News aggregator

The first revolution hit when people who made stuff started to discover that information was often as valuable as the stuff itself. Knowing where something was or how it performed or how it interacted with you can be worth more than the item itself.

Frito Lay dominates the snack business because of the information infrastructure they built on top of their delivery model. 7 Eleven in Japan dominated for a decade or more because they used information to change their inventory. Zara in Europe is an information business that happens to sell clothes.

You've probably already guessed what's now: information about information. That's what Facebook and Google and Bloomberg do for a living. They create a meta-layer, a world of information about the information itself.

And why is this so valuable? Because it compounds. A tiny head start in access to this information gives you a huge advantage in the stock market. Or in marketing. Or in fundraising.

Many people and organizations are contributing to this mass of data, but few are taking advantage of the opportunity to collate it and present it to people who desperately need it. Think about how much needs to be sorted, compared, updated and presented to people who want to choose or learn or trade on it.

The race to deliver this essential scalable asset isn't over, it's just beginning.

Haven’t had time to read Lord Mandelson’s weighty tome yet, but have had a quick glance in the index to tot up how many pages each of the Labour leadership contenders get mentioned on:

Diane Abbott 0 – not a single reference to Dianne.

Ed Balls 41 – yep Ed features pretty big.

Andy Burnham 1 – Andy being brave enough to defend Gordon after Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt’s infamous letter.

David Miliband 48 – but out in front is Miliband major.

Ed Miliband 11 – while Miliband minor gets fewer mentions.

The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour

As you’re all probably aware, The Times and Sunday Times websites are now securely behind a pay wall meaning people effectively have to pay to read the news.

In terms of “paying for news” we’ve been doing it for years. You pay for a newspaper or magazine, so I understand on paper (excuse the pun) why The Times may think its online resources should be the same. If we value its reporting and journalism, we should be willing to pay for it.

However, in the real world, this just simply isn’t the case anymore. People find and consume news in different ways than before. The reader is in control and can find any information they want, when they want, and most importantly, for free.

The most important shift in terms of news-finding has to be search engines. People no longer go to their favourite news site to find a story, they Google what they’re looking for and go where the story is. If the content is good enough, the site may keep them for longer and encourage repeat visits; otherwise they’ll simply go where the engaging content is.

The Times paywall goes against this new consumer search behaviour on every level. People cannot find results on Google following a search, they cannot browse the site to see if they like it and they cannot simply stumble across news content whilst online.

The Guardian has capitalised on this with a number of tongue-in-cheek blog posts on its news blog, welcoming Times readers to their site following the introduction of the paywall.

I also like this post from David Mitchell on the Guardian blog. He raises some interesting points (however in my eyes the Peep Show legend can do no wrong, so I am biased) about the Times paywall and he is fairly cynical about the Guardian’s gloating.

I understand that the newspaper industry is fighting to stay afloat, maintain readership and pay journalist wages – something has to change but I don’t think paying for news is the solution.

If the Times is confident enough to say its content is worth paying for, it will need to really pull some exclusive and amazing things out of the bag. The question is, can they?

I think one of the biggest innovations has been the Guardian’s beat blogging trial. It’s currently happening in Leeds, Edinburgh and Cardiff and was spearheaded by Sarah Hartley. This is a return to collaborative community journalism, focusing on the element of local news which is relevant and timely for readers, but in an up-to-date way. This can sit side by side with your national and global news, but gives people an insight into their local community.

As a public relations consultancy, we are paying for access to the Times; we simply cannot switch off from one of the main media sources. However, if I take off my work hat and just become me, searching for news on a weekend or evening, I can’t say I’d be willing to pay for something I can find elsewhere for free.

It would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on this and find out how many people have a) signed up for the Times and b) actually find it valuable and, in these hard economic times, can genuinely claim they see the ROI of paying for their news.