AP is Visionary: They See a "Siteless Web"
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.
Comments 41 Comments
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?
Provide me with a good argument on that and I'll feel much more comfortable heading in the direction.
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.
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. Feedback
2. 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.
-- 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).
In terms of new media they're old school. I avoid linking to their stories whenever possible.
Gwen
Get $150,000 Unsecured Biz Credit Lines
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.
I think it's a fine idea for the AP to provide a destination, and at the moment building one inside Facebook — community included — also seems like a great idea. It's also great (and I haven't seen this highlighted) that their links work for people who aren't logged into FB, which means you don't even have to have a FB account to access them. So they have an instantly-created hosted solution which provides built-in prospective customers, and is available to anyone. Bravo!
But the AP would be the first to tell you that they are not trying to craft a retail publishing strategy since they are not a retail publisher, so I'm not sure what real-life lessons this provides to actual retail publishers.
To start with the restrictions on advertising within Facebook would seem to be a non-starter for anyone else who actually has options and can do what the AP cannot — establish a destination on the web proper.
So, the brand is key and if the brand-owner is clever and nimble it can be extended into any medium that makes sense. Your sub-strategies — Facebook, Ning, Twitter, whatever — are merely tactical concerns.
I thought about it and it made sense – with so many platforms out there that allow you to post pictures, music, show dates and band information – as well as serve as a built-in community for fans – for free, why would a band bother putting the resources into developing their own website?
Now, other industries are starting to catch on, and it’s a very interesting movement. I wonder if more and more website designers are shifting or will shift towards application development for social media sites.
http://www.niemanlab.org/category/themes/ap-plan/
http://boingboing.net/2009/07/29/associated-press-drm.html
Maybe they've rethought their strategy. In such a (relatively) short timespan, that would be impressively agile. Or maybe someone within the company managed to get permision to experiement on Facebook, and this doesn't signal a major shift.
...Or rather, I've found hundreds but I don't know which one's the Real Slim Shady
Thanks in advance .