MetaBatty

Google just made newspapers obsolete - and that might not be a good thing

Reuters reported today that Google has entered into a licensing deal which will pay major news services like the Associated Press for the right to publish their articles and content on Google News. This benefits the AP, because now they have an additional source of revenue (for now). And Google News readers have the benefit of seeing these articles once, and not the additional 147 links to the same article published in as many different publications.

This is no different than the New York Times or Rocky Mountain News paying  AP for the right to distribute their content on their Web and print pages. Which essentially makes Google an official news outlet, as of today. Perhaps they don't have an editorial board to decide what does and does not get printed, or what might be in the best interest of their readers - services that have made newspapers the voice of communities, cities, organizations and nations, and the Fourth Estate - but they do have a highly-trafficked site, and are already considered to be a "source" of news, even when they are really just an aggregator.

Many people have predicted this is the future of the news, newspapers, and news services, but this licensing deal is the first true sign, in my opinion, that this prophecy is actually being fulfilled.

So, if I can get all my AP, Agence France-Presse, etc news from Google, I have yet another reason not to read my local newspaper (Craigslist trumped the classifieds years ago). And if I, and others like me, stop reading the local paper and their Web site, they lose revenue and go out of business. Which means fewer outlets buying AP newsfeeds. Which means less revenue for AP, who then faces the risk of shutting down.

If that happens, then who will report the news, and who will pay them? I hear Rupert Murdoch waiting in the wings (if one can hear such things).

The Great Computer Company that Never Was

Gateway, a company once poised to take on Dell and HP as a major, innovative supplier of PCs and laptops for home and office, is soon to be no more. Ten years ago they were on a roll, landing customers as the hip alternative to plain-old Dell, expensive IBM, and sub-par HP. (Well, in the PC market, anyway. The first iMacs were just about to be introduced to the world)

After hanging on for the last few years, it was announced today that Taiwan's Acer Computer, a virtual no-name in the PC market 10 years ago, is acquiring Gateway. And for only $710 million.

This is billed as a shot across the bow of Lenovo, the Chinese company that bought IBM's PC unit in 2004. It will certainly up the ante in the computer marketshare wars, but more importantly it is another sign of the emergence of formerly smaller economies and markets becoming competitive on a global scale, and outstripping American rivals with better management, marketing and prices in the PC market.

Acer is able to acquire Gateway because the company stayed focused and patient, and delivered quality products for many years. At the same time, Gateway tripped on almost every step, trying to move into markets where it had no experience or brand recognition - especially TVs, where it copied Dell (who had its own problems trying to break additional markets, and has since pulled out of many as it tries to right its own ship in light of intense competition from outside the US). I am sure Gateway tried hard to recapture its former glory, and honestly I had not thought of the company in a couple of years, but to me this news is another nail in the coffin that will hold the US PC industry.

And another reason to consider buying a Mac. ;-)

Finally, someone in PR is talking about this

After posting my blog this weekend (Why is no one in PR talking about this?), the San Francisco bureau of PRWeek (the industry trade rag for the PR set) sent an email saying they read my blog, were going to write a story about the issue, and wanted to talk with me about it. Not wanting to bring my current employer or any of our vendors into this issue, I passed on the opportunity. I guess I will have to wait for another opportunity at industry recognition. ;-)

It's great to see the industry talking about this, and kudos to Aarti Shah at PRWeek for his concise article (SIIA lawsuit places a PR practice on alert, PRWeek, Aug. 23, 2007), and for asking SIIA questions they still don't seem prepared to answer. Keep pushing, guys. This definitely needs to be resolved, and we are the only ones who can or will work with SIIA to resolve it. I hope this article pushes others to voice their opinions on the issue and demand SIIA clearly define their program and who they mean for it to affect.

You won't believe it

Yahoo Mail is down again.

Why is no one in PR talking about this?

Since the dawn of copy machines and glue sticks, PR and marketing organizations have scanned daily newspapers and important magazines for articles about their companies and industries, and passed those articles along to company management and clients to educate them on industry developments, provide competitive analysis, and show where they were mentioned in the media universe. Not only is it a great way to stay educated and current on all the important events and developments in the industry, it is a great way for PR people to demonstrate the results of their efforts.

When I worked in the Public Affairs Office of the US Naval Academy, the first order of business each morning was to scan the local papers, cut out articles relevant to the Academy and its leadership, paste them onto sheets of paper, and make copies that would be bundled into daily news briefings. These briefings were distributed by internal mail and fax to the head of the PAO and other officers running the Academy, to give them a daily update on the news they needed to know. It also was a great way to get multiple paper cuts on fingers covered with paste and newsprint.

That practice is still in full swing today, every day, in almost every public and private company and organization, large and small. In fact, it probably became a more widespread practice as the Internet and email made it easier to find, cut an paste articles into reports, and send them to their management over the network. (substitute carpal tunnel syndrome for paper cuts) No one asks permission of the news outlets to send this information to internal employees, since we have the Fair Use Doctrine, this information is usually free, and usually freely available online.

Could that all go away? Are there serious implications on the horizon for the PR industry because of this practice? A powerful business association in the US says this could be illegal, and is starting to sue companies under a new, poorly defined program.

On Thursday, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) - a coalition of businesses formed to protect its members (originally just software companies) from the illegal copying and selling of copyrighted software code, aka software piracy - announced it settled a first-of-a-kind lawsuit against a company for piracy and copyright infringement.

But this wasn't about anyone pirating software code.

This is about content. The marketing department at Knowledge Networks, the company that was the target of the lawsuit,  was copying news articles and putting them into "press packets," which were then distributed internally to certain company employees (not external customers) on a "regular basis". Sound familiar? What's even more interesting is the list of names of aggrieved SIIA member organizations. They were not software developers. They were news organizations like The Associated Press and UPI, among others.

This was the first settlement in SIIA's new "Corporate Content Anti-piracy Program," (CCAP) a program designed to target and seek damages from companies who are distributing internally any copyrighted content from SIIA member companies.  According to the SIIA announcement, "This content includes text-based publications like articles in newspapers, magazines and newsletters, books – and also online works." They also pay big cash rewards to anonymous whistle blowers who tip off the SIIA on companies in violation of this ill-defined program.

Where is the line drawn? Can I no longer send URL links of interesting news articles to co-workers over email? Will I be sued if I share my newspaper with a colleague every morning? Am I going to pay a fine for scanning an article and putting it into an internal presentation? If you credit the author and publication, are you in the clear? It doesn't say.

What about Fair Use, which allows the reprinting of copyrighted content without permission, if that content is used for educational purposes? I think many in PR would argue that applies here.

Could this have major implications for the PR industry? I think so. Should the PR industry be concerned? Absolutely, unless this program better defines how this content may or may not be used internally with companies. I have not read anything that tells me the PR industry is aware of this or taking any necessary action. Maybe CCAP has been talked up plenty in PR circles, and I am missing something, but I don't think so.

In my experience, all articles used in reports are sourced - that is, the article title, publication name, author, date, page number, etc are all included with the content - does that indemnify my peers from CCAP?

I fail to see how this specific practice is hurting these content providers. As an example, articles/content from (SIIA member) The Associated Press is available free, online, through literally hundreds of news sources. How do they lose any potential profit by PR/marketing organizations passing around links to or copies of their articles among an internal audience? The PR/marketing organizations are not turning around and selling that content or in any way taking money out of the pockets of the content providers.

Or are they? If a PR agency bills its clients to scan, clip and report on articles on a daily/regular basis, are they profiting from that content and financially injuring the news organizations who published the articles? In my opinion, no, but it will be intersting to see if the SIIA pursues this.

And what about companies like Vocus and Biz360? Their multi-million dollar businesses are built on software products that track media coverage, "clip" it (provide summaries, complete text, and/or links to the article) and package it, for profit, as "market intelligence" for PR and marketing organizations. If they are scanning, clipping, analyzing and repackaging articles and selling those clips and reports, are they in violation of this program?

Hard to tell.

Again, I may be missing something, but I saw nothing in that announcement or on SIIA's site that says Knowledge Networks provided this as market intelligence, for a fee. It looks like they were just sending out the daily news report.

Missing the point about missing the bus

The New York Times reported today that legislators and environmental advocacy organizations are up in arms over a disparity between two federal regulations - one that urges commuters to reduce the amount of time they spend in their cars, and one that simultaneously gives them incentives (tax breaks) for driving to work. If you missed the article link in the first sentence, here it is again.

This is exactly why I can be an advocate for states rights so often...  These policymakers and talking heads don't think (or, perhaps, care) about local issues in all of that overlooked space between New York and San Francisco.

The Denver-Metro region was planned, designed and built for cars and the drivers who love them. It is an expansive, spread-out city built at the intersection of two major interstates, with wide roads connecting flat neighborhoods that stretch from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains to the ranches and farms of the Eastern Colorado plains. 

On top of that, we have downtown parking fees that are on par with most major Midwestern and Pacific metro regions (Chicago, etc), but virtually no equivalent rail system, and only a sub-par bus systems, to bring commuters to and from their jobs in the city (like the CTA, BART, Metro, etc).

We may drive because we want to - but we drive to work because we have to.

Our nascent rail system, the RTD Light Rail, serves only a small fraction of suburbs and outlying areas that house Denver's Commuters. And it would be faster for me to crawl on my lips than use RTD's convoluted and disjointed bus system.

But legislators and, worse, interest groups, on both coasts (but especially the East) decry commuter tax breaks - like allowing employees to use pre-tax deductions from their income to pay for the high cost of parking in downtown garages to get to work every day - as "perverse" in the face of carbon emissions, higher gas prices, and congestion.

All I ask of them is that they spend one month in Denver, commuting from the suburbs to downtown, before they try to pass Federal legislation ending tax breaks for commuters. They might direct their attention to more useful endeavors that ultimately support their cause - like expanding the Denver light rail system to more areas in less time, so we actually have the option of taking the train to work, before we lose a tax break that is just as important to the middle class as flexspend for health care.

Hey, what do you know...

Yahoo Mail is down....AGAIN.

Evian, spelled backwards

Are people really that shocked and upset at PepsiCo's revelation that their popular brand of bottled water, Aquafina, is tap water? (or, as the media say, "ACTUALLY tap water," or "ONLY tap water") It's fairly clear, since the Dasani debacle in the UK three years ago, that most of the major-label bottled waters come from the same place most of us get our water - the faucet.

Drinking water is healthy, practically by definition. If the companies making bottled water use that to market their products, they aren't lying. Nor are they lying when they say their water comes from "natural sources," since all water initially comes from natural sources in the first place. Sure, it's underhanded, deceitful and manipulative, but it's not lying - we get worse deception and spin from our own government, anyway. It's consumer advertising, people. If anyone wants to be angry with someone about being fooled by slogans and packaging, they should be angry with themselves for being so naive and trusting.

I don't buy a lot of bottled water - I think water from the faucet is fine, and all the packaging and shipping of bottled water gives me the carbon-footprint willies.

When I do buy bottled water, it is not to get the sensation I am cleansing my body with water from a gently bubbling stream in the Alps. I buy it when I don't have access to tap water. If I am going to be on an airplane for more than two hours, taking a road trip or hiking, I am happy to buy the lowest priced bottled water on the shelf. Big deal if the water in that bottle wasn't siphoned from an ancient underground aquifer in the Andes. All bottled water is filtered and processed, no matter where it comes from.

But, if you still really care about clean water, you might actually want to consider Aquafina. I would venture to guess that the water from the tap is cleaner than water from most streams, since wild animals don't relive themselves in public water sources.

There's their new ad slogan! "Aquafina - Deer Don't Pee in It."

At least, I hope they don't...

CEO cites Sarbanes-Oxley burdens as reason behind sale of company

Annapolis, MD-based CompuDyne announced today that it agreed to be acquired for about $59 million. Compudyne Chairman and CEO Martin Roenigk cited the costs of compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act as a major reason the company decided to sell...and become a privately held company, no longer selling its shares to the public.

"This action represents the culmination of a long process of exploring the best direction for CompuDyne to take," said Roenigk. "Given our relatively small size, complex structure and the inordinate costs of being a public company in the post-Sarbanes Oxley era, a sale of the entire company…seemed the most appropriate step to take."

SOX was created five years ago to help protect shareholders, and the economy, by preventing unseemly accounting dealings that we saw at companies like Enron and Worldcom. It is a law that requires more open and detailed financial and accounting reporting standards for publicly traded companies in the US.

But some say those standards and requirements are too burdensome, and compliance with SOX inflicts high costs on smaller public companies that don't have the same resources as a Fortune 500 company. Compliance, and the costs associated with it, detract from overall revenues and end up hurting these companies more than helping. Some say SOX is a complete failure.

This is the first example I have seen of a public company pointing to SOX as a primary reason it decided to sell out and go private (although I am sure there are others out there already). This might open the gates for other companies to do the same, and force a long overdue review of SOX and the burdens it places on smaller publicly traded companies.

That, or the CEO of a Maryland company always hated former Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), a primary author of SOX, and wanted to take a parting jab...  :-)