El prototipo Living Stories en el que Google colabora con The New York Times y Washington Post pretende ser una nueva forma de leer noticias online:

1. poner toda la noticia en una única url permitiendo hacer un seguimiento entrando siempre al mismo sitio.

2. intenta facilitar el acceso a profundizar sobre la noticia en cuestión.

3. El sistema detecta dónde te has quedado, sabe cuándo entraste por última vez y te hace un resumen de lo que ha pasado desde entonces. Existe una contextualización de la noticia que, si ya has visitado la noticia alguna vez, desaparece por defecto, porque supone el sistema que ya conoces el contexto de la noticia. En ese caso, va directamente a las actualizaciones que te falten por leer (como Greader, que va dándote los feeds que se han actualizado desde la última vez que accediste).

Parece ser, más que nada, una reorganización de la forma de ver la noticia. Deja tener una relación directa lector-noticia (adicional, más que sustitutiva, pero ojo a esto, a la anterior relación lector-medio). Se puede suscribir un lector a una noticia por rss o a través del email, lo que nos conecta un poco con la conversión de la información en servicio y con la web en tiempo real que tan de actualidad está.

Al suscribirse el lector a una noticia concreta, el medio aparece como proveedor de la información en torno a la noticia, pero parece que cambia un poco la relación.

Por otro lado, permite una mass customization de la experiencia de lectura de las noticias por parte de la audiencia, pues cada usuario tendrá un nivel de profundidad diferente en función de su frecuencia de acceso a la noticia o de sus clics o no en materiales adicionales. Cada usuario verá una cosa distinta adaptada a su relación anterior con la noticia. Interesante avance.

Aparentemente, lo más interesante de esta herramienta es (más allá de la colaboración entre Google y dos periódicos, que ya es una señal en sí misma), el hecho de que se adapta al uso del usuario proporcionando diferentes grados de información/actualización/resumen en función de lo que haya hecho el usuario anteriormente en el site.

Esta práctica, en sí misma, puede ser considerada de muy intrusiva en un país con una LOPD como la española, pues supone el atesoramiento por parte de Google de la información de uso y acceso a noticias por personas. Pudiera incluso ser información delicada. Pongamos por caso que alguien es un empedernido seguidor de noticias sobre una religión o sobre la investigación de una enfermedad concreta, hechos que permitirían inferencias personales, aunque puedan no ser tan directas. Obviamente, sólo a efectos, se supone, de actualizar la propia experiencia de la noticia. En todo caso, un paso que sin Google de la mano, parece complicado que se atrevieran a tomar los periódicos.

Presentar la noticia siempre en su página (tipo blog, no mitifiquemos el aparato), y permitir recibir los updates por rss e email, es algo que puede ofrecer cualquier amateur utilizando wordpress. Es el equivalente a que cada noticia sea un blog. Desmitifiquemos un poco la innovación presentada. La innovación debe ser a nivel de concepto, porque, como dice el famoso artículo: IT DOESN’T MATTER. (refiriéndose IT  a la tecnología y lo que nos ocupa es el concepto, y sobre todo el ingreso, y después el coste).

Por último, en cuanto al negocio, esto no parece resolver nada a corto plazo. Es más, en el post del anuncio, invitan a que otros medios adopten el modelo y parece ser una herramienta más con un muy buen aspecto y una visión de cómo Google vería la dispensación de noticias. Google, engrosa, aportando una tecnología muy buena, su volumen de información sobre los usuarios.

Deja vu: una innovación en la experiencia de uso más a seguir, como fue fastflip, o como el nuevo buscador lanzado por el nytimes o su generador de rss, pero, en relación con la generación de ingresos, no parece aportar nada nuevo. Nytimes.com cerró Extra, otra innovación que tampoco estaba mal.

Even when it is late, I felt curious to read NYTCO 2008 annual report, and I am going to read similar reports for other companies, because, at least the introduction and the softer financial data gives some insight.

The main light they underline is growing audience when considering aggregated data of on/offline. Their unresolved questions are the same, probably, we all have:

- How do we continue to provide the printed products that hundreds of thousands of our readers treasure while appealing to a new generation of consumers?

This question is very right, many people, pure-player minded (like myself a couple of years ago) cannot understand the outcomes of decision making in “traditional” media by just ignoring this simple question.

- How do we get paid for the journalism we provide online?

-How do we reduce our costs while protecting the quality of our journalism?

Then, without answering, it suggests this scheme (can anyone say this is wrong?):

Other identified point is the desire of advertisers of being attached to innovative products:

Our growth depends to a significant degree upon the development of our digital businesses.

- Significantly increasing our online traffic

- Attracting advertisers

- Exploiting new and existing technologies to distinguish our products

- Investing funds and resources in online opportunities

- Strategic relationships to attract more consumers

- Attracting and retaining talent for critical positions

If we are not successful in maintaining or growing revenues from our digital businesses to offset continued or accelerating declines in revenues from our print products, our business, financial condition and prospects will be adversely affected.

I am not the most optimistic when talking and judging online media, and so, it is my pleasure to find things well executed and effective as it is the case of the NYtimes – Linkedin integration announced nearly a year ago. Probably, what I found has been applied for months, but it was today when I realized it.

When surfing Nytimes (I am registered and identified) they offer me the following:

Just by clicking, they send me to linkeding and I find this:

And then, if I visit nytimes, there it is, a module of News for Media Professional, and probably I have got flagged and segmented in both databases.

It is interesting to follow the outcomes and practical applications of announced deals. In this case, this is just something very simple and being made in other cases, like widely developed with facebook connect.

The capacity to move settings, profiles and to integrate contents seems simple for the final user and easy, but for those of us who work inside media companies, it is like art. Just like a pianist has hundreds of hours of work before performing, making such simple things like this integration is a consequence of a planing and later a bright execution and it is showing that they are clear on what they are doing. It is a very positive signal, and it is this knowledge what will probably end  up setting a future barrier to entry into this business.

The Nieman Journalism Lab found a very interesting internal document from The New York Times that can give us a very quick and complete idea on all issues ar0und their worries and work progress in business sustainability. (I would love to access that document monthly ).

I would firstly like to point out a sentence that is really significant of a view on media sustainability,  and it is just the fact to assume our two sided business:

The end result must be that we serve the high expectations of our customers, both readers and advertisers.

It is a simple but clear statement and reminds us who pays our salaries, that’s all.

The document reviews:

- How they did  capitalized american elections. This part is just an ABC on how they: sold more printed newspaper, increased their online audience, spread their social networking, and empowered their heavier users by an event.

- What is going on with top advertisers

- The New York Times Store will sell grow around 30% to 40% YoY based on: memorabilia, fine arts, and also Obama merchandise. It is very helpful to understand their focus in The NYT Store by having a look to their spot: ( you can get the file here)

It is unusual to find internal documents on business execution in media companies and that is the reason why it is interesting.

Again talking on New York Times.

Their extra, added today in beta, is just a great step forward to becoming an agreggation axis.  Combining the power of automatic and manual aggregation with an editorial line, from my point of view, is the future of Internet because we simply got too much information and the problem is not of volume but of quality information.
I am every day more convinced that New York Times is right in combining their brand with their future.
The key to contents online is not reading, watching, enjoying contents but searching. If media gets to the core of finding information, they will go back to being central in communications, and this is why this is not tactical but strategic.
This tool is just easy to use and it does not need installation. It offers a different navigation for a different user profile and if you prefer the traditional mode, you may just switch back to the “old” nytimes.com. This is offering more features to those who want more while keeping a “traditional experience” for those who prefer it.
I am really happy to see them clearly leading the way because I feel they are a mirror for many other media. Hopefully, they will speed all media so much and we should all be grateful to what they are doing.
When you are a brand like The New York Times, taking riks to innovate and progress is much more exposed to criticism. Great job again and hopefully they will continue offering ways to access not just “any” available content online, but any quality content. I think that difference  is huge because our time is gold and we got no time to waste so much in finding and selecting sources all the time on our own.
I think today is going to be a new beginning. I know many people may think I am over-reacting to this, but I think this tool just confirmed what I think about The New York Times, they know what they are doing and they are being brave to innovate.
If you also think that aggregation tools used by humans can be key for the future of communication, then go to reading this post:  new journalists for new information flows