Welcome to the Digital World?

Posted without comment for now:

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/09/05/oregonian-memo-describes-a-beat-reporters-digital-day/

 

I don't see any reason for the sarcasm. It trends toward shallow, basic and obvious, but it's not wrong about anything. And it took two minutes to read. Heaven forbid the bosses give the working class a few tips, though, right?

 

I think we're wasting a ton of time on videos, myself.

Everything else I'm on board with.

 

As I've been explained it, advertising companies are targeting engagement as much or more than clicks. Videos keep people on a page and provide another entry point for advertisers. Even if they don't get many hits, advertisers value them.

 

It does get back to changing roles, and whether those roles have as much quantitative value was they had in the past. I realize Twitter is a thing that isn't going away, and that I am not in the target audience of its users but many other people are. And that is fine. But I still cringe a little bit inside when the importance of a reporter spamming Twitter all day is put on some kind of comparative footing as a work-day priority as a reporter concentrating on enterprise or investigative work. Ideally there wouldn't have to be a trade-off, but there is, because there are only so many hours in a day.

 

I haven't seen the research, but does it keep people on a page? I would think with short attention spans and the bazillion options out there people aren't wasting their time, especially on newspapers where video is often amateurish at this point. I can see advertisers liking it for now, though.

 

I read somewhere that the discrepancy between video ad CPM and banner ad CPM is absolutely insane. I don't remember the figures.

 

Sure, good videos do.

Newspaper videos don't.

 

I was exhausted just reading that list. Not that the points are bad, but wow. One person can only do so much.

But a question: Does this "digital media" push make us require more of our sources?

"OK, tell me what's going on. Now say it again into this video camera. Now hold still while I take your picture. Will you make copies of those documents for me? Can you give me dates to fill in a timeline? Our multimedia producer will be following up with you for other stuff. Oh, and don't forget to use our hashtag when you share my story later. "

Will all the digital acrobatics exhaust our sources?

 

It seemed like an awful lot to do for a reporter.

Tweet, blog, post 3-10 updates, take video, take pictures, and oh yeah, at the end of the night, write something for the paper. And while you're at it, do some enterprise stuff as well and hold a night meeting to engage with your readers.

And don't forget to stop off at that accident and interview people. Even if you're off-duty, I assume.

 

And I am sure that if I was 25 minutes late to get to work to get video, quotes, etc for news side that I would get comped that time...riiiight.
Sorry, the second my feet leave the hallways of the newspaper, I am off. I will be glad to call you and tell you what I see, but get someone on the clock over there.
FWIW, I'm a desker now and my feelings would be different if I was still a reporter.

 

That's a real concern in all this. You risk alienating sources every time you ask for something, and now you're asking for photos, video and even, on occasion, participation. If you're going to shoot video interviews, that should be it. No photographs (you can pull high-res photos off video these days with most decent equipment), no print interviews. If you don't think you can get what you need from a video interview, don't do a video interview.

We always must remember that very few people have reason to talk to us or, at least, say something interesting while talking to us. If that means you don't get video interviews and have to take your audio and dub it over photos for a video, that's fine.