|
|
-
Every year our family spends 10 days or so at our lake house in Finland. This is not a random choice as my beautiful wife Maarit was born and grew up in this watery land of thousands of lakes. (She also reads this blog from time to time, so I will earn some serious Brownie points for the prior sentence.)
This year I only managed to eke out a long weekend at the lake, as I was working double time during June. Nonetheless, it was a welcome break and I was able to cram in my usual regime of fishing, rowing, biking, swimming, sauna and beer. As Maarit’s tastes are too refined for beer, and the kids are still a bit young, this leaves my 81 year-old father-in-law, Harto, as my prime drinking buddy. This suits me just fine, because since my Finnish has not improved much in 21 years of marriage, it leaves plenty of time for drinking.
The Finnish lake house has been an important part of growing up for our kids, now 9 and 11. They have learned to fish on the lake, and then clean and cook their catch; they’ve learned to row and kayak; they’ve learned how to build and roof a small house; and they’ve learned how to prepare and take a sauna. Most of all, they have learned how to survive ten days without Wii, Playstation or shower. To their great surprise they have learned how to operate a wood-pulp based output device which permits advanced story-telling and requires little power to operate other than a dexterous manual maneuver from right to left.
This year was also the year I was planning to correct one major hole in Walter’s education. His sister Mariana, now 11, learned to ride a bike on the soft dirt roads along the lake, and now happily rides with her dad. So, I explained to Walter it was high time for him to complete this essential part of his education. He was not enthusiastic. I tried a variety of tactics. Legal reasoning: “Any boy who can waterski mono at age seven and score five goals in a league soccer match, must be able to ride a two-wheeler” – this is what a criminal lawyer would call a lesser-included offense. Practical fatherly advice: “One day a cute girl will ask you to ride home with her from school and you will wish you had learned how” – Walter reminded me we live two blocks from his all boys school. Finally, the ultimate argument: “Your sister can do it and you can’t.” Bingo, out we went.
Lance Armstrong will be pleased to hear that there will not be a new serious contender in this year’s Tour de France, and I must admit that Walter was not thrilled when I failed to catch him before he skidded into a nasty nettle patch, but I am proud to report that he will not be the only boy who cannot ride a bicycle.
My hard work done for the day, I returned to perspiring beer with Harto in the sauna.
|
-
My son Walter’s spring soccer season ended today – under the rain. It’s as if we never left London. Now I understand how prescient these kids were to name themselves the “Aqua Dominators” at the beginning of their blue-shirted season. The good news is that Walter, age 9, really learned how to play the “beautiful game” during his seven plus years in the UK. He does not quite yet bend it like Beckham, but neither does he sport any manly tattoos.
Passing the ball must be like underarm hair, something that boys must await puberty to master; however, there are glimpses of glory. The diving header (or as his English godfather Ed calls it, “ ‘it me on me noggin mate”); the deft weaving through three defenders to score; or the diving penalty defense in goal. It's great to watch your son score the goals you had planned to score yourself but somehow never did. It is also gratifying to watch teammates grow through the season and come to know their foibles (“Oh no, not another pass across your own goal mouth”) and their triumphs.
Some of the fathers do get a bit carried away. Pacing the sidelines like frustrated Alex Fergusons (we Barcelona fans like our Fergusons to be frustrated), barking out useless commands to their children (“center the ball,” “look for the open man”), or loudly overruling the hapless referee. The best invention in youth soccer is the “silent week” the team played earlier in the season. In those matches, no noise is permitted from the sidelines, including from the coaches. The idea is to let the kids organize themselves and learn, in effect, to coach themselves on the field. Not only did the team play well on its own, but the parents (yes, there are some moms) also learned that a marionette’s string does not invisibly connect their larynxes to their sons’ feet.
Some of the better kids are off to soccer camp for the summer. Walter has his own version –a daily regime of full field, one-on-one, against his dad. Judging by the spring season, this may be the year that son starts to beat dad in one sport after another.
|
-
I recently participated in a series of video interviews with an innovative online service called big think www.bigthink.com. The site describes itself as "a global forum connecting people and ideas."
In a wide-ranging interview, I discussed my thoughts on managing risk in an uncertain and volatile operating environment and avenues of growth in professional information businesses.
Rather than transcribe the interview here, I provide a link to the video below. In addition to saving me precious typing time, this referral might encourage you to explore other more worthy interviews.
http://bigthink.com/topics/business-and-economics/ideas/anticipate-risks-and-create-new-opportunities
|
-
A couple of weeks ago some old friends and I headed out to the Meadowlands Izod Center to hear The Dead. Not exactly The Grateful Dead of old, as Jerry Garcia can never be replaced, but a reformed and worthy sequel. Rather than seek some pale American Idol simulcra of Jerry, the remaining original members of the band were smart enough to reinvent themselves. So this year they are touring with excellent musicians, including Branford Marsalis, who do not try to ape Jerry, but instead take the sound into new places.
The Dead were always a great concert band – their rollicking jazz-like improvisations and modulations turned each concert into a different experience. For these musicians, the goal of a concert was never to reproduce the exact sound of their latest studio album; rather, each show was a unique jam session which might very well feature some songs that had also been released, but never in the same way. The ultimate “been there, done that.”
Along the way on that proverbial long strange trip, I believe that The Grateful Dead discovered the new economic model for the music industry 40 years ago. We are all familiar with the sad story of how music industry bosses sought to hold back the zero-cost reproduction capabilities of digital media by locking-up the music, first, in vinyl records, then, in cassettes and eight track tapes, and finally, in CDs. When young folks everywhere joined a mass revolt against copyright and just downloaded MP3s, the music industry sued them and then ultimately capitulated into the waiting arms of Apple’s Steve Jobs.
What the Dead figured out a long time ago is that artists should give away recorded music, and make their money from touring, building brand and merchandising. Most of the band’s 5000+ live shows are available for download or at least stream on the internet (see www.archive.org/details/GratefulDead or www.deaddisc.com/GDFD_Dicks_Picks.htm). Rather than suing fans to prohibit bootleg recordings, the Dead allowed its devotees to set up microphones at their concerts and also provided high quality tapes of every show right off the mixing board.
Thus, the recordings themselves become viral advertisements for the group and build brand and demand for concert tickets and merchandise which are harder to copy. Now the downside of this model is that the band cannot just sit back and count royalties from the sale of its recorded music and deign to do a concert tour every other year to promote its latest album. Instead, the musicians need to embrace touring and playing as their primary mission. The music company also becomes more of a brand management and promotion company, with likely reduced economics. However, this is not far from where the music industry seems headed itself, with concepts like the “360 contract” which seeks a cut of non-recorded income.
As for me, I was just there to enjoy the show and muse upon content monetization models. Oh, and yes, I bought Mariana and Walter some really cool tie-dyed tee shirts.
|
-
So in Part One I explained why I began to blog and said why I continue to do so was a story for another day. Fortunately, a bunch of you took the pregnant hint and requested Part Two of the story.
For a change I will lay out the answer in top 10 list format:
- Because of the comments, feedback, interaction and encouragement I get from you – it’s the two way communication that distinguishes blogging from traditional publishing or broadcasting for me. See one of my earlier posts, The Two Way Pipe (Oct 2006).
- Because I continue to learn new things about social media and the value of interaction as well as what interests the readers of this blog and what interests me enough to motivate me to write.
- Because taking the first step to open up and describe what I am interested in (my family, my job, the transition from print to digital, technology, books, music, etc.), helps to build a bridge to others both online and off and encourages others to reciprocate in kind.
- Because I now run a big company, and this blog as well as other social media such as Facebook and Twitter creates a greater sense of access and immediacy for the 52,000 individuals who work for Thomson Reuters.
- Because this blog provides journalists who plan to write about me a set of background materials that explain what I am about in my own words, thereby creating a base upon which a live interview can expand upon and, in theory, develop themes in greater detail.
- Because sometimes those journalists and others misstate my position on some matter and this blog allows me to set out my position in my own words to live on as part of the electronic record that follows us all.
- Because this blog functions as an old fashioned diary, but one because it is open to all, records what I hope is more meaningful than the average Twitter feed (“Stuck in Narita airport again and nothing but gooey sweet green candies to buy for the kids.”)
- Because writing things down helps me clarify and order my thinking.
- Because lecturing people on the things I write about seems pompous and self important to me, but laying them out in cyberspace and allowing anyone who wants to read them do so; read half, stop in mid-sentence or read the whole thing – this seems consensual and OK to me.
- And the Number One reason I blog – ‘cause I just feel like it from time to time.
|
-
I often get asked why I decided to write a blog. The answer unfortunately is not that I felt I had anything so important to say that I needed to share it with my 10,000 closest friends. Rather, the reasons were quite selfish - I wanted to learn.
I write a blog for the same reason I experiment with social media like Facebook, Twitter, Yammer, Linked-in, Dopplr, etc. I do it to learn-by-doing -- what the academics usually call "experiential learning."
For me, learning is a lifelong passion and commitment. One of the best things about my job and the business of Thomson Reuters is that I am genuinely interested in and curious about our customers, their businesses, the technology we and they use, the world our journalists document, and so on. My learning curve remains steep and I feel that the day I dementedly decide that I have learned everything worth learning is the day I should find another thing to do. Take this as a personal rejection of the sentiment attributed to that early and infamous head of the US patent office who declared that everything worth inventing had already been invented.
Like everyone else, I learn in a variety of ways. I learn by watching others; I learn by reading; I learn from teachers. However, I also believe that one of the most effective ways to learn is simply by doing.
Imagine it is the early years of this century and the CEO of a major information provider with 2500 journalists was beginning to hear a lot about blogging and the phenomenon of citizen journalism. Now imagine that he wanted to really understand what was going on; what were the motivations of its early adopters; what were the implications for media companies, or even just, how do you do it, what tools are needed, and who would care?
One common approach, taken from the standard-issue CEO toolkit, would have been to request the Head of Strategy, Business Development or Editorial to study the landscape and report back her conclusions, replete with powerpoints and acronyms. Another, more expensive approach would have been to hire a McKinsey, Bain or other management consultancy to author a comprehensive report. A third, closer-to-home approach would have been to create an account on one of the multiple services that offer blog hosting, and just start doing it and see what happens.
I chose this last approach and what you are reading today is my third generation weblog. Along the way I have learned a lot from members of this community who interact with me and offer their comments; I have learned about what this small audience finds interesting or not; and I have learned things about myself and perhaps the motivations of other bloggers.
There is also a lot I have not learned by doing it myself. I haven't gained a birds-eye view of what others are doing; I don’t have a clue about industry size or economics; and I haven't discovered the ultimate answer of what hybrid media will emerge. However, by experimenting myself I have thought more about these issues and read more third party blogs than I otherwise would have.
I would not rush to advocate the teaching of neurosurgery by neophyte experimentation (better to await a later stage residency). However, there is much to recommend learning-by-doing -- especially the confidence that comes from knowing you can do something yourself rather than just trying to remember what some brilliant consultant said it was all about. To quote the departed (not so dearly by many) Defense Secretary, Don Rumsfeld, we can cut down on the things "we do not know we do not know."
I hope this helps to explain why I began to blog; why I continue is a story for another day.
|
-
I spoke recently at an interesting monthly gathering of smart, switched-on tech and media leaders in Brooklyn organized by the very talented Sam Lessin – also known among friends of his accomplished father Bob, as “Lessin 2.0.” The salon is called Y+30 and challenges its presenters to discuss a different industry each month, focusing on what it might be like 30 years into the future. Although daunting at first, this challenge is strangely liberating for those of us whose normal strategic horizon is the quite tactical and incremental three to five years.
For my talk, I chose the future of financial information, and focused on how one day public company disclosure might overcome its current limits of time and space. In particular, I posited a world awash in financial and operating data in which company executives no longer pretended to control the timing and nature of information about their enterprises which is disclosed to the public through then outdated constructs such as 10-Ks, 10-Qs and press releases. Instead there would be a constant flow of data directly distributed from every firm’s ERP systems. Similarly, such antiquated geographical concepts as onshore vs. offshore markets, domestic regulation and “flowback” would be rendered meaningless by seamless global trading and regulation.
Granted, these ideas are a bit far-fetched, but that is precisely the ground rules of Y+30. Given the calls for greater international regulatory coordination in response to the current economic crisis and the prevalence already today of expert networks like Gerson Lehman and primary research such as pinging ecommerce sites for sales data, perhaps my vision is, in fact, not sufficiently long-sighted.
In the event, my talk itself and the ensuing discussion was not particularly controversial (at least in this crowd), but my answer to a somewhat unrelated question on the future of newspapers has been ricocheting in an increasingly inaccurate way across the blogosphere. I did, in fact, imagine a future (again 30 years hence) when a newspaper (in my example my hometown New York Times) could employ only 60 journalists rather than the hundreds who work there today. In my example, I challenged our conception of what a newspaper must include and imagined my theoretically ideal paper which combined New York Times content on the Middle-East, the FT on Europe, the Wall Street Journal or Reuters for finance, ESPN for sports and so on. The web, of course, already makes such a mash-up possible today either through browser tabs or RSS feeds.
In this sort of disaggregated world, the NYT would not need a staff of hundreds to produce a fully integrated newspaper, any more than Apple needs to manufacture its own hard drives or touch screens. I imagined that to really focus on one or two core strengths that it could do better than any other publication, the Times might need 30 star journalists – the Tom Friedmans and William Safires, a couple of great editors, and then an up and coming group (or farm system) of 30 junior staff who could grow into the next generation of stars. I readily admit this would be much different from our current view of what a newspaper should look like, but ironically this alternative reality is not so far removed from that apparently described by the great Times editor Max Frankel in a memo to management several years ago (see The Inheritance Vanity Fair, May 2009).
Even if this vision of a more open and interoperable newspaper were financially viable, it will be difficult for the current generation of integrated papers to get there. I know from painful personal experience at Reuters that it is much easier to build new from zero to 60 staff than to reduce 1000 to 60. Moreover, there is no reason to believe (just because I came up with a low number to be intentionally provocative) that the “right” number is not 200 or 300. The principle, however, is the same. When I fly on American Airlines, I am actually pleased they feature Starbucks coffee rather than American Airlines coffee. I don’t want Starbucks baristas flying or maintaining the 777, but I see no reason other than inertia why every function must be staffed by “insiders.”
The modern digital world is increasingly frictionless. This requires every company that wishes to survive and prosper to really understand and focus on its core competence. To repeatedly ask “what do we do better than anyone else? What defines us?” At Thomson Reuters, some of our businesses used to build their own computer hardware and operate communications networks, but these are not our core skill set. Today we still build our own editing systems, but likely not for ever. Newspapers are glorious, fabled institutions which serve an important civic role, but that does not give them a perpetual bye to avoid change and reinvention like the rest of us.
|
-
Having just watched the tender movie, Marley and Me, about the irrepressible blond Labrador, I realized that our dog Luna is the only one of our “children” who has not figured prominently in this blog. Luna does not get taken to the museum or on ski trips; she does not have a weekly soccer practice (although she sometimes cheers on Walter from the sidelines), but for a little while longer she remains the largest of our three kids.
At around 80 pounds, Luna is not even large for an English Bullmastiff; however, what she gives up in weight she more than makes up for in determination and affection. I am perhaps the only member of the family with the strength to restrain her, even on leash, if she detects a moldy but choice piece of bread lying close by in the gutter. Luna is an eating machine.
Her puppy years passed easily enough with only the occasional TV remote control or pair of high fashion sunglasses as teething aid. But full grown, her hunger knows no bounds. The cost of just keeping the “Brown Beast,” as my mother rather reverently calls her, in dog chow rivals New York City private school tuition. Add to this the occasional trip to the “Vet to the Stars” and the seeds of financial ruin are sown. The other members of the family may keep themselves healthy on the regular Thomson Reuters health plan, but Luna gets the very best veterinary medicine can provide.
Most of the time, Luna just lies around the house, and in this, she is hardly distinguishable from her human siblings. When we got our first Bullmastiff, friends said we were nuts to try to keep such a large dog in a small New York City apartment. Well, since then, the apartment has gotten a little larger, but the more important point is that even such a large dog as Luna actually takes up reasonably little space compared to the typical Park Avenue lap dog. These small yapping terrors fly about an apartment at warp speed, leaping from couch to table top to kitchen counter. As such, they remind me of fast moving electrons darting along their orbital shells. Per my canine adaptation of the well-accepted uncertainty principle of quantum physics, you can never quite determine the precise location of these electron-sized dogs at any given time – although their ceaseless barking does provide an approximate clue. Luna on the other hand poses no such quantum mechanical challenge. Whereever she chooses to sit (and I would not argue the point), she takes up a fair amount of space, but that’s it – she wont move again until feeding time.
Luna is also a quiet dog. She can happily sleep through the worst thunderstorm or display of Grucci fireworks, but on the rare occasion she does bark or growl, we all pay attention. She is a good guard dog, and can appear quite menacing at full gallop, but this potential ferociousness is undermined by her habit of always carrying a soft plush toy in her mouth to eagerly greet the Son of Sam or whichever intruder is nigh. I did think once of buying her a soft toy shaped like a gun, but I thought better of it.
Certainly among the nicest qualities of dogs is that they are always happy to see you; don’t care whether you are rich or poor, or whether you have had a good day or bad day at work or school. All they ask for is a little love and affection ….and, of course, about 100 pounds of dog food per month.
|
-
Some of the readers of this blog have requested that I discuss the current financial crisis and resulting recession. As I shy away from subjects too close to the business of Thomson Reuters, in part to avoid 20 pages of risk factors in each post, I will respond here only in general terms.
As we entered 2007 and the markets kept booming, we were living on borrowed time. Debt was rising at record levels, a bubble in real estate was driving consumer spending well beyond real income levels and the weakest business models seemed a sure thing. Then housing started to collapse, the consumer caved and we woke up to a severe and dangerous credit crisis. That fateful weekend in September 2008 when Lehman was allowed to file for bankruptcy the global economy reset.
In the face of this unprecedented challenge, the single most important quality that every ceo, banker, portfolio manager or politician should possess and display is agility.
In hindsight, it is very easy to recommend that bankers should have avoided the sub-prime mortgage market or other toxic corners of the housing bubble, but this would ignore the pressures on public company executives not to miss the wave of a rising tide. When Chuck Prince of Citi famously declared that “we’re still dancing” just before the credit wave crashed ashore, he spoke for many executives in saying that he would not sit on the sidelines while others danced their way to outsize profits. Similarly, if your financial adviser or portfolio manager kept you out of tech stocks in 1998-2000, you probably were not happy with her relative performance.
The goal should not be to resist all temptation. Rather it should be to go with the herd only in a very wary, agile way. For companies this means not to over-extend and ignore cash flow, for banks this means not to fund short-term and invest long-term, for investors this means not to confuse theoretical credit quality with liquidity, and for would-be house owners this means not to be lured by complex loan products that can reset above levels you can afford. Above all, don’t add large amounts of leverage just because someone is silly enough to lend to you.
What we have once again and painfully learned is that the economic cycle works like a game of musical chairs – exacerbated by high leverage into musical high chairs. If you are wealthy or healthy enough to carry your own pillow, great; if you are fast and agile enough to jump into an available chair when the music stops, great; otherwise the fall is going to hurt.
|
-
With Bernie Madoff locked-up in the Manhattan Correctional Center, better known to New Yorkers as ‘the Tombs” (a fitting place for him to enter prison life, never to return), I thought I would share one of the odder thoughts (or mental hyperlinks) I have had.
Although the victims of this enormous fraud deserve our help and sympathy, at its core what made Bernie’s scam so powerful was the seductive offer it extended to investors to let them into the inner circle, a private club or sanctum sanctorum to which few are ever admitted. This reminds me in an odd way of the allure of the luxury goods market: “Madam, we could not possibly sell you a fabled Birkin bag; the waiting list is years long.” Followed, some weeks or months later by the helpful call of a sympathetic store manager who reports that one such extremely expensive handbag happens to have surfaced at a sister store which might be available if the shopper could act fast.
Now, before I receive petabytes of hate mail, let me say that the criminal acts of an evil man can and should in no way be equated with the perfectly legal marketing tactics of the high-end luxury market. However, one of the most seductive elements of the Madoff crimes was the irony that at the same time that Bernie was brushing off would-be investors with a “it’s probably not for you,” he was apparently paying outsize selling commissions to feeder funds to take in ever larger new flows of cash.
I suppose we should not be surprised at this warped parallel. Madoff would not have been so successful over a very long period had he not understood how to tap into one of the deeper insecurities of the human character. Namely, the strong desire most of us harbor to be included, to feel on the inside of a very good thing, to get the present denied to others.
Perhaps Groucho had it right again: Don’t try too hard to be a member of any club that would have you.
|
-
Following our recent Night at the Museum (see separate blog entry below) and thanks to a bad flu in the family, Mariana and I found ourselves on a long holiday ski weekend that turned into another father-daughter outing. Clearly part of Mariana’s pleasure at this turn of events was the delicious ten-year old thought that she would be getting better on skis while her athletic younger brother Walter perfected his nose-blowing technique at home. As for me, I imagined stylish descents of steep slopes in synchronized slalom, punctuated by meaningful father-daughter conversations while re-ascending grand peaks in luxury chairlifts.
Now for the reality. Do you moms realize how terrifying it is for the average dad (CEOs included) to contemplate that he now must feed, clothe and bathe his adolescent daughter for an entire ski trip? Helpless calls home to ask mom how many layers should daughter wear under her ski pants or whether long hair should be braided or parted under a ski helmet just won’t do.
In the end, the snow was great, the daughter forgiving and the skiing superb. While the image of chairlift discussions gave way to the reality of chilly joke telling, nonetheless the weekend was a great success. Mariana came home an accomplished skier, I went back to work with both ACLs intact, and we both appreciated the other more than before.
One other revelation of the weekend for me was to be reminded of the difference between skiing in the US and in Europe where my family and I lived for the last seven years. At European ski resorts the slopes are very poorly marked; however, the roads leading to the resort (or anywhere else for that matter) are very clearly signposted. In the US, it is exactly the reverse: ski trails so well marked that you and your lawyer could not possibly end up on a “Double Black” run or “off piste” by accident, but roads so poorly marked that you could easily get lost on the Interstate and never find the ski resort in the first place.
I can hardly wait for our next father-daughter outing.
|
-
A couple of weeks ago my daughter Mariana and I spent a night at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Just as in the eponymous movie, we slept (actually not much) surrounded by dinosaurs, stuffed grizzly bears and Teddy Roosevelt.
When I signed us up for the event through Mariana's school some months ago it seemed like a fun way to spend a Friday night. Little did I realize I would end up after a long work week trying to sleep on a hard cot under a giant blue whale with the entire Hannah Montana fan club shining flashlights in my face.
That was the bad part. The good part was getting to spend time with just my daughter on an adventure back through time. As we walked through darkened dinosaur halls with only Mariana's flashlight to guide us, the city outside the museum's walls began to fade away. Every turn revealed a new creature which somehow managed to walk the earth without the aid of Nikes, iPhones or Juicy Couture.
Long after my sore back recovers from our "Night at the Museum", we will both remember our night running through galleries, making pretend jewelry with the gemstone collections, walking back through 13 billion years of the universe's history, making faces at the stuffed bears and trying to figure out where we would run if we had a Velociraptor on our tail. More than anything I will remember the simple joy of just being together with neither cell phone nor Gameboy to interrupt us.
|
-
In his now famous 1989 essay, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama argued that the spread of Western liberal democracy represented an end of history in the Hegelian sense that the progression of history towards an ultimate goal had, in fact, been reached with the fall of communism.
My impressions from several sessions with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Russian Federation Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at Davos are that if Fukuyama was ever correct, history has resumed. While Western leaders argued over who was to blame for the financial crisis devouring world markets, these former communist leaders harbored no doubt - it was US style capitalism and a naively unregulated financial system.
Premier Wen gave measured and impressive performances, calmly answering even sensitive questions such as Sino-US rifts over exchange rate policy, and generally avoiding "we told you so" gloating. Prime Minister Putin on the other hand was less restrained, to the point where it seemed quite evident that this was personal payback time for the perceived humbling of the great Russian state after the fall of communism.
While Mr. Putin's public rebuke of the well-intentioned Mike Dell has received a huge amount of media attention, I thought the more remarkable performance was when Mr. Putin responded to a question about the incident the following day. Towards the end of a long description of Russia's recognized scientific prowess, he got on to the subject of technology export controls imposed by certain western governments. Mr. Putin said that these were outdated and ineffective because (i) it is in the nature of the scientific process to publish and share findings at international conferences and (ii) in any case, even during the Cold War, the Russian intelligence services were able to obtain all the technology they wanted. It is perhaps not surprising that this former siloviki holds his intelligence services in high regard, but it struck me as unusually forthright.
What is clear from both Premier Wen and Prime Minister Putin's few days in the Graubunden Mountains, is that history is anything but dead and we are in for a more multilateral world over the coming years.
|
-
But journalism is alive and well.
Lionel Barber of the FT masterfully moderated the 2009 installment in the long-running Davos debate on the health of the media, entitled "Fragility in the Fourth Estate." Joining me on the panel were Steve Forbes of the eponymous magazine; Jonathan Nelson of Providence Equity Partners, the media-focused buyout firm; Shobhana Bhartia of the Indian Parliament and the Hindustan Times; and John Graham of Fleishman-Hillard, the global PR firm.
While we broke little new ground, the discussion was uncharacteristically animated for a 9:00am audience. While Luddites and Refusniks remain, there seems to be growing acceptance of the point I and others have been making for years: Newsprint is an output device, not an end in itself. What matters is quality journalism which can and does thrive in multiple media.
There are several advantages of paper: it is light to carry, highly legible, and can be folded, written upon and read on the train or in the small tiled room. However, paper has its limitations: it is relatively expensive, must be physically delivered, is less environmentally friendly than digital bits, and cannot be easily searched or processed. This latter point has resulted in the near destruction of the print newspaper model as classified advertising has fled online.
While these trends are not universal (Shobhana reminded us that newspapers in India continue to thrive), the combination of these structural challenges with the tremendous cyclical pressures being experienced in most markets should not make one optimistic about the future of the print-only model.
Instead, of lamenting that the Fourth Estate is dead, we should celebrate the innovations of the current age that can now be applied to telling the story, such as blogs, wikis, IPTV, social media, the mobile web, Kindle, electronic ink, etc.. For those who can make the leap while not abandoning their journalistic values, new audiences await.
|
-
One of the privileges of being Chief Executive of Thomson Reuters is that I get to meet some very interesting people and have access to events and places that I don't flatter myself into believing would be available to me otherwise. One such event was an invitation to lunch this past Sunday with Gordon Brown and his family at Chequers, the country retreat of British prime ministers.
So, my family and I dutifully drove out of London into the Buckinghamshire countryside. We had received quite detailed directions from 10 Downing Street; however, either due to our own navigational incompetence or the mysterious windings of English country lanes, we found ourselves totally lost and running late in the vicinity of Chequers. Overcoming for a moment my usual male reluctance to ask anyone for directions, I thought I had hit upon a brilliant plan. I stopped a nice looking Englishman in high Wellies walking his golden retriever and asked for directions to "Chequers . "
The man cheerfully responded that we were truly in luck. He said that he happened to work at Chequers and proceeded to give us incredibly detailed directions to the location. As we followed them precisely we kept congratulating ourselves on our perspicacious choice of guide and soon arrived at "Chequers."
Unfortunately, the place to which we were sent was not the Prime Minister's baronial country home, but the "Chequers Inn", a quaint pub some five miles further away. It turned out that our guide was not on the Prime Minister's staff, but rather the local barkeep.
We then embarrassedly retraced our route and, after a further few inquiries, found our way to the real Chequers more or less on time. Given the weighty issues the PM and his staff must grapple with these days, I was happy to bring a bit of American navigational levity to the occasion.
|
|
|