the concepts of disintermediation, disruption, ecology, disaggregation and free, including the importance of the relationship between scarcity, abundance and fungibility in the new media landscape. In part two I will unpack the concept of community and its importance, and in part three I will review how some are thinking about business models in this context. As one of my concerns is how documentary photographers and independent photojournalists can work better, I will outline some practical steps they can take to incorporate some of the lessons from this review.

So what are the contours of change in the new media landscape?

The internet has changed everything. That is obvious, but the question is how? ‘Disintermediation’ is one ugly word, but an important handle on the change wrought by the internet. Made popular by Dave Winer, the idea comes from economics and points to the removal of intermediaries in a supply chain. It highlights the way you can cut out the “middle man” and deal directly with your audience or customer.

The internet ‘disintermediates’ because it collapses the cost of publishing, broadcasting and distributing, removes obstacles to the creation of new social groups, and eliminates barriers to the formation of distributed networks.

All of this means we live in a remarkable time where our ability to communicate, share, collaborate and act has been expanded beyond the limits of traditional institutions, distributors and gatekeepers.

None of this means the internet is the single cause of all change or that we have a perfectly open world. And we have to remember that for all its potential universality, the internet currently only reaches one-third of the world’s population. But it does mean the internet is an important enabler of change that challenges or routes around many of the barriers and gates in our world.


Through disintermediation the internet is disrupting many walks of life, especially information industries. When we consider that global internet traffic is predicted to increase fourfold by 2014 its easy to see how many areas are being affected by the internet.

The disruption that follows from disintermediation can be understood as resulting in what Richard Stacey describes as “the separation of information from its means of distribution.” This means that all those modes of information distribution we have taken to be natural – the newspaper, magazine, radio station, album-length CD, television broadcaster, cinema and the like – are being challenged by new means of producing and circulating content. As one analyst remarked recently:

The very model of the traditional entertainment industry is predicated on the inefficiency of distribution…Films, TV, music are all produced and distributed in a tightly controlled way. The internet blows the doors off that concept because it’s an environment where everyone can distribute with maximum efficiency to everyone else.

Netflix is showing what this means in practice. It now accounts for one-quarter of North America’s aggregate internet traffic because streaming video is so much more efficient than mailing DVDs. It costs Netflix $1 to send out a DVD, but just 5 cents to stream the same movie. As a streaming service they will eliminate the $600 million they currently spend on labour for checking discs and the postal service, with obvious negative impacts for both those sectors.

The lesson from this is clear – in Richard Stacey’s words, “hitch your fortunes to the information and you will prosper, chain yourself to means of distribution and you will die.”


The web, built on top of the internet, has created a new ecology of information, both literally and figuratively. ‘Ecology’ is the study of organisms in relationship to each other and their environment. As a new ecology of information, the web exists as much more than a competitor to existing infrastructures. It is not a new market side by side with traditional markets – it is reshaping both the infrastructures and the markets for everyone.

Yet many information industries treat the web as a competitor rather than an ecosystem. For example, a recent debate about the difficulty of linking from many newspapers stories to supporting information revealed the print-centric nature of media company workflows and CMS’s, and showed how far they were from a digital-first strategy.


In this new ecology – where disruption is powered by disintermediation – we are seeing a change in the structure and process of information.

It is changing what have been called the “atomic units” of established modes of information, and unbundling traditional modes of distribution. We are seeing the disaggregation of forms and formats we have taken to be natural:

  • the disaggregation of albums to individual downloads in music
  • the disaggregation of newspapers and magazines to stories that can be circulated or linked to individually
  • the disaggregation of broadcast stations and fixed schedules to personal streams that can be consumed anywhere and anytime

The idea of the ‘stream’ is significant here. It emphasizes process rather than product, because once disaggregated, things can be updated.

Even when thinks look like fixed commodities we should think in terms of streams. iTunes downloads and Kindle ebooks are sold as though they are fixed units, yet they are parts of a stream leased for use on particular devices. With ebooks your edition can be updated or removed by the organization that controls the stream.

Disaggregation does not mean things dissolve into a formless universe. They are re-aggregated, but that is increasingly done through social networks. For example, a study for CNN found that social media was used to share nearly half of all news.

Disaggregation, therefore, leads to the importance of information that is social, modular and mobile. As Mathew Ingram has observed,

the future of media consumption is going to look a lot more like a smorgasbord of sources and content, personalized and recommended by friends and our social graph, and a lot less like that megaphone traditional media outlets used to have and control.


Few words rile creative producers more than the idea of free. But it is a concept that has to be confronted. We have to move beyond the competing ‘theological assumptions’ that either content should be free or that people should pay. ‘Should’ cannot be the basis for a rational response to the hard realities of the new ecology of information.

There is no escaping the fact that free is part of the intrinsic architecture of the internet. Tim Berners-Lee, who is credited with inventing the web, was recently asked why he put the web into the public domain as a free facility rather than a private enterprise. “Because otherwise it would not have worked,” he said. (Just watch the first two minutes of this video interview with Berners-Lee to appreciate this core value).

The problem is that the web’s essential characteristic makes earning revenue hard. As Frederic Filoux notes, “the social web’s economics are paradoxical: the more it blossoms, the more it destroys value.”

Filoux’s statement renders value only as price or revenue, thereby overlooking the cultural and social value that flow from free circulation and distribution. Nonetheless, the web’s architecture of free intersects with a basic economic formula.  As Chris Anderson argues in his book Free (p. 173), “if ‘price falls to the marginal cost’ is the law, then free is not just an option, it’s the inevitable endpoint.”

That does not mean that everything is given away for nothing. Despite claims to the contrary – for details see my review of his book – Anderson is very clear that (a) free is not a business model and (b) that it is always linked with paid.

The ability to leverage the web’s architecture for paid content depends on the relationship between scarcity and abundance. Most content producers have priced their work on the assumption that it is scarce, and inefficient modes of distribution have supported that. But because the web has made many things abundant, charging scarcity prices is not easily sustainable.

Here I want to introduce one more concept – fungibility.  Something is fungible if it can be substituted by something else. A breaking news story is fungible because there are a number of credible sources that can be substituted for each other. A music track or a specific photograph is not fungible because if you are a fan who wants only a track from a particular band, or an image by a particular artist, they cannot be replaced by music or images from others.

Scare items are not fungible. Abundant items are fungible. If you produce something that is unique and not found elsewhere, you can resist the inevitable free endpoint. If you produce something that is abundant and can be replaced by something else, then you will not be able to directly charge scarcity prices for it (although, as I will argue in the third post, there will be other ways of using that content to produce revenue to support its production).

Conclusion

These are the dynamics that I think drive the changes in the new media landscape. They are the hard realities creating the new ecology we all operate in, producing a landscape marked by disaggregation in which traditional forms and formats of distribution are being unbundled, and content is increasingly social, modular and mobile. Content producers and distributors have to face up to these dynamics, and try and work with these developments in order to achieve their goals. In the second post in this series, I will argue that the concept of community is an essential part of that process.

 

Related posts

The new media landscape (2)

The new media landscape (3)

 

Photo credit: laihui/Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license

Categories
Back Catalogue media economy photography

The Back Catalogue (2): Photojournalism in the new media economy

Welcome to the second in “The Back Catalogue” series of posts…

I’ve been actively writing online for nearly three years now, and one of the challenges of the blog format is how to keep old posts with content that is potentially still relevant from slipping off the radar. And because this site combines my research with the blog, an additional challenge has been how to make blog readers aware of other content that might be of interest.

To address that I am identifying a number of key themes from what I’ve published over the last couple of years, pulling together posts and articles that deal with each theme. The first ‘Back Catalogue’ covered work on representations of ‘Africa’, and the third deals with representations of atrocity, conflict and war.

Here, starting with the oldest in each section, are analyses of documentary photography and photojournalism in the new media economy – specifically the challenges for creative practice and story-telling, challenges for the industry given the disruptive power of the Internet, and new ways of thinking about doing business and funding photographic projects.

Posts: challenges for creative practice

Posts: challenges for the industry

Posts: new ways of doing business and funding work

Posts: other sites

 

UPDATED 10 April 2012

Photo: drewm/Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license

Categories
media economy photography politics Thinking Images

Thinking Images v.9: Egypt, revolution and the internet

Thinking Images – an occasional series on some of the week’s visuals and the thoughts they prompt…

Hundreds of thousands of protestors have returned to Cairo’s Tahrir Square demonstrating that the demand for change in Egypt is as strong as ever. Today the scene has been peaceful, but two weeks of extensive coverage from a corps of international photojournalists has laid bare the violence that led to more than 300 deaths across the country (for overviews of the pictures see the New York Times gallery or the summary on Photojournalism Links).

Whilst many of these images are powerful records of the events they portray, their subject matter is necessarily limited by the focus on a few sites of protests. In circumstances like these, no matter the photographic skills on display, we often end up with a collection of imagery that either doesn’t provide an overall narrative, or a collection that can sustain a range of competing narratives. Being on the ground and close has its advantages, but it frequently fails to capture the context.

In his excellent analysis of the complexity of the political situation in Egypt, Paul Amar shows how much academic and media commentary has employed binary “good guys versus bad guys” lenses to view this uprising. Amar describes three prominent perspectives:

(1) People versus Dictatorship, a perspective that leads to liberal naïveté and confusion about the active role of military and elites in this uprising; (2) Seculars versus Islamists, a model that leads to a 1980s-style call for “stability” and Islamophobic fears about the containment of the supposedly extremist “Arab street”; or, (3) Old Guard versus Frustrated Youth, a lens which imposes a 1960s-style romance on the protests but cannot begin to explain the structural and institutional dynamics driving the uprising, nor account for the key roles played by many 70-year-old Nasser-era figures.

Of the photographs we might ask: do they affirm or challenge a sense of “good guys versus bad guys”? Regardless of the intention of an individual photographer, if they can be read as affirming this framing, how do they intersect with notions of the “People versus Dictatorship”, “Seculars versus Islamists” or “Old Guard versus Frustrated Youth”? I don’t know the answer to these questions. But just by asking them I think we can begin to see how photographs need to be understood as more than documents of a moment; they are objects that constitute an event for those of us not present at the scene.

The resurgence of protest, two weeks on from the 25 January, was fuelled by the release of Wael Ghonim, a marketing manager for Google and prominent internet activist who had been held in secret detention. Ghonim gave an emotional television interview, that can be seen here. The remarkable 6 minute introduction to this interview touches on the significance of the internet and the web in enabling at least part of the uprising.

Outside of Egypt, and after Tunisia, we have witnessed a frustrating debate about the role of social media in political transformations, with many insisting (in the words of Malcolm Gladwell) “the revolution will not be tweeted.” The ‘debate’ is frustrating because the framing of the argument does not often involve evidence. Deen Freelon has performed the important task of revealing both the framing and the range of competing claims on how the internet impacts revolutions. Few if any of these claims match the zealous “cyber-utopianism” so often ascribed to them. Indeed, as Dave Parry has argued, cyber-utopianism isn’t something associated with a particular individual but a circulating theme in national discourse. Once we dispense with the neatly organized but misleading theme we end up with Mathew Ingram’s conclusion:

In the end, the real weapon is the power of networked communication itself. In previous revolutions it was the fax, or the pamphlet, or the cellphone — now it is SMS and Twitter and Facebook. Obviously none of these things cause revolutions, but to ignore or downplay their growing importance is also a mistake.

Egypt has certainly reinforced important points about the power of social media and the structure of the Internet. The Mubarak regime feared the organizing capacity of social media sufficiently to shut the Internet off. That reminded us that the Internet is a physical network and it matters who controls the nodes.

In authoritarian states, the government might be able to flick a “kill switch” to shut off the web. Although there is a proposal for the US to have this capacity too, the most common threats to the open web in our societies comes from corporate control. As John Naughton, Jay Rosen and Dave Winer have argued, the way in which Amazon, PayPal and other companies barred Wikileaks from their online services made clear how far we are from having a truly open Internet. Tim Berners-Lee argues that the way in which social networking sites are walling off their data thereby preventing links is also a threat to the original egalitarian principles of the world wide web.

At the same time, the Wikileaks controversy late last year also demonstrated that the web remains structurally more open than many systems – the closure of wikileaks.org was soon overcome by a multitude of mirror sites that cannot be easily or permanently disabled. Learning from these recent events to resist all the forces of closure and keep the Internet open so that, in Tim Berners-Lee’s words, “any person could share information with anyone else, anywhere” has to be a founding principle for the new media economy.

Featured photo: A girl waves the national flag of Egypt in the crowd as thousands of demonstrators take part in anti-government protests, 8 February 2011. Felipe Trueba/EPA.

Categories
media economy

The ongoing revolution in the media economy

The revolutions transforming the media economy continue apace. In the year since I published my five part series on these changes (beginning here and ending here) we have seen more evidence of the overall direction of change. Reviewing my notes from 2010 here are some of the standout developments to date:

1. Things remain grim for traditional newspapers

Global newspaper circulation continued its downward trend, declining by 0.8% in 2009. A survey covering 223 countries by the World Association of Newspapers and Newspaper Publishers showed that newspaper circulation significantly declined in Europe and North America, although it increased marginally in Asia.

2. Advertising revenue continues to plummet

Advertising revenue is the core of the traditional newspapers business model, and it is falling globally too. Ad spend declined in most of the regions – North America (25 per cent), Western Europe (13.7 per cent), Central and East Europe (18.7 per cent), Asia (9.6 per cent) and South America (2.9 per cent), but remained fairly stable in the Middle East and Africa. In the United States, newspaper advertising revenues are likely to dive to a 25-year low of approximately $26.5 billion, or 47% of the record $49.4 billon in sales achieved by the industry as recently as 2005.

Online advertising is becoming much more important, with the web poised to overtake newspapers as the second largest US advertising medium by revenue behind television. While there is some absolute growth – and the Guardian has reportedly seen a 100% annual increase in digital revenue – this change in relative status is also a function of the collapse of print advertising.

3. Paid content strategies show few signs of success

At the beginning of this year a US survey showed that amongst the handful of domestic newspapers that had erected paywalls, only a tiny proportion (2.4%) of print subscribers were willing to hand over money for access. In the UK, the decision of The Times to go behind a paywall has led to the loss of 90% of the site’s users and scared off advertisers – meaning that any additional revenue from the small number who sign up will easily be offset by lost advertising. The experience of the Belfast-based Irish Times, which attracted only 1,215 paid subscriptions from its 45,000 circulation, suggests the limits of paywalls are apparent in a variety of markets.

4. The disruptive power of the Internet continues to grow

The decline of legacy media has been underway for a very long time and predates the Internet and the web. However, the expansion of a technology that collapses the cost of distribution means industries predicated on the control of distribution are losing their base.

In June this year Cisco forecast that global Internet traffic would increase more than fourfold by 2014. This amount is the equivalent of 10 times all the traffic traversing Internet Protocol networks in 2008. Driving the growth is the expansion of online video, which will make up 91 percent of global consumer IP traffic by 2014.

For an example of what this means in practice, consider the recent observations from the online video rental firm Netflix. Founder Reed Hastings revealed the economics of digital distribution: “It costs us about a dollar, round-trip, to send DVDs by mail. It costs us less than a nickel to deliver by streaming.” That means a switch to video streaming – which is coming – would reduce distribution costs by 95%. Given that Netflix spends $600 million a year on the postal service and pays for hourly labor checking DVD quality, that is a considerable saving (except for those working in the postal service or checking the DVDs). This means, as Ken Doctor explained, that “in the new world the costs evaporate — and quality and timeliness improve. For news publishers, the switch to digital media offers huge savings, at least 60% and probably more.”

However, it’s vital to remember that the Internet is not a universal facility. The number of global users has expanded dramatically in the last decade to 2 billion, but global penetration covers only 29% of the world’s population.

5. The end of print is now conceivable

Publishers and editors of major newspapers are now speaking about a time when their publications will no longer be printed. Last month Arthur Sulzberger told a seminar that “we will stop printing the New York Times sometime in the future, date TBD.” Both the Guardian and Times editors think their current printing facilities will be their last, and that the life-span of these is “telescoping quite dramatically,” while the Financial Times is already reducing some print output.

6. There are no game changers leading to a shiny new business model

Many responses to the revolutions in the media economy have been framed by the desire to find the ‘game changer’ that will ‘save journalism,’ with the iPad being the device that in 2010 has most often borne these hopes. As a proud new owner of said device, I can see the appeal of some the better apps. I think it opens up new possibilities for the creative presentation and distribution of information, and I’m looking forward to more and better efforts to produce compelling multimedia for this format. But a number of available studies suggest that even if the revenue from magazine apps on the iPad exceeds a billion dollars, that will not resuscitate an entire industry given that is what Time Inc. (of which Time magazine is just a small part) made in a little over one quarter.

More importantly, though, we have to see devices like the iPad as another mode of distribution among the many channels for information now available. And we need to understand how the ecology of the iPad is one of a closed economy, cut off from the open web where things are easily linked and always searchable. There is little doubt the app economy is significant, and Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff (not to mention Jeff Jarvis) are right to call attention to the way it differs from the browser-accessible web, though it is just a bit early to proclaim the death of the open web.

Those who want to place the future of their entire industry in the iPad’s basket are surely heading for a fall. To get a better return from publisher’s apps, a group of twenty US-based photo agencies recently formed an alliance to press for higher fees based on additional usage. That’s not an unreasonable notion in principle, but the logic behind their position was stunning for its ignorance of the dynamics of the contemporary media economy. One of the agency bosses behind this alliance told Press Gazette:

We all strongly believe that this platform as a walled garden could be the saviour of declining legacy print publications. A lot of the publishers think so too…we see this as a way to work with the publishers to work on a business model that works for both parties.

In a nutshell you have an example of the thinking that has perpetuated a large part of the contemporary crisis – defend declining outlets, have faith in a walled garden that limits accessibility, and think about business models is in terms of a single business model tied to an established mode of distribution. But – the disruptive power of the Internet continues to grow because of the way it has solved the problem of distribution, so no business model predicated on control over a mode of distribution can succeed.

7. The future is bright

Despite the downturn and the persistence of legacy thinking, the future for the production and distribution of compelling stories and important information is bright. The creative possibilities enabled by digital technologies, the open web and the app economy – in association with those legacy publications now looking to a future beyond print – are being continually enlarged. If we pursue multiple modes of distribution and make them serve the modes of information, then, in conjunction with new ways of thinking about business models, we are in for an exciting if bumpy ride.

Featured photo: Bsivad/Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license