Dear Chris Anderson: No, I won't work for you for free

Whoa. What a showdown of egos. But I'm going to have to side with Malcolm Gladwell's view of things.

Call me a journalist or call me a person who feels it's important to compensate people for the work they do, but Anderson paints a hopeless future for those with aspiring careers in the industry of information. The word "careers" is emphasized for a reason. A career means dedicating a full-time workday (and probably longer, if you're a journalist) to working as a writer combined with the radical notion that they receive pay for their time.

I hesitatingly admit I appreciate Chris Anderson's practical view of the digital media industry and I also understand that his perspective has been molded by a career in both print and digital industries. I also admit I do not know the ins and outs of what it takes to ensure an editorial staff is rightfully compensated and where that money comes from. But I'm still disappointed by the idea that an accomplished media leader is giving up on incentivizing the industry he currently runs. If I were an employee at WIRED, I'd feel pretty insecure working under this guy.

The unsettling part of Anderson's argument isn't in the content of his article "Free! Why $0.00 Is The Future of Business;" it's the fact that he published these concepts, therefore, perpetuating the narrative that newspaper industries are going under and there's hardly anything there can be done about it, (except undercompensating writers and recruiting volunteers). He could instead be using his name and his talents to come up with something much better than that.

That's where I appreciate Malcolm Gladwell's response to Anderson's propositions. Anderson is an Editor-in-Chief and I suppose in that role it's easy to get wrapped up in purely the business portion of a company. But Gladwell chimes in on behalf of all writers, including the writers Anderson is
managing, when he says "If you can afford to pay someone to get other people to write, why can’t you pay people to write?" Gladwell is commenting on Anderson's suggestion that volunteer writers will gladly step in; people who have other full-time professions but enjoy writing for fun. 

It's laughable that Anderson's response to Gladwell is titled "Dear Malcolm: Why So Threatened?" Of course, he's threatened—he works for a print magazine, the very industry Anderson is encouraging to be turned over to volunteers. But the fact stands: it's indisputable that people are placing less and less financial value in industries of information—which is why I agree that we can no longer depend on them to fund journalism salaries. But I refuse to believe that media moguls and leaders of the world cannot come up with something better than slashing salaries and caving into the Internet giants who have figured it all out.

In short, yes: the future is digital

According to the readings for this week, and a slew of others floating around regarding the future of the tech industry, the future is digital, and to keep up with it, these companies must be able to accomplish the completely reasonable ability to predict the future.

And they said sarcasm doesn't translate through text.

Bower and Christensen say companies fail because they provide a package varying from what customers already value in performance needs and/or existing attributes are constantly improving creating the opportunity for other tech companies to invade those markets.

Just look at the poor disk-drive industry Bower and Christensen discuss in their article. Starting as pioneers and caterers to customer needs, it found itself one step behind, leading to its eventual obsoleteness.

But while I read these words, I couldn't avoid thinking about Apple and how expertly it has consistently predicted the future. In Forbes' article "How will Apple stay on top? It must disrupt itself again," the tech giant has managed to surpass other huge companies by just having a sexy design. But here's why the author cautions against hinging on its loyal base for much longer:

"Both Google and Microsoft have recently strengthened their own positions. The Android system and Windows 8 now allow these juggernauts to create their own ecosystems, making it harder to draw new Apple groupies. And let’s not kid ourselves, if Apple is cool Google is at least as cool. Just ask yourself, if you were a 21-year-old Stanford graduate with the world on a string, which company would you want to work for?"

There are too many tech players for Apple to keep doing what they're doing, so they must aim to disrupt themselves again.  Disruption is the only path to survival.

That goes for mobile advertising as well, according to the Huffington Post article. These same companies, and many others, are adapting too slowly. They aren't excelling at incorporating the four elements that Tom Lowery argues are imperative to business survival: diversity, quality, innovation, experimentation and influence. They're investing in print, rather than diversifying their advertising platforms.

He goes on to say "not having a mobile strategy is a 'recipe for disruption,' with a dash of eventual panic thrown in." Now, if disruption is a catalyst for innovation, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Tech companies will set themselves up to procrastinate on getting with the program and only the swiftest to adapt will survive.

From Textbook to Tablets

I'm used to texbooks, whiteboards and flashcards. The most digitally forward thing at my elementary school was a computer game I was obsessed with called M&Ms: The Lost Formulas, with a goal to uncover the secret recipe behind the beloved chocolate candies.

But just because that's how I grew up, that doesn't mean it's the "right" way to learn. Everyone's got a different style. If the younger generation is growing up in a digitized world, doesn't it make sense that they would likely learn better that way?

I'm not a huge technology enthusiast—although I will admit I hinge on the convenience it provides—but when commercial interests get in the mix, I get angry. And that's exactly what I think the chief executive of Amplify Joel Klein has at heart with the classroom tablet takeover.

He stresses the following three points backing his tabletizing classroom theory:

1. "Plenty of research does indeed show that an individual student will learn more if you can tailor the curriculum to match her learning style, pace and interests; the tablet will help teachers do that." 
2. "Educators have not taken full advantage of students’ enthusiasm for the gadgetry that constitutes an important part of their experience.” 
3. "Teachers feel overwhelmed; they need tools to meet ever-increasing demands to show that their students are making progress."

Okay, these are fair points. But when school districts are budgeting $30 million for tablets over hiring teachers, we're proving the very threat that digital luddites have been preaching from the beginning: the robots are finally taking over. And author Carlos Rotella hits this idea home when he says: 

"...they struck me as exemplifying several dubious American habits now ascendant: the overvaluing of technology and the undervaluing of people; the displacement of face-to-face interaction by virtual connection; the recasting of citizenship and inner life as a commodified data profile; the tendency to turn to the market to address social problems." Preach, Carlos. 

The company does away with the reality that not every child has the Internet at their expense at every waking moment of the day. Tabletizing the classroom would perpetuate a huge disadvantage for students who do not have the Internet at home. Prioritizing tablets in classrooms over making sure every home has Internet access doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

I'm not saying that every employee at companies like Amplify have corporate interests and intentions with their educational tools. As the article mentions, there are people working for these companies who are truly trying to enhance the educational experience. And to be honest, we'd be doing a disservice to our students if we didn't explore the possibilities that the digital age offers. But I do caution to be weary. Making sound financial decisions and investments in things over people may be seemingly progressive, but it will regress us all. 

Long live the physical book

E-books are hotly contested by people in and above my generation. We read off of screens all day, yet some of us are vehemently opposed to reading novels and textbooks in a digital format. I'm definitely one of those people—not because I see any fundamental flaw in an e-book but because the physicality of a book feels good in my hands. I suspect it's the same feeling older generations have about reading newspapers instead of using Twitter to get their news.

I enjoyed this article because it made me think about digital versus analog technologies through a different lens. I'm definitely more digitally plugged into my community rather than newspaper-oriented when it comes to informing myself, but, regarding novels, I have a soft spot for books with actual pages in them and libraries supported by brick and mortar. This analogy really sits with me because I feel like I can finally relate to the sense a person of a different generation may feel about their favorite newspaper or preferred magazine.

The chapter's thesis reads as follows: "I argue that e-books are an emergent technological form by which problems pertaining to the ownership and circulation of printed books are simultaneously posed and resolved."

I think this is a true statement as I turn to examine my own habits. While I continue to buy physical novels, I typically buy e-book versions of my textbooks to save money and pretend I'm making a positive impact on the environment. I also get all of my news aggregated to me through Twitter and Facebook in some form or fashion and feel that these platforms sufficiently inform me on current events—these habits are an example of the political, economical, social, and technical determinations that the author attributes to our shifts.

In a continuation of drawing parallels between digital and analog forms, people predicted that e-books would revolutionize the book industry back when Stephen King released the first e-book ever in the year 2000, according to the chapter. People continue to feel the same way about digital content—it will revolutionize the way we consume and sell information to each other. I'm inclined to believe this is true considering the pedestal that digital content is placed. But people who like books will continue to buy books and people who buy newspapers will continue to buy newspapers—it's hard to say whether that alone will salvage their place in the economy.

Taking a step back - the consequences of the digital business model

This week's readings dives into everything that makes me nervous as a journalist of the the digital age. These insecurities stem from the current digital media business model. More specifically, Jiyoung Cha's article takes a look at how prominent and expansive social media companies, like Facebook and Twitter, make money. These industries are increasingly becoming an option for journalists to work for—as they are adopting many forms and habits of publishing the news.

According to Cha, the social media business framework can be simplified as such:

•     Value creation
•     nature
•     scope (how it’s created, firms role in production or service delivery)
•     Target market: 
•     customer types
•     geographic areas
•     geographic dispersion
•     interaction requirements with customers
•     Sources of competencies:
•     technology 
•     marketing
•     supply chain management
•     networking
•     resource leveraging
•     branding
•     Revenue 
•     how the firm makes money 
•     prices 

       After reading this logistical article that does well to outline the business model, I made a series of  observations that leave me torn on the concept of social media networks playing such an integral part  of providing information and news. 

      Problem 1: Our info is being pimped out to search engine companies

       What becomes complicated and problematic is how these companies sell our publicly  available  information. And we've all been there—we click on a link on Facebook and all of a sudden we see  eight similar links on our News Feeds when we return to scroll through. But the benefits, from a  journalistic standpoint, include the likelihood of article and publication visibility that digital  publishers receive through this information selling process. But as a consumer, our tastes are almost  being decided for us. Humans have a natural tendency to like certain things at certain times, but this  model limits those varieties if social media keeps our interests on a certain trajectory. 

       

      Problem 2: Putting a price on information just seems wrong. 

d     "It's difficult to transfer information into a commodity," Cha says. Should we, though? 

       But, as far as we know, it's the only way journalists of the future can make money. This conflicts  with the original intent of the  invention of the Internet. The Internet was born as a democratic idea.  An information provider made by the people for the people. Perhaps, also created with no foresight  of the current maintenance and policing we see from information powerhouses Google and  Facebook. As a result, our information becomes increasingly filtered, as mentioned in last class with  the risk of living in a filter bubble. 

    

       Ricardo Bilton's article outlines a true concerning reality—social media is making it more expensive  for publishers to be read. Facebook is scaling back the amount of traffic it sends to publishers to  keep users in its own walled garden. This implies less encouragement to send users out to receive  different sources of information from a wider variety of publications. 

      

      Everyone can benefit from a balanced news diet and with increasing monetary limitations and publisher reliance on social media and advertising, I'm afraid it'll limit our options for consumption.

•