Search results matching tag 'chris Anderson'

Chris Anderson and newspapers, he doesn't care anymore

255762 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:42:00 GMT

Chris Anderson, the Wired editor-in-chief and author of 'Free', has had it with newspapers. No seriously, he's through. He doesn't care. And journalism? And Media? Kids those words are so passe.

Anderson, who struck it big with his book 'The Long Tail' and wants everything to be 'Free', has given a long interview to the German weekly Spiegel where he makes a string of provocative statements as he talks about the internet's challenge to the traditional press.

Spiegel kicked off by asking Anderson about the future of journalism. The interview could have stopped right there. Anderson was already annoyed and made this clear. He doesn't use the word "journalism" and the word "media" is also a no no.

Anderson: This is going to be a very annoying interview. I don't use the word journalism.

Spiegel: "Okay, how about newspapers? They are in deep trouble both in the United States and worldwide."

Anderson: "Sorry, I don't use the word media. I don't use the word news. I don't think that those words mean anything anymore. They defined publishing in the 20th century. Today, they are a barrier. They are standing in our way, like a 'horseless carriage'."

It must be tough for Anderson who is (okay among other things) a "magazine editor". Sadly, Spiegel did not ask him about this, what it did ask him was what other words would he use instead of media and journalism.

And I have to tell you at this point things start to get really difficult. Apparently there are no words. That's right, like not at all.

"There are no other words. We're in one of those strange eras where the words of the last century don't have meaning. What does news mean to you, when the vast majority of news is created by amateurs? Is news coming from a newspaper, or a news group or a friend? I just cannot come up with a definition for those words. Here at Wired, we stopped using them," Anderson told Spiegel.

Is it just me or is Anderson, you know, like full of himself? I wish to add here that it isn't only me as others have also noted this "fullness".

You kind of want to jump in and shout words like: content, editorial, commentary and analysis and ask: "Don't any of these words have any meaning? Are they all redundant?".

At this stage in the interview, the German "journalist" turns to the subject of "newspapers". I'm guessing here that as "news" has no meaning then it's likewise for newspapers. I'm kind of right here as Anderson really does not care about newspapers.

Spiegel: "So did you read a newspaper this morning?"

Anderson: "No."

Spiegel: "Your local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, is fighting for survival. If it was to disappear tomorrow..."

Anderson: "... I wouldn't notice. I don't even know what I'd be missing...newspapers are not important. It may be that their physical, printed form no longer works. "

Speigel: "So how do you stay informed?"

Anderson: "It comes to me in many ways: via Twitter, it shows up in my inbox, it shows up in my RSS feed, through conversations. I don't go out looking for it."

Speigel: "You just don't care."

Anderson: "No, I do care. You know, I pick my sources, and I trust my sources."

It strikes me that for a "journalist" (in part at least) who works in print to dismiss newspapers so out of hand as almost akin to biting the hand that feeds you. That could just be me.

Wired like every other print product has seen its advertising revenues plummet. The New York Times reported earlier this year that Wired has lost 50% of its ad pages so far this year, ranking it among the worst off of the more than 150 monthly magazines measured by Media Industry Newsletter.

How many people would miss Wired if it closed? Would Chris Anderson? Does he still want us to go out and buy it even though he gives the indication that he wouldn't got out and buy a printed publication himself (he'd have a point as he would have to pay for that "media", as it wouldn't, you know, be free).

He goes on in the interview to talk extensively about where he gets his news from. He talks RSS and Twitter. He loves these technologies (as do we all) and how he and others are still trying to figure out how we can all make money out of the web to fund our future.

All this comes after critics recently took a swipe at his new book, 'Free: The Future of a Radical Price', with the FT saying that the problem with Anderson is that he veers between sweeping statements and balancing paragraphs in a manner that leaves the reader unsure of what he is actually saying.

Follow me on Twitter

Free economics work, as long as we're willing to pay

2182355 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:45:00 GMT

Is Chris Anderson's new book a complete load of codswallop, or are we too afraid of the consequences to accept the truth?

Having finished reading the Long Tail author's new book ‘Free, The Future of a Radical Price' this morning - the full £18.99 version rather than the free abridged edition - this is the question now vexing me.

There is much to disagree with in the Wired editor's new book-of-big-ideas, and Anderson has had his fair share of criticism since its publication, not least from fellow big idea toting author Malcolm ‘Tipping Point' Gladwell.

Indeed Anderson's own thesis - "making money around free will be the future of business" - appears at times to be contradicted in the book.

It seems to me having now read it, that Anderson doesn't suggest that free is the way forward at all. In fact Anderson says himself, though it takes until page 240, that "free may be the best price, but it can't be the only one".

For all its talk of business models that embrace free, from freemium, to time-limited, feature-limited, seat-limited and customer-type limited strategies, along with the book's exploration of non-monetary attention and reputation economics, at some point the only business model that works, unsurprisingly perhaps, involves someone putting their hand in their pocket and handing over a bit of hard-earned.

What the book lays on the line, and this is the bit media owners know only too well and are currently tackling to lesser or greater degrees of success (predominantly lesser it has to be said) - is that the current ad-funded model isn't working, and getting people to pay for content online is a challenge that may prove insurmountable.

As a journalist, who has a career and mortgage invested in the paid-for model, I'll happily admit that I have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

If Anderson is right and the natural price point of bits is dragged inexorably toward zero, and the digital age consigns my chosen career to the dustbin - as the machine-age did for manual labour - it will not do so now, nor did it then, without the equally natural human instinct to fight against it.

Whether that fight is won or lost, one thing the media industry must do well if it is to survive is adhere to an irrefutable Anderson maxim: "Sooner or later every company is going to have to figure out how to use Free or compete with Free, one way or another." Let battle commence.

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:25:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:25:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:24:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:24:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:24:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:24:00 GMT

Free book launch

2182355 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:23:00 GMT