Puffbox

There’s no stopping the Telegraph’s eagerness for new media. An insider tells the Guardian that the ‘strategic differences’ which led to yesterday’s departure of Sunday Telegraph editor Patience Wheatcroft came down to her ‘failure to embrace the internet’. Meanwhile, the paper has launched the ITN-powered Telegraph TV service announced back in July (PDF).

The formula behind Telegraph TV is pretty simple. ‘TV NEWS N0W’ (their zero, not mine) is a sequence of the nine top stories, each 40-50 seconds long. The first half is a classic ‘mystery voice’ news package, much like Sky News Active. Then there’s a flash, and the second half is a Telegraph hack providing an in-house ‘talking head’. Pause while the next item buffers, and the cycle continues.

I don’t want to judge it harshly based on one day’s stories alone: there’s nothing very picture-friendly among the nine items as I write this. But let’s be harsh. The two most unsatisfactory bits of the typical TV news package are the talking-head soundbite, and the anonymous, timeless library footage. And what I’m seeing is a news service which consists primarily of…

Elsewhere in the video channel, they have 5-10 minute mini-programmes which seem to fit the online world much better. Chats in the newsroom or in relevant locations, with the star columnist or expert reporter offering some more considered insight; some edited, some not; a bit rough round the edges, but all the more natural for it. A better fit with the brand, and more natural territory for what remains primarily an operation driven by the print product and the daily print deadline. I know where I’d focus my efforts.

I’m inclined to agree with Jakob Nielsen’s latest column, which puts another nail in the coffin of cutesy copywriting. The US Census Bureau has a big, javascript-driven Population Clock at the top of its homepage. It shows a current estimate of the US population in 18pt bold red digits. It even moves, for goodness sake. Yet a staggering 86% of users missed it. Or rather, they tended to see it, but didn’t look at it. Nielsen’s recommendation in this case: avoid ‘made-up terms or branded descriptions’. If it’s the current population of the US, label it ‘current population of the US’.

Steve Rubel says ‘a new kind of career is emerging: enter the Geek Marketer’. I’m never too keen about the ‘geek’ part, but I think I am one. And frankly Steve, it’s hardly new: I’ve been doing it for most of the last twelve years.

Matthew Taylor set it up as real scrap, but tonight’s RSA lecture by controversial author Andrew Keen and conservative blogging figurehead Tim Montgomerie was nothing of the sort. I had hoped to have my views challenged by Andrew, and to get an insight into Tim’s leading-edge thinking. In the end, I didn’t get either, and I left frustrated.

Looking back at my notes, I see a succession of points made by Keen, which are hard to argue with. People increasingly believe that they have a right to free ‘content’. But if the only people making any money from ‘content’ are the advertising platforms, who’s going to invest in producing the extra-high quality stuff? If the only people willing or able to do so are advertisers, where does that leave us?

If his argument were purely based on the problems facing the entertainment business’s business model, I don’t think there would be an argument – visit your local Fopp for details. But tonight at least, the other half of his argument – the assault on ‘the amateur’ – wasn’t so well formed. He mentioned YouTube numerous times, and I can think of numerous reasons why you might point the finger at Google/YouTube: failure to tackle nefarious SEO tactics, failure to weed out copyrighted video material. But Keen didn’t follow through.

His pitch wasn’t helped by his embarrassing and frankly unforgivable failure to play a video clip as part of his presentation, which clearly put him off his stride. Tim Montgomerie was hastily called forward to offer a counterpoint, when the original point wasn’t especially clear, and inevitably his response fell disappointingly flat.

Keen wore plain black, he spoke with a languid Brit-in-California tone, and he was on a mission to tell people that most of us are talentless. Remind you of anyone? Once the thought entered my mind, I couldn’t escape it. He was trying to be the Simon Cowell of new media. He had words of praise for those who had a gift, and the training to perfect it. For those with neither, the words were inevitably harsh.

And as Cowell has done in the past (but doesn’t do so much now), he went out of his way to cultivate the Mr Nasty image. On several occasions, he became unnecessarily aggressive in answering questions: when the MD of Encyclopedia Britannica asked a question from the floor, Keen was close to exploding, despite the fact that Mr Britannica was basically agreeing with him.

But isn’t that the point? As in the music world, as in reality TV, so on the web. ‘The X-Factor’ encapsulates the problem, and proves it isn’t inherently the internet’s fault. So many people showing up saying yes, they are definitely good enough to win. Then opening their mouths, and sounding like a cat in agony. And it’s over to Cowell and co to break the awful truth to them.

Andrew Keen is not the antichrist, nor is he a Nazi – an accusation which clearly hurt him. He believes some are more able than others, which is a statement of fact. And in the final moments, he admitted that the blogosphere was a ‘great supplement’ to the newspapers we rely on, and that he was optimistic in the long term. But lest we forget, he has his own business model: he has a book to sell.

Quick update: interesting… I’m not the first person to make the connection with Cowell, not even today.

Despite being personally responsible for the big news story to come out of David Miliband’s trip to No10 yesterday, I’ve never really been a big fan of ‘live webchats’. There’s an undeniable buzz at realising that your question held the attention of Mr or Mrs Celebrity, if only for a few brief moments. And I have fond recollections of the first live (telnet) chat I ever took part in, back in 1995 I think, during which I asked Sex Pistols svengali Malcolm MacLaren if he thought Britain was obsessed with its past (and he did). But there’s a problem.

I don’t often think you get more by watching the responses being typed live, compared to reading the transcript later. So how do you make it an exciting live event? A couple of quick ideas… Webcam-style imagery, either stills or video. If the celebrity is there, let’s see him/her. Or how about taking a lead from Digg, and allowing the users to drive the selection of the next question?

Disappointingly, I doubt either will ever happen. In reality, the celebs want to control what they’re asked. And for many, perhaps a majority, there will be an intermediary typing the answers – and quite probably giving the answers too. The truth is, a live webchat is generally neither truly a chat, nor truly live. (Although for what it’s worth, I hear Miliband is a notable exception on both counts.)

It’s absolutely no surprise to me, that Gordon Brown should rule out a televised debate with David Cameron. We’ll never get this if it’s decided on an election-by-election basis. The ‘front runner’, with too much to lose, will never agree to it; the ‘runner up’, with everything to gain, will always push for it.

So here’s my solution. Agree not to have one this time, but commit your party – no matter who is leader – to have one at the following election. It’s too far away for anyone to know what the state of the parties will be, or indeed who their leaders will be; so it puts their commitment to democratic expression alone to the test. And as for any claim that it would make UK politics into a so-called ‘beauty contest’… what do you think it is now?!

Worth reading Gordon Brown’s speech this morning, in which he describes the need for ‘a new type of politics which embraces everyone in this nation, not just a select few… a politics that takes a hard look at the tough questions, not the easy path of short-term slogans.’ OK, where’s he going with this?

‘The power of progressive politics rests in the empowerment of the people it serves. I believe that progressive politics in this country will only truly succeed in shaping a better Britain if we actively reach out to new ideas, find new ways of engaging the people in our communities, and then build a consensus for change.

‘I believe that we need new ways of reaching out. New ways of listening to people. New ways of consulting on new ideas. New ways of engaging in a dialogue and deliberation. And thus new ways of building our democracy for the future.’

Things kick off this week with the introduction of a concept of ‘citizens juries’: one this week on children, another next week on crime. Then we’ll get ‘nine simultaneous citizens juries on the NHS – one in each region – linked by video.’ (However, as Nick Robinson points out, No10 is a bit short on detail, and I’m not seeing an application form on the No10 site.) We’ll also get a mega-jury ‘composed of a representative sample of the British people… to formulate the British statement of values’, and a revival of the cross-party Speaker’s Conference, to look at various aspects of the electoral and democratic process.

All good: whilst I doubt these juries will change much, it certainly makes a positive statement. It’s just a shame the political coverage will concentrate mainly on (a) the lack of a denial about an early election, and (b) the involvement of certain individuals in Brown’s commissions of all the talents.

Iain Dale reckons we could be on for a 4 October general election, basing his speculation on activity at the Department of Health: ‘Tuesday is apparently full of big health events but these are now in doubt as No. 10 have apparently cleared their diary.’ Well, he’s right that Tuesday has a lot of DH announcements lined up… but I’m actually involved in some of it (of which more later…), and at the time of writing, nobody’s told me that Tuesday is off. I’ll actually be at DH on Tuesday, so if it happens, I’ll report live. Can’t say fairer than that.