![The Big Lebowski (Limited Edition) [Blu-ray Book + Digital Copy]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512F90yEqdL._SL75_.jpg){kind=small}
Sunday
Feb212010
AP is Visionary: They See a "Siteless Web"
Young Urban Professional
TechCrunch reports that the Associated Press is using their Twitter account to push their followers to their Facebook page. On that hub they syndicate many stories blog posts and dispatches as full text. Unlike Danny Sullivan (here and here), I think this is a downright brilliant and visionary move. What's more it's a natural for a wire service like AP. Here's why.
AP sees that the future of media is headless, which I wrote about here six months ago. Paul Gillin echos my thoughts and calls this the siteless web.
Wire services like AP and Reuters have in one sense flourished since the dawn of the consumer Internet. You can't visit a news site without running into one of their stories. Often, some of the featured and more popular stories on Yahoo News (an underrated news giant) are from wire services. However, there's an inherent problem today with that model and this approach tries to solve it.
As wires like AP and Reuters syndicate their content everywhere, they have struggled to build any kind of meaningful relationship with readers. In some ways they've become so ubiquitous they're commodity. Others, like the New York Times, have done a much better job by offering benefits to registered members - but also with a lot more investment and infrastructure.
The AP is now changing the game for news by not only going where attention spirals are taking us but by also using their content to curate a conversation on Facebook and - above all - build relationships.
As of this writing, the AP page on Facebook has 9,400 fans. I bet this will grow over time as people spend more time on Facebook and slowly become more accustomed to getting their news there, in addition to friend updates, games,etc. Swap out the word fans and replace it with subscribers and suddenly you can see where I am going and why this is a smart idea. It's CRM for news!
Over the weekend Robert French from Auburn and I have been debating on Google Buzz the value of Facebook as a news source. It does have a ways to go but it's coming. Six years ago, as an experiment, I lived off blogs as my sole news source. I might try that again with Facebook. I continue to be impressed with how media companies are starting to experiment and the utter richness of the conversation that occurs in a very navigable, digestible format.
LATER:: In response to this post, Viki asks on Buzz if I see a similar future for Google Buzz. In a word, yes. With content infinite and attention finite, the media will go where people are. This includes Twitter, Buzz and YouTube. The media is already all over Buzz - case in point, the Huffington Post. However Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla - for now.
Reader Comments (43)
If we look at the sites (Facebook, Twitter, Buzz) as fulfilling different needs for different users, it makes great sense for media like AP to make themselves available accordingly.To me it is less about "the siteless web" and more about media (and brands) making sure they are on tap on the user's terms. If I am a Facebook nut, I should be able to find you on Facebook...and so on.Regardless, it is smart on their behalf. It will be interesting to see who's next. And it blows me away that it's only been six years since the all blog news diet. Feels longer (in a good way).How do you feel the siteless web impacts trends like splinterweb? Do you think the AP being more reliant on different sites like Facebook increases splinterweb or decreases it?
@Kevin, you are right - it's definitely about going where people are. And, per the addendum to my post, there will be multiple hubs. But I believe the media will focus most on the hubs where a) the most people are engaged, b) they can get rich data and c) they can build relationships. Now, take out the word media from this post and replace it with "business" or "company" or "NGO/nonprofits." Gets interesting right? Re the splitnernet (for those who haven't heard of this, see Josh Bernoff here - http://goo.gl/gQuY), it definitely creates an issue around standards. But there is middleware coming like Syncapes' SocialTalk - http://socialtalk.com/. This makes focusing more important and why I continue to remain bullish on Facebook until I see an alternative emerge.
Nice showcase of the latest tactics. I'm curious to see how effective these will be for creating new substantial revenue streams to support big machines like nytimes or ap. To ealy to tell?
AP is a wholesaler with clients who pay a lot of money for AP's product. Even though you could create a remarkably efficient news gathering and publishing network using social media, where's the point of purchase? How does being on Facebook benefit AP the business? AP is not a blogger who writes for free hoping to influence a conversation or get discovered. AP has bills to pay. I'm intrigued by a news network that exists as social media, but will AP somehow sell ads? Will it have one client -- will Facebook pay? Perhaps instead of undercutting its clients, AP should be putting its clients' stories on Facebook.
In some ways doesn't this take us back to the days of the old "portals" like AOL, Yahoo, DMOZ, Netscape back in the 90's? A seperate property that everyone is anxious to get a profile on, in yet only company actually owns the actual property in question. "those that do not learn from the mistakes of history, are doomed to repeat them," keeps ringing in my ears. How can Facebook avoid becoming irrelevant like the 90's portals eventually did, or are they headed in a completely different direction?
While I agree that the web will rersemble what you call a siteless web more and more thanks to all these networks, APIs, and syndication practices, I think you give AP too much credit. It was probably just some arbitrary, boneheaded move, and you are reading a vision from it. They are NOT visionary. That's why the entire news industry is looking for an alternative.
On an Internet that's full of headless content mediums, how do you monetize your material when your broadcast mediums don't allow you place ads or other promotions on there? Provide me with a good argument on that and I'll feel much more comfortable heading in the direction.
Also -- on a headless Internet -- where does the creative individualism of a Web property fit into all this when your broadcast mediums are all template based? That, to me - someone who values an entity for its aesthetic creativity - signals a future on the Web that's reeeeeally dull, because of its lack of personality.
So Steve, when Facebook has some privacy flap, and suddenly millions of people decide they've had enough and bail out of it, what has the AP gained by all those fans? Or if Google closes Buzz, what happens to all the subscribers you've built up there?Don't get me wrong. People should absolutely play in the social space and build up a presence there. The AP blog on Facebook is actually really good. I just found it personally jarring to click from Twitter to arrive at Facebook rather than to reach a standalone web site, which is usually what happens to me when I click on tweeted links.In the broader sense, there's absolutely no reason why the AP couldn't have a blog running at blog.ap.org which in turn feeds into Facebook, Google Buzz, Twitter -- you name it. They'd get all the benefits of building social media subscribes as well as the benefits of building their own long-term equity that would never get threatened by the actions of a third party company.At the very least, if I typed AP Blog into Google, I'd actually find the darn thing, rather than the mess you get now when you search.
Steve,I was in the right place at the right time on this one (I was in college when Facebook first came out and hit our campus in 2004). For me, I use it for syndication of my show for entrepreneurs but more importantly an amazing place for:1. Feedback2. Chatting back and forth with subscribers/fans/whatever you want to call them.3. Crowd sourcing/researching/kicking out questions to the community.4. Great place for multimedia sharing (video, photos, etc.)5. Generating buzz for events.What I really like (and always have) is the rich environment of Facebook. Meaning you can really get to know folks personally and professionally which is a huge asset in business and also great research.Just my 2 or 3 cents.
Some thoughts re your comments. First, it's been pointed out to me by email that all of the content on Facebook that AP syndicates as full text are their blog posts. This may alleviate some of the licensing concerns. Still the questions on the business model and value here is a good one. (I am updating my post) @Daniel, yes this does take us back to the portal days. However, I think that's a result of too much information - oversupply. We're reacting by seeking out curators and Facebook in some ways is one. @Brad on the monetization - what if a media brand (not AP) were to slip a clearly-labeled sponsored post in the stream but in exchange offer you the value of getting more in depth news content where you spend time. Is that a viable model? @Danny, over time I suspect Facebook will look more like a CRM and analytics platform than a media business. They will give us rich information about a Page's fans (which I predict they will rename). They will have to balance this with privacy of course, as you hint. So, I suspect that if there should be a Facebook exodus by then AP will know much more about its true evangelists than it does now - even without the CRM/analytic data. What this does illustrate, however, is that we need more "middleware" - standards for letting us export/import followers. When I moved my blog to Posterous I took all the subs with me via Feedburner. We need similar glue. Finally, I agree with you that they should be platform-agnostic. I suspect they will be. But I don't blame them for pushing people to Facebook for relationships.
@Steve But don't these 3rd party social platforms (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) disallow the placement of traditional advertising within a profile?
@Brad they might. Good question.
They do now, but that sounds like the basic business model for "white label" pages if they were to introduce such a thing. You pay us a fee, and you can run all the advertisements on your page (and only your page) as you want. If they want advertisements elsewhere the company would still have to pay Facebook just like normal.
@Steve With that question in mind, I'd love to hear a new perspective from ya if what I threw out there is, in fact, true.
@brad in general I think the Facebook advertising opportunities are huge for media companies. Zynga is building the next gen media company - all tail, no head. But I agree we need more revenue paths that Facebook can provide.
I'm right there with ya, man, on social networks being a GREAT way to distribute content to a larger audience, but if there isn't a way to monetize its appearance over there via self-acquired advertising, then it can't become a common practice. I hope I'm wrong on the idea of it being disallowed (because I'd love to do it with my clients), but I know, for sure, YouTube doesn't allow it, therefore making it feasible that Facebook wouldn't either.
This seems like a fairly silly & overly enthusiastic blog post. You said: "Wire services like AP and Reuters have in one sense flourished since the dawn of the consumer Internet. You can't visit a news site without running into one of their stories. Often, some of the featured and more popular stories on Yahoo News (an underrated news giant) are from wire services. " -- I assume you are older than 25 and am therefore surprised by how you describe AP & Reuters. The latter was created in 1865 while the former was created in 1848. Was there ever a time in the last 50-75 years when you could open a printed newspaper without running into one of their stories? No. Just like they syndicated their content to newspapers they've evolved to syndicate their content to other websites. Likewise, in what way are they 'curating' a conversation on Facebook with their paltry fan base of 9,400? For such a prestigious, prolific and well established institution that's a terribly low and embarrassing number. In contrast consider the following examples: McDonalds (who have only been around since 1955) currently have 1,766,944 fans. However, the dead transvestite Divine, who starred in a few John Waters movies during the 1970's and 80's and passed away 22 years ago, currently has 10,759 fans. The obscure and extremely unlistenable musician John Zorn has 9,760 fans. So. the AP's fan count is on par with a dead transvestite and an obscure, unlistenable musician. I agree with your daring prediction though, their fan count will increase (just as Devine's will too).
Hi @Steve, was wondering if you had a FB Fan page? Checked around but only found your home page..
@Ahad not yet but stay tuned.
So we can consume the news on Facebook, which is a good step. But to take it to the next level, it's important we can share the news, too: I couldn't find any information on the license? If AP is serious about leveraging the web (which would be great) then they need to provide their content with a license that allows working with their stuff, too...
More importantly AP's articles suck. In my experience they often don't identify their sources (e.g. "officials said"). And there's no author identified, so there's no way to get in touch to get clarification or offer feedback.In terms of new media they're old school. I avoid linking to their stories whenever possible.
I'm not sure I'd let go of the idea of running my own site. Maybe it's the control freak in me. Using FB as a hub makes sense, but my online business will forever be subject to its policies not mine. Is it time for me to let go?
I am always using Facebook for connecting people, well, make use of it for my online business. :DGwenGet $150,000 Unsecured Biz Credit Lines
I see this more as defensive, driven by the internal dynamics which forced the AP to compromise on internet strategy throughout the internet era. They don't have a site, and can't. They can't play favorites among members for re-directs. They'd prefer not to direct to their hosted content on Google given their history with that company. So what is left?Another small quibble: I don't think Reuters has exactly "struggled to build any kind of meaningful relationship with readers." Of course, I am biased since I was there at the beginning of both their agency business on the web — syndicating pass-through multimedia news stories to AOL and all the portals — and as the shift began to cultivate a retail site. In less than a generation these initiatives established the Reuters brand in the United States so powerfully that it is now referred to in the same breath as the AP which, students of news agency history will know, was inconceivable pre-internet. The larger question, of course, is about impact. It really isn't irrelevant if you have a web site (Twitter does not need one, for example). I've long thought that the web is really just a repository of the things that we circulate and talk about. So, to circle back, it doesn't matter of the AP has a site or cultivates an audience on the Facebook or was resigned to that strategy or chose it. Reuters benefited from the AP's inability to compete on the internet for several years, and as a wholly wholesale operation they still face a difficult quandary: The more popular they are among the public, they more they are subjected to the kinds of use from the public that they find unfair.