NAB/RTNDA is just around the corner, and I’m really looking forward to this year’s event. I sense in my spirit a shift in attitude within the industry about things internet, and that’s
reflected in the program. I’m actually on the opening panel! Jeff Jarvis leads a Monday supersession on citizens media/blogging/user-generated content that is a first for the RTNDA. Mind you, this isn’t shuffled off into one of the concurrent sessions; this one is front-and-center. That one is Tuesday, and I wouldn’t miss it.

Here’s the “promotional copy” for my session, moderated by Miles O’Brien from CNN.

As consumers take command of their news options, newsrooms everywhere must transform the way they operate or risk being left behind. Join the leaders of this revolution in a strategic discussion of what we can learn from our audiences and what to expect as they become empowered with control. Learn how professional journalists can continue to be relevant voices in our markets and sustain a viable business. And discover ways that you can be that force of change inside your own organization, encouraging innovation now so we all will be relevant tomorrow.

Even this is a remarkable statement from an organization that represents an important part of the professional press, and it gives me great hope for the future. Read that one line: “Learn how professional journalists can continue to be relevant voices…” That’s quite a concession, because it implies that the relevancy of their voice is in question. It certainly is.

Miles asked me what three points I want to make, and that’s a toughie. I basically told him the following:

1. The key disrupter to the business of media is people, not technology. This is the key to understand all that’s taking place, because the press-public dynamic has been flip-flopped, with the public now clearly calling the shots. When we look at it as only technology, we drift down a path that won’t do much to resolve the disruption to our bottom lines. Relevancy is determined, after all, by them, not us.
2. None of this is “all-or-nothing,” and those who paint it as such generally have a big stake in the game, usually the status quo. Broadcasting will continue and we’re not all going to die tomorrow. There certainly is an evolution underway, but let’s not get caught up in the hype of the all-or-nothing crowd.
3. People want to know what we know and do what we do, and business models that support this will succeed in the near and long-term future. Think Gordon Borrell’s “ammunition” scenario: “The deer now have guns. What do you do when the deer have guns? Get into the ammunition business.” YouTube is the textbook example of this, a business that enables the deer to share their work with others.

This business of relevancy is damned important, and I think that pursuing it is our best bet for tomorrow. Unfortunately, overcoming our formulas — news by one-potato, two-potato, three-potato, four — is a significant problem for those who need to make the transition to something different.

Imagine an early 20th century convention of the whale oil industry. In the hall outside the meeting rooms sits the latest in blubber reduction technology, newfangled harpoonery, foul weather gear, and drowning insurance salesmen. Who’s best suited to talk to the group about electricity, someone from the Edison crowd or the research team representing the whale oil industry? Think about it.

This is exactly why I feel so different about this year’s conference. See you there.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 13th, 2007 at 6:30 am and is filed under Media 2.0, Broadcasting, Disruptions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.