Firstly, there’s no denying appeal of video. I’m aware that increased computing power and ubiquitous high bandwidth (even on our mobile devices) has made video easier to use than ever. But I still have two serious questions about the move away from the text-based blog format.

People read while at work.
Yes, slackers. They’re everywhere. I wonder where Digg, Reddit, and even Gawker to some extent would be without the ability for people to silently read and entertain themselves. A 10 minute web video, no matter how engaging, will never be able to replace the ability of someone to read an amusing article while the boss is away. Yes, Cracked’s Top X insane facts you wouldn’t believe articles would probably translate well to video. I wonder where the people who are reading their articles are reading them?

Are they reading  at home where they are choice media users (Xbox or Phone or Laptop or Ipad or Kindle etc) or at work where they are not choice media users, e.g. they only have access to a desktop.

Has People’s Patience Suddenly Increased?
Jakob Neilsen has for a long time posted research showing that you have fractions of a second to capture a user’s interest when they come to a webpage, and at about the 10 second point, users become impatient and leave the site.

More than 10 seconds, and you break the flow. Users will often leave the site rather than trying to regain the groove once they’ve started thinking about other things. (full article here)

Gawker cites the ability to insert 15 second commercials in between (and as many sites do currently, before) content displays. Is video content so much more compelling that users are breaking the norms of web use for video content?

If so, then truly there is a sea change at work in the way people use websites and digital media? Or are we witnessing a new wave of wishful thinking. Just as the Ipad will save magazines, can the world of ubiquitous streaming video save the TV and commercials model that the industry is accustomed to?

Though I am being critical of the model, I don’t necessarily know the answers to these questions, but I will surely be following how this pans out.

Currently, Digital Scholarship is not valued or accepted on par with traditional methods of academic valuation. By that I mean: journal articles, monographs published by academic presses, and books. This creates a system that could potentially handicap the brightest and the best, young scholars aiming for tenure track positions. As digital scholarship is not valued, they will likely hold on to their work until they are able to secure a traditional avenue for the release of their work.

This is an okay model in that those bright students will be able to secure themselves tenure track positions in higher education which is their goal; however, as information and the release of knowledge is no longer controlled by higher education and academic presses, anyone could release a significant body of research for free on their website. The cost of publishing a book on your own is prohibitive; the cost of publishing a book on the internet is zero in many cases.

Walking through that door
If the best, brightest, or those holding out for tenure are withholding their work, who will then take the opportunity to publish their work for free?  I believe it will be those with little to lose: Scholars outside of tenure track positions and experts outside of academia. If a student has invested many years in research and still is unable to find a tenure track position, it seems that there would be much more to gain by just releasing it for free. As Kathleen Fitzpatrick demonstrated quantitatively during her presentation at the Digital University Conference, she achieved a wider reach with her website than would have the average release at an academic press.

It seems that the opportunity is ripe for young scholars to publish their work and seek recognition outside of academia. Perhaps success won’t be measured in terms of books, sabbaticals and grants but instead in speaking engagements and recognition. Chris Anderson again mentions this in his book Free that there are other forms of currency once can use in the marketplace of ideas. Among these currencies are Reputation and Attention. Could young scholars holding back their ideas awaiting validation from the current institution be costing themselves valuable time in accumulating recognition?

I’m simply speculating at this point, I don’t know what might come out of the current state. What I do know is that I speak with a great deal of young scholars and there is a disillusionment about the value of digital scholarship, a frustration about the lack of jobs in the marketplace, and a strong sense of idealism and opportunity. The direction of digital scholarship might not rest in the hands of Academia, but instead it might rest in the hands of young scholars who now have an alternative means to express their ideas.

This is a case of an old media company not having the guts to stick to a new model. I have read that the drop off of “advertising revenue” was one such justification for the change. But that seems hollow: everyone lost money this year. There was a recession.

So though on the surface this seems like the justifiable and obvious answer; but is the answer really worth sacrificing the advantage in visitors the New York Times gains by being a respected voice? The New York times brand is strengthened and its reputation is strengthened due to its free nature. Chris Anderson has explored how “reputation” is another kind of currency in his book Free.

Reputation can be used to bring about a new business model: news as a service, rather than news as a commodity. The News is public and is out there- and unless the New York Times paywall comes with a compelling argument for why their news is better than the news I’ll find for free on Cnn.com the traffic will not follow.

The Times is not the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is more niche and does take a different approach by covering something very specific in depth and providing it in way people want to see it. The Times is a jack of all trades with opinions, world news, a little bit local- but does nothing that no one else doesn’t do (for free!) .

So News as a Service?

This proposal may sound a bit extreme, but here me out. The New York Times should be a service provider for its news, and it should start by subsidizing E-readers. I’m not kidding. How about offering an incredible deal (or free) Kindle or Nook if you buy a 2 year subscription to have the times downloaded onto your E-reader. Subsidize a new means of reading the news and create a demand for your product. This worked so well for Gilette, why not the New York Times?

The reason why the Times should remain free online is because it will build a demand for the premium product and maintain the reputation as a world leader in all around news, but by providing a value add- something more than just news which will make the Times a leader in the new wave of media.

*I don’t work for the Times, and I know this is completely unsolicited advice for a major Newspaper. But, I think this plan would work.