It seems there is still a simple two-word answer: More training.

Sure, responses were all over the map (the full list is posted below the jump) and I’ll get to some of those in a moment. But, the most common request at root is for more help understanding our new media environment.

Some of the independent, hyperlocal startups (dare I call them bloggers?) in the audience said they could use help with everything from basic research and editing practices to selling and analyzing ads to understanding business finance. They also want to build a stronger indy-web community that, at a minimum, would be a forum to share best and worst practices.

The churched journalists in the room asked for some of the same instruction: editing for the web, learning the basics of graphics, and web literacy (tweeting, texting and blogging). But, like the indy’s, the guys inside established media organizations need help with the business side (see Jeff’s post on getting “theah from heah”).

Folks want to see programs for bringing business students into media management (much as we tried to do last summer). A few more suggestions:
- Future conferences organized around specific revenue opportunities – some people also want to have a conference organized around verticals and niche sites.
- Research into what kinds of advertising small businesses need.
- Strategies for making that advertising more valuable.
- Looking at what impact greater bandwidth and mobile devices will have on journalism and advertising.

One veteran journalist told me someone should create a not-for-profit, possibly based in a university, that offers free business consulting services to journalism startups. He said the consultancy could cultivate a thousand test cases for our business models – a much better approach, he says, than getting funding for a lab to test them out in one area (which was another suggestion from the panel).

Finally, here are two of my favorites: training for small communities that have lost their papers and a conference aimed at media in Africa and other parts of the world. It is important to keep these areas, so often left out of the conversation, in our minds.

As I said, there are a lot more topics below the fold. We’ll be doing more work on some or most of these suggestions in the coming weeks and months. Do you have more? Send them along!

New Business Models for News Next Steps:

How do we get a cooperative relationship? Or not?

More help from the Schools for “Bloggers”–
- Equipment
- Training
o How to sell
o Style, editorial, quality
o Research
o Video
o Trending
o Analytics
o Biz Finance
o Marketing
o Mistakes /best and worst practices
o Relationships

Training / Education for the Pros in the newsroom:
Content programming
Networking – building the network
Simple graphics, basics
Editing for the web
Web literacy – sms, tweeting, blogging, etc.

Transparency – read more watchdogs from the community
- Press government to make data available in a usable format

Map out a route for an existing newspaper to reinvent itself into the New News Organization – with specific steps

Get business school students to learn media management

Partnerships in technology, databases

Big media guys need quality/reliability scores for bloggers

Way to spread listservs

Making clickthrus more trackable, making ads more valuable for the advertisers

APIs, APIs, APIs

Making comments rateable

Assignment desk
Better aggregation tools

Advertising (how to make it more valuable for the local advertiser):
- Offering a suite of services to local businesses (consulting, optimization)
- Standardization
- For schools or others: more research on what local businesses need

Selling Data –

A way to maintain newsinnovation momentum throughout the year

Hack-a-thon – developers and journos collaborate to see what results.

Community building among sites – a Blogger meetup?

Targeted conferences around specific revenue categories – B2B, etc.

Success stories

More on social media

A lab to test the assumption in the newsinnovation model

Access to capital – a meet up of investors and journos.

More on web metrics, and what happens as we shift to mobile and streams from web pages

Mentoring program – for communities that have lost heir papers

Best practices / less tech more content

Impact of improved bandwidth and improved smartphones

Conference on media in Africa & other parts of the world

I now say that there isn’t a crisis. That’s not what I used to say. Indeed, one of my mistakes in this debate has been accepting the assumption that there was one and allowing the debate to start there: “How are you going to save journalism from the scourge of your damned internet?”

Instead, the discussion should start here: “Look at all the new opportunities there are to gather and share news in new ways, to expand and improve it, to change journalism’s relationship with its public and make it collaborative, to find new efficiencies and lower costs and thus to return to profitability and sustainability.”

One’s view on the question determines one’s response and its level of desperation or optimism.

To generalize unfairly, those who say there is a crisis – most often, those whose legacy institutions are fading – are often known to react by:
* Looking for others to blame for the purported problem – Google, bloggers, aggregators, craigslist, et al (which is to say, not taking responsibility for their own role in it);
* Trying to preserve their past (expecting newsrooms to be supported, unchanged, by some manna from the market – paid content being only the latest prayer);
* Seeking protection from government (antitrust exemptions) or the law (copyright extensions);
* Demanding tribute (saying they are entitled to get paid because what they do is worth so much);
* Giving up (talking about abandoning growth by building walls or shifting to not-for-profit and begging for charitable support).

Those who say there is not a crisis (for- and not-for-profit entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors) instead tend to:
* Look to innovation (collaboration, algorithms, data, streams) to create new ways to make news;
* Look to entrepreneurship to sustain journalism (in blogs and networks);
* Be open to new ways to define journalism;
* Irritate the legacy people by not seeing the crisis they see.

So if we’re looking for an original sin in this saga, I’ll confess that mine has been viewing news from the perspective of the old controllers rather than from that of the community (the people formerly known as the audience), the inventors, and the entrepreneurs. At Aspen, it was Sue Gardner, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, who made me see this as she talked about the wonders that have been done with news on Wikipedia, which no one could have predicted. Being open to such new possibilities is key to building news’ new future.

There are so many reasons to be optimistic about the future of news:
* The audience for news is only growing online.
* The audience isn’t an audience anymore. News is becoming more and more collaborative as witnesses share what they see and communities join together to create news.
* Those who make news are more accountable to their publics.
* News is opening up to more diverse voices and perspectives.
* News is becoming far more specialized and targeted, which is to say that it can give deeper service to more communities.
* New technology – and freedom from the limits of the old means of production and distribution – allow the reinvention of the form of news, organized around streams, topics, ideas, and concepts still being imagined.
* News is more efficient thanks to the link – do what you do best and link to the rest – and specialization. That is what makes it more sustainable.

Some – but not nearly enough – of this optimism is inherent in the future we imagined in the New Business Models for News Project, funded by the Knight Foundation. We used the financial lingua franca and assumptions of the present world – CPM advertising, page views per user, even the concept of a page and a site – because that made it easier to describe what can follow and made our vision of sustainable news more credible. We were criticized for being too optimistic about audience penetration and ad rates.

But I think we were not nearly optimistic enough. We have to leap past the idea that news is a collection of pages worth 12 views per user per month (or, quoting Martin Langeveld, 0.5% of time spent online). News shouldn’t be a site we force people to come to but, as Google’s Marissa Mayer said at Aspen, we have to find ways to insinuate news and its value into anyone’s – her words – hyperpersonal news stream. We shouldn’t create sites but instead create platforms that enable communities to share what they know and need to know, with journalists contributing value – reporting, editing, aggregation, curation – to their ecosystem. We should build and assume much greater engagement and define engagement not as consumption but as creation. We must value that creation (and not consider it merely a reaction to what we do). We should forecast much greater relevance and thus value for both the market and the marketer.

We should set the bar way higher. And that is the real problem with letting the discussion start with the pessimism, depression, and desperation of the perceived crisis among the past’s players, who aren’t inventing the future. It limits the possibilities.

And, as always, let us know what you think.

Tristan is the founder of Apture. Similar to two other Stanford computer scientist, Tristan understands and wants to improve how people find information on the web. Apture allows reporters to link out easily without necessarily losing the reader to another page.

More intriguing to me, however, is Tristan’s general experience as a young journalistically minded entrepreneur.What has he learned and what is advice to those that may come after him?

The first half of this interview focuses on Apture and his experience creating it – the second half about working on a startup in general. Never quit…..and be honest with yourself.

Untitled from Digidave on Vimeo.

Tom – as someone who is an outsider to journalism, what were your thoughts on the day and the situation journalism faces.

Let me start with the day. As a technology person who has been around industries that have changed because of technology and the Internet it was heartening to see newspaper people recognize the magnitude of the change and not justify the head in the sand approach. There was general consensus that this is not an-incremental change and incremental solutions won’t work.

In Telecom and other industries – there is generally denial until the very end. But for most people who attended there was a real awareness that change isn’t necessarily bad. It is disruptive but it can lead to journalist being more effective at their mission, provided they can figure out little details along the way like … how to get paid for it.

The bigger subject is a fascinating one because it probably is true that journalists have never had tools that are as good as the tools that are avaliable now. The ability to selectively crowdsource a story if you need to, or build a story as Jeff described it, even if the story itself isn’t the focal point, where you start something and pieces of it get filled in around it through the link economy, video can be mixed in and the man on the street is everywhere, etc. So the tools for journalists to do their job are fantastic. And the physical impediments are smaller than they have ever been. But the business model hasn’t been figured out – and journalists have to eat like everyone else.

I think we got far enough in the day to figure out that’s where we are – but we didn’t get much further. There are a few possible models for journalist and a few hyper-local models but there is a distance to go in terms of figuring out how they can make a living in journalism. It’s not a question of what value journalism can add – there is general agreement that credibility, editing, facts, and quality reporting are things that journalists bring that is of value- but it is hard to see how revenue can come from it right now.

Are there any direct comparisons or analogies from when you worked in Telecom?

Any industry under threat tries to cut its way to greatness. Particularly industries that have had a controlling situation for a period of time. When indsturies were essentially monopolies or they have a franchise it’s very hard for the owners or stockholders to realize the value is evaporating. Their first reaction is that these are temporary times and cutting back is a solution.

Often this is a good first reaction – because they were monopolies these companies typically have a lot of fat. But there comes a point where you can’t cut anymore. There is nothing left to cut and if you keep cutting the product gets damaged and its a downward spiral. That is Telecom, newspapers, and perhaps the car industry.

What’s different though? Related to this I think is a comment you brought up about the economics of Craigslist. That growth of a network is more valuable than high revenues per network node? So that if you charge as little as possible – but the network grows in size, it becomes impossible for others to compete. Is there a way newspapers could leverage that?

It’s maximizing your network by drawing out as little cash as you can until you are in a sailable position.

I’m just guessing here – this is just speculation because the answer is probably different if you mean local, regional, national or global.

It’s probably easiest to see where local news organizations, hyper-local in web terms, analogous to a small-town newspaper could achieve this status. I think we will fairly quickly find the model and tools wher ethe local site becomes an indispensable part of people’s lives and advertisers are eager to support it – because it has a consistent readership with identifiable demographics.

By making readers contributors (which newspapers have always done to some extent with wedding annoucements, etc), using the ability to crowdosurce when trains are late, where crime is, etc – the local sites like Baristanet can become an even more apart of people’s lives than the small-town newspapers used to be.

At that point in time – they won’t need to charge a lot for advertising because they will have a lot of it – and they will be in the Cragislist spot where they can charge so little it will be tough for competition to sneak in. A rival local newspaper will have real competition. But competition would be good because it would mean together they would figure out the proper economics.

I think there would only be one winner – at least until the winner gets sloppy. Because if one builds a good network in terms of people then there is not much sense in being part of the inferior network. If it’s as simple as traffic reports where you have 1,000 readers sending in updates and you have lots of people texting in so that site has the best traffic reports and somebody else starts up another network their site is going to be useless because nobody is on it – and why would anybody join it? It’s useless.

I’m not sure what this looks like at the regional national or global level. It’s hard to have a community if everybody reads the NY Times – the Times is doing an experiment with TimesPeople – where if you join the community you know what your friends are reading, etc – they are trying to be the host of a lot of little communities -because that is more interesting than worldwide – everyone read this article. So being a larger group that hosts smaller groups with an excellence at national or international coverage. That could work for NY Times WaPo organizations – but not many of those. They could be advertising supported if people integrated it into their daily lives.

I don’t know what happens inbetween at the regional level. I think it’ll be important because from a governance point of view – we need the information.
Last thoughts?

I’m optimistic – I think something will evolve because we have such a need for the information. People are interested – maybe cause there is more information or maybe because they are scared – but a positive thing for journalists is that there is this hunger if there is a business model for supplying it.

(For those keeping track, that’s one video using Viddler, the other two using Vimeo and Blip. Have a video platform you want me to try? Let me know).

I was able to get a brief chat in with Bill who has also provided a brief write-up below.

From Bill Densmore

Thanks for all your work on last week’s “New Business Models for News” summit at CUNY; I was unable to attend. But your on-demand video archives are a valuable fill-in.

I’d like your community to know about the Information Valet Project, which takes a cue from Jeff Jarvis’ advice to start building new business models. Our first summit to define and plan launch of the Information Valet Service is Dec. 3-5 at the new Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Univ. of Missouri. We invite participants. (To register: http://www.ivpblueprint.org)

We’re pushing a fairly specific notion of how to build a shared-user network with a revenue model baked in — the revenue model is similar to the sort of reverse syndication which Jeff talks about, and embraces the networking concepts outlined by Tom Evslin at CUNY.

“Blueprinting the Information Valet Economy” is a strategy summit designed to blueprint the law, ownership, management, marketing and technology of a shared-user network for user-centric demographics, privacy-protected purchasing and advertising exchange and compensation.

Evslin noted that the former newsPAPER industry — because of its unique content and relationship with 50 million customers who pay for information daily — is in a unique position to provide the content seed corn needed to jump start a network business — if it comes together on a platform and protocols.

We’ll put forward fairly specific ideas for doing this forward as a point of departure — and expect to hear modifications. We’ll end up after 2-1/2 days with a commitment to form a collaborative that will move forward with whatever is the consensus approach.

I hope there will be other events like IVP Blueprint — at CUNY, and elsewhere — which advance specific projects for sustaining the parts of journalism which contribute to participatory democracy.

This one with Dave Chase from NewWest and Sun Valley Online. (Learn more about NewWest from this interview with Jonathan Weber from the 2007 Summit)

Click To Play

[Disclaimer: The audio isn't perfect. This is interview #2 via Skype. I'm using iShowU to record my screen. I will soon find a way to get the interviewee's audio higher quality. In the meantime, bear with me. Feel free to ask Dave Chase follow up questions in the comments - I'll track him down to respond.]

If “the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of endpoints,” then one task as digital journalists is to scale our networks — be they organically-grown, hyperlocal blogs or corporate-driven, international communities — as quickly and effectively as possible.

In a broadly-ranging, nearly consensus-free conversation, the “Networks” break-our group explored one case study, factors necessary to support network growth, and inherent challenges.
Tom Evslin provided two key points for our discussion of Debby Galant’s Baristanet, a blog covering news specific to Montclaire, NJ.

• The best Editorial networks grow organically from the bottom up.  Individual entities tend towards expertise and passion, but lack platform or ad sale expertise.
• The best Tool networks tend to form top down with standardized platform tools and metrics, plus centralized ad ops.

It stands to reason, then, that a top down initiative like Microsoft’s Sidewalk — possessing platform, metrics, and ad ops standardization lacking editorial expertise, flexibility and voice (see “The Cracks In Microsoft’s Sidewalk“) – might fail.

Likewise, though Debby’s Baristanet is a local success, her network value is less than it could be.  Moreover, she is forced to spend resources on platform and ad ops, instead of pure content creation.
Baristanet, then, would benefit from a broader, hyper-local site-supporting platform.

Outside.in’s Mark Josephson and NowPublic’s Merrill Brown contributed valuable insight from a platform perspective on incentivizing network engagement:

• Egos: We’ll make you a star!
• Revenue: My ads on your page.
• Reward/Reputation

In the waning minutes of our conversation, Harvard’s Thomas Eisenmann connected the conversation to a key question as news organizations continue to decline: If a city’s primary paper disappeared, would hyper-local coverage replace the centralized, enterprise-journalism oriented newsroom?
In the end, Thomas’s question lingered alongside a number of others:

• What are the best examples of journalism networks?
• Are journalism networks fundamentally niche?
• Can niche networks serve investigative journalism?
• How does a historically corporate, top-down infrastructure grow a network?

We were the fun group — the cost-cutters.

Charged with finding new efficiencies for newsrooms, we struggled a bit to come up with a model that would produce useful lessons. Ultimately, we decided to focus on a market like Philadelphia or Dallas and, rather than tweaking the existing daily newspaper model, to start fresh with an online-only news organization.

Andrew Heyward of Marketspace LLC led the discussion, and we began with traffic and revenue assumptions, then worked backward to create a newsroom that fit within those limits. With Neil Budde of DailyMe doing the math on his iPhone, we projected a website with 800 million page views/year at $5 rpm, for total revenue of $4 million. We set aside $2.1 million of that revenue to pay an editorial staff of 35 FTEs $60,000/year.

Here’s how the staffing broke down:

-Content creators who do blogging/photography/video/curation of beats: 20
-Community managers who do outreach, mediation, social media evangelism: 3
-Programmers/developers: 2
-Designers/graphics artists: 2
-Producers who do site management, etc.: 5
-Editors: 3

There was a spirited debate about whether there should be a newsroom at all; in the end there was general consensus that staff members should be out in the community reporting as much as possible, but that a scaled-back newsroom provided a valuable space for collaboration.

Easier to agree on was a list of things our staff would not do:

-National entertainment
-National sports
-National/international news
-Editorial page

In the areas of primary focus — local government, education, high school sports, etc. — we envisioned beat reporters working with networks of local bloggers to expand the reach of the staff.

We left questions about how to monetize all of this to the revenue group, but as Michael Rosenblum of Rosenblum Associates put it, “We’ve created a digital aquisition machine, and we find creative revenue opportunities based on that content.”

“Observer Media Group, the parent company of The New York Observer, is launching a project covering local politics through a distributed network of reporters, editors and columnists. This project will put reporters on the ground in all 50 states of the US, covering local politics news and national stories with a local perspective. This distributed network of reporters will be provided with tools to allow them to file photos, stories, and videos immediately – directly from their locations. These individual states will be their own news media sources and also contributed to a national aggregated, built from the bottom-up politics news site. This project was recently profiled in the New York Times.”

So it seems the New York Observer’s parent company is moving into networked journalism in a big way: Politicker.com