Author Archives: Doug Freeman

What SXSWi Attendees Can Learn From SXSW Music

Posted on by
9

Last week, as the technorati returned home from their working spring breaks in Austin for SXSW Interactive, the backlash began almost immediately. It started with Jolie O’Dell’s post, smartly entitled “Why SXSW Sucks.” It quickly followed with the predictable back and forth, and many reporters and attendees said that this year’s SXSWi was too big, too crowded, and too overtly sponsored.

These objections aren’t necessarily unwarranted. The interactive portion of SXSW this year was the largest it has ever been, swarmed with reporters, companies, and yes, even sponsors and Ashton Kutcher. Perhaps the festival has in some ways jumped the shark, and we can all begin to reminisce of the good ol’ days when we knew everyone in attendance. After all, remembering how good things used to be is one of our favorite pasttimes in Austin.

While Carla Thompson’s concern that there were simply too many panels happening simultaneously is well founded and should be addressed by organizers in the future, other objections simply strike as silly.

If you are a reporter for a major tech or business publication, you are probably used to companies and wannabe influencers attempting to accost you for an elevator pitch or quick conversation. It comes with the territory. This certainly doesn’t give them the right to be annoying or “douchebags,” but there is also a certain amount of grace with which the writers can handle these encounters, as well.

I say all of this from my own experience, both personal and observed, in covering the music portion of SXSW for the Austin Chronicle. SXSW Music is a week of madness, pure chaos that bewilders me every year with how smoothly the festival is able to pull off their official events – not to mention how the city handles the flood of parties and shows on every corner and alley that can fit a singer-songwriter.

While I acknowledge that there are, of course, very unique and important differences in the interactive and music portions of SXSW, both in how they operate and how they are professionally covered, there are a number of helpful approaches to managing and getting the most from the maelstrom of SXSWm for those attending SXSWi. Especially as the latter becomes more of an event that finds a greater measure of its quality through quantity, serendipity becomes somewhat diluted by choice, and body shots may not be the most effective way to get a story.

As Mark Hopkins noted on Silicon Angle, perhaps the most important element to effectively managing the SXSW experience is to simply research and come with a game plan. Don’t worry, that game plan will get blown to hell in a matter of hours. For the music portion of the fest, there are nearly 2,000 official bands playing showcases and countless others in town to play day shows or just try to get attention. If you begin the Wednesday of the music festival without having researched who is going to be here, you’ve already lost. You will bounce from club to club and party to party and rarely see a band that you are actually interested in, much less discover something new that you might like. This is common sense for those attending the music fest, and yet more and more during SXSWi, I heard attendees discussing they had no idea such and such company was here, or so and so influencer, CEO, or analyst was in town.

Because of the high number of panels, there were a number of leading industry figures in town that may not have been here in an official capacity for their company. You can easily find these folks listed, and reach out to talk with them if even in an informal capacity. Likewise, even those attending SXSW in an unannounced fashion are available to be reached. If you hear that someone is in town that you would like to speak to, reach out to them. The chances of your running into them at a party have become significantly less likely, but if your reporting is reliant on serendipity, you probably wouldn’t have made it as far as being in a position to complain about the lack of SXSW value.

The bottom line here is to spend a significant amount of time planning beforehand. Know those companies or people with whom you want to meet, reach out to them and set it up, and be flexible with it happening. You have five days to get together, just like you often have numerous chances to catch a band during the week of SXSW music. Decide those meetings/shows that are most important, make them happen, and work the other pieces out as you can.

A second major complaint at this year’s SXSW was the barrage of unrelated sponsorships. Apparently many participants were insulted by being showered by brands like Pepsi or Sobe that really have nothing to do with tech. I’ll admit that this objection baffles me. Unless it’s a question of SXSW “selling out” (ah, the familiar indie band belittlement!), why were the presence of these sponsors so obnoxious? Yes, SXSW music is like a carnival of product placement (most music festivals these days are, in fact), but it surprises me that so many people accustomed to ignoring internet ads can’t ignore them in physical space. And though the nutrition bars that were being handed out tasted like crap, I was thankful to eat more than a few of them during the week.

Perhaps the most important complaint of SXSW this year, however, was the reported level of being accosted by unsolicited pitches. Granted, those offenders who have no tact or decorum should rightfully be ashamed, and maybe even called out for it. Unwanted aggressiveness in promoting yourself or company is rarely flattering, and those folks will likely realize that the hard way.

If you are covering SXSWi, though, part of the job implies a certain amount of openness to the serendipity of discovering something new. This year’s problem of serendipity seems to have been that those encounters were rarely productive, and often annoying. However, if your complaint is that you couldn’t seclude yourself off enough to get away from the masses, then SXSW may, in fact, not be the festival for you at all.

My favorite example of how to gracefully handle the unsolicited pitch is this guy. David Fricke, senior music editor for Rolling Stone, literally wears this perma-smile the entire festival. It’s an amazing feat of patience, especially as he cannot attend a show without someone telling him about a band he needs to see, or walk down the street without having CDs thrust into his hands. I am not exaggerating. And yet he nods and smiles in a way that is accepting, and yet when need be, clearly signals that he really doesn’t give a crap. I have also, however, seen him engage in very productive conversations from these encounters, and even check out bands based on them that he will actually later write up. That is a small minority, to be sure, but nearly without fail every year at SXSW, one of the favorite acts that I will see will come from word of mouth.

Tech conferences and festivals, like music festivals, all have their distinct personalities. Some are specifically geared to being exclusive, intimate gatherings at the expense of variety and serendipity. Some are meant to be sprawling in scope with both companies and those covering the event, often at the expense of deeply meaningful interactions and conversations.

SXSW music’s value comes from the convergence of the entire industry – bands, critics, businesses, and promoters – in one place for a week. The sheer quantity of both acts and interactions is something that simply doesn’t happen anywhere else. And if a more intimate conversation is warranted, it’s easy to break off somewhere less hectic. Or, in another parallel, I may only catch 20 minutes of a band, but be sufficiently intrigued enough to follow up by either getting their album or catching them at the next opportunity.

If SXSW Interactive is moving towards being an encompassing equivalent for the tech industry, it of course comes at the expense of some of the “easy” discoveries that will happen at a smaller event. However, for those willing to sufficiently plan ahead, keep themselves open to new finds, and that want more out of the event than simply checking in to the hot party to say that you were there, I still contend that SXSWi can offer amazing dividends.

I find it difficult to believe that so many of the top tech reporters in the world had trouble navigating SXSWi and finding value, especially from the perspective of a music critic who has been doing SXSW for years. Perhaps the problem is the continued perception of SXSWi as “Spring Break for Nerds,” and attendees and those covering the event are taking the “break” a bit too literally. (I should also note that I saw many writers working tirelessly this year in their coverage). Reporting during the music portion of the festival is constant and stressful, with reviews actually being written on the spot in clubs as music is blaring. The Fest is spread across the city, and you are rushing from venue to venue, trying to make deadlines. And yet we still manage to have fun, while never losing sight of the fact that we are here to work as well.

Full Disclaimer: Jones-Dilworth did PR this year for the SXSW Accelerator event

Austin Tech Leaders Create Matching HelpHaiti Fund

Posted on by
6

If you haven’t yet donated to help out the victims of the devastating earthquake in Haiti, or even if you have and can offer a little bit more, Austin Ventures and the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Central Texas are providing a way to double your donation. They are calling upon Central Texas tech companies, their employees and friends to provide assistance to the rescue efforts in Haiti, and have established a $600,000 High-Tech HelpHaiti Fund to match donations.

You can donate at a website set up by the Entrepreneurs Foundation at http://www.GiveToAustin.org/HelpHaiti. The $600,000 contributed to match the contributions has been donated by Austin Ventures, Donna & Philip Berber, Dave & Isabel Welland, MFI Foundation, the Garber Family, Silicon Labs and the Entrepreneurs Foundation.

“The Austin entrepreneurial community is a tightly-knit group from which we all benefit. It is important that we use this great bond to mobilize and help others in time of need. The tragedy in Haiti is one of these times for us to step up,” said Phil Siegel of Austin Ventures, who is also chairing the committee to distribute the donations. Also serving on the committee are MFI Foundation’s Lynn Meredith, Glimmer of Hope Founder, Philip Berber, Silicon Labs founder Dave Welland and Eugene Sepulveda, CEO of the Entrepreneurs Foundation.

The committee has already wired $250,000 to two groups that are assisting directly with the efforts in Haiti, choosing to immediately donate what they could now rather than waiting to match the contributions of the Tech community. Austin Startup encourages all of Austin’s entrepreneurs and members of the tech community to give to the HelpHaiti fund in whatever amount you can.

Additional information is available at http://www.GiveToAustin.org/HelpHaiti and by emailing HelpHaiti@GiveToAustin.org.

Paræ-Techs: 5 Reasons the Tablet Will Save Publishing

Posted on by
4

I’m not one to generally succumb to the hype machine, but 2010 seems to finally be the year that the tablet is realized. Despite whatever analogies the typically curmudgeonly Jack Shafer might make, even if the tablet only lives up to only a portion of its promise, it will be a game changing device.

The back and forth of the rumors and premature reactions have been flooding the tech blogs leading up to the new year, and whether or not Apple leads the charge – and by all accounts, it it appears they will – even the very prospect of the devices has spurred the publishing industry to finally begin thinking in new ways. To put it simply, the tablet is already precipitating a change for publishing that can pull the industry from its slow print death, and here are five reasons why it will actually work.

1. Publishers are involved in the platform

There seem to more tablets on the horizon than the market can even pretend to sustain. Apple, of course, has gotten the most attention, but we’ve also seen potential releases from Microsoft, Google, and HP, to name but a few of the larger players.

Most interesting, however, is the announcement of publishers actually producing their own devices. Time Inc showed off their impressive vision for a magazine platform in the Publishing 2.0 world, and Hearst is currently showcasing its Skiff at CES. These tablets will likely be backseat to anything Apple, Google, or Microsoft produces, but the significance is that publishers are attempting to control their own destiny in regard to the coming Great Tabulation.

The spectacular failure of the music industry to heed the digital coming, effectively respond and adjust, and then being forced to enter the game on iTunes’ terms is the ultimate lesson for media companies facing digital Darwinism. Publishing’s play into the tablet market is smart because it allows them to get in on the ground floor (after having pretty squarely squelched the initial opportunities of being on the forefront of their Web transition) and establish their own principles for what the space should look like for the descendents of print.

2. Publishers Are Finally Showing an Understanding of Digital Content

This point follows from the first. The past decade was absolutely embarrassing for print publishers as they transitioned to the Web. Even simply recognizing the value and implementing blogs was a struggle for print publications, so to expect them to propel their own industry within the possibilities of a new medium was even more fantastic.

As we leave the Naughts, however, publishers seem to finally be on the offensive. Recent projects like the New York Times’ Skimmer, and the NYT and Washington Post’s Google labs partnership with the Living Stories project are both simple examples of news outlets finally publishing with the capabilities and possibilities of Web in mind rather simply trying to transcribe their print copy to a digital format.

Looking at the demo of the Time Inc. tablet shows a clear effort to re-conceptualize what magazines can be, distilling the essentials of the print content while finally exploding its bound limitations. The new models seem to retain a sense of self-containment of content, but also an understanding of linking out to broader content and context.

Hopefully we’ll begin to see more of mega-publishers like Conde Nast begin to leverage the collective value of their assets for content (ie, an article in Wired feeding an article in the New Yorker, not in the sense of actual shared content, but rather overlapping perspectives from different publications around the same items). Such inter-linking facilitates valuable cross-contextualization, and should be easily incorporated into the digital/tablet framework.

3: The Mainstreaming of E-Readers

My mother has a Kindle. She is a 60-something retired school teacher, avid reader, lives in a fairly rural area, and is the furthest person from an early-adopter that can exist and still use a computer. I mention this only as anecdotal evidence to the heralded trend, however much weight you want to give it, that e-readers have finally caught on.

For all of the love that the general public seems to have for the Kindle, it’s fairly limited in what it can do. That is part of its point, of course, but it opens the space for a more versatile type of device. Especially now that the nut of dual e-ink/LCD display seems to finally be being cracked, a more vibrant and expansive e-Reading device is due, one that can accommodate the goals of digital magazines, and even textbooks.

4. The Tablet is an Undefined Medium

E-Readers have demonstrated an adequate demand, but the beauty of the tablet is that its uses are not yet defined. This is an often overlooked asset of a new technology, especially one that is almost guaranteed to be successful.

The rumors and expectations currently have the device, in general, operating as a bigger and better iPhone. The bigger screen and processing power, however, will likely make the device ideal for entertainment, operating not simply as an e-Reader, but also capable of streaming television, videos, music, etc, as well as offering some of the functionality of a typical laptop. If the tablet can actually establish itself as a primary portable universal entertainment device, it can finally bring publishing back into the fold with digital music and online video. The opportunity for publishers to define the space – and everyone seems willing to let publishers lay their claims to the tablet’s ideal functionality – is something they won’t likely have again anytime soon.

5. Subscription Based Packages and Better Advertising

All of the above points tie into why publishing will actually work well on the tablet, but none address the actual problem that is facing the industry – the plummeting revenue from advertising and subscriptions. For the tablet to truly serve as the savior of the publishing world, it needs to generate money for the publications.

While some new ideas for novel revenue streams will no doubt emerge with the tablet, there are several aspects of the projected device that make it already more viable for new takes on traditional models than other devices have been.

The first is simply that is can better accommodate advertising. With more screen-space than a smart phone, and its ability to accommodate a layout more conducive to magazine and newspaper content than our expectations of current websites, advertising will once again have a meaningful presence, providing the publishers are smart enough to incorporate it into their initial offerings.

With the advent of more location-based and personalized advertising technologies, the tablet could be the perfect model for harnessing preferenced ad capability with familiar print-based frameworks.

The other returned revenue possibility lies in subscriptions, which could be handled in any number of ways. From the single magazine/newspaper subscription for a nominal price, to individual “newsstand” issue payments, to a more likely package deal that resembles something of the current cable TV bundles, readers will actually pay to receive these publications digitally and have access to their archives.

The partnership between News Corp., Time Warner Inc.’s Time Inc., Condé Nast Publications Inc., Hearst Corp. and Meredith Corp. already suggests that publishers are thinking along these lines, and that the content subscriptions may not be limited to only magazines or newspapers.

Whatever becomes of the slew of promised tablets this year, and whether or not it will actually “save” the publishing industry, the opportunity is finally available for publishers to control their own digital future, define the space for Publishing 2.0, and reinvent their products and relationships with their consumers.

Paræ-Techs: Is Non-Profit the Only Hope for Online News?

Posted on by
3

In our most recent Fresh Tech Friday feature, Steve Guengerich wrote about the newly launched Texas Tribune’s use of Django as its development framework. Hailing the startup political news site as “the poster child for the next generation of investigative news reporting,” Steve rightfully applauds the efforts and early success of the Trib in establishing a quality online news site.

The Tribune is, of course, not alone in seeking to outline a new path for news in an era when publications are floundering, and their online equivalents are still attempting to define themselves in an awkward dance of balancing print and digital paradigms. When the New York Times Company can wax optimistic at losing only $35.6 million in this year’s third quarter, and that primarily by hatcheting its newsroom and assets, clearly we are past the point of innovation as merely a luxury.

What may be most revealing about the Times’ “earnings” report in October, however, is nestled further down in the article: “The largest segment of the company reached a watershed moment, collecting more from readers than from advertisers, in an industry where advertising revenue traditionally outweighed revenue from circulation by at least three to one.” That’s a daftly-worded take on the minor rise in circulation revenue to $175.2 million versus the precipitous drop in ad revenue to $164.5 million.

Those ad revenues are not likely to return in any substantial form.

Which is why one of the most interesting aspects of the new Texas Tribune is not necessarily its online platform, but rather that it is forced to establish itself as a nonprofit startup. The nonprofit status isn’t novel for a news outlet, but it suggests a necessary trend to what was once an anomaly.

The Tribune has already raised $3.6 million in support, primarily from co-founder John Thornton’s $1 million in initial seed money. Another $750,000 has been gained through grants from the Knight Foundation and Houston Endowment, and more coming from benefactors ranging from former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes to T. Boone Pickins.

Other local online news startups like the Austin Post have also emerged out of the gate this year in the not-for-profit arena. [Full Disclosure: I serve on the advisory board of the Austin Post]. Backed by Trilogy Enterprises, the Post presents an almost opposite approach to reporting as the Texas Tribune, but also quickly realized its limited likelihood of survival as a for-profit endeavor.

The two sites together offer an informative juxtaposition of conceptions for online news organizations as that future is being written. The Tribune is staffed by A-List investigative journalism talent, well paid, and with an aggressive, if purportedly non-partisan, editorial direction. The Post, on the other hand, seeks to serve as a community outlet propelled by unpaid contributors and bloggers and with its editorial focus outsourced to the crowd. Likewise, the Trib is currently limited by its scope to primarily political concerns (though it is reported to have larger ambitions), while the Post is currently mired in the unruly sprawl of diverse content and quality.

The trend towards non-profit online journalism, while certainly not yet a proven avenue of success for the future of news, has seemed to touch off a rather absurd debate of the actual editorial viability of the sources. The Tribune states its position with unflinching idealism: “Journalism in the public interest is too vital to a civilized society, to a functioning democracy, to be left to the vagaries of the free market. Philanthropy must and will become a bigger part of the equation.”

Detractors, however, point to several potential flaws with the nonprofit news model (and notably, most of the detractors are entrenched in the interests of for-profit print publications). In response to the announcement of a new non-profit news project in San Francisco, East Bay Express’ Robert Gammon flogged the idea for its “free-labor workforce” of 120 UC-Berkeley journalism students. Likewise, Jack Shafer recently declared on Slate that unlike the need of conventional commercial journalism to attract actual readers, “nonprofit outlets almost always measure their success in terms of influence, not audience, because their customers are the donors who’ve donated cash to influence politics, promote justice, or otherwise build a better world.”

These are skeptics that face both the Tribune and Post as they attempt to establish their role among local news sources. Yet mainstream news outlets have increasingly drifted towards partisan and opinion journalism precisely because they have followed the wants of their audiences. And of course, traditional publications are no less immune to the constant plague of conflicts of interest.

While Shafer may declare that the new non-profits are simply “substituting one flawed business model for another,” we have yet to see the emergence of any kind of viable alternative to either model. Paying for online news content seems inevitable, but that will likely neither provide enough revenue to properly bolster newsrooms nor prevent the trickle down of aggregated news to smaller outlets.

If customer subscriptions/donations and ad sales will only make up part of a news organization’s needed revenue, then perhaps we need to be thinking of other assets that online sources can provide to supplement their journalistic offerings. For example, one of the Texas Tribune’s most valuable features is its impressive set of databases, which as they are expanded and developed to be more precise and cross-referential, could provide an extremely powerful resource for which they could charge. While their intent to keep them open and accessible is noble, well organized data is a hot commodity.

My concern with the non-profit model being established for online news is not the potential conflicts of interests, but rather the variety of publications that such a model can support. The charitable route will work well for a number of outlets, but that number is limited. The future of news online may need to be more than quality of coverage and number of readers to find financial support, but valuable peripherals as well.

As the lesson of the music industry’s turmoil should have served to highlight for publications, the singly-oriented value of the product itself is no longer sustainable on its own, and must instead be supported by a network of related revenue sources. What exactly those will be will be more likely define the future for journalism online rather than who has a beneficent bankroll.