The Guardian
topics
Close Box

News From Us:

Our latest report; our new video section; and jobs with paidContent.org and paidContent:UK


Leading Voices
Storytelling Is Stuck In A Rut—What Publishers Can Do About It

Upendra Shardanand is the Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Daylife, which helps publishers add content without additional staff or engineering. He also co-founded Firefly Network, a spinoff from his work at the MIT Media Lab, and sold the company to Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) in 1998. Upendra was the founding partner at the venture firm The Accelerator Group, and was the Director of Technology at Time Warner (NYSE: TWX).

On the subway one recent evening, I saw straphangers reading news articles printed off the web. This tells me two things:

1. The commuter’s need to kill time outweighs their need to save trees.
2. There’s no difference to most people between reading a news story online or on an 8 1/2”x11” piece of paper.

Fifteen years into the web, the nature of journalistic storytelling has hardly changed from its print roots. Sure, there are minor differences. Headlines are SEO-optimized, and I can follow a writer on Twitter, post an off-the-cuff rant or rave, or Digg something I like. But the actual article is still the same beast. (Just like this column.)

Meanwhile, does Amazon.com (NSDQ: AMZN) bear any resemblance to shopping with the Sears catalog? Does Amazon even resemble itself from 14 years ago? Why has shopping been revolutionized while storytelling is stuck in a rut?

Speaking to publishers every day, I’m struck by their openness and eagerness to revamp so many parts of their business. IT? Distribution? Revenue? All subject to radical change. There’s surprisingly little trepidation about experimenting with the latest and greatest web phenomenon. But one aspect of their businesses that very few seem to question is the actual craft of writing and telling stories.

There are, however, a few interesting experiments with new forms of storytelling (whether it be “news” or otherwise):

  • Kevin Sites’ In the Hot Zone was an early attempt at war correspondence, seamlessly blending text, podcasts, and video into a singular narrative (sadly, Yahoo! (NSDQ: YHOO) seems to have taken the site down).
  • Jonathan Harris’ The Whale Hunt is a stunningly gorgeous, non-linear essay on the Inupiat whale hunt (disclosure: Jonathan Harris is the former design director of Daylife).
  • Footnote’s living, breathing, communal, and very public Vietnam Wall Memorial, as well as their I Remember Facebook app.
  • Days with my Father , a heart-wrenching photo-essay of a son’s last days with his dad.

And since the authors aren’t “webifying” their content, you also find others attempting to webify it for them, changing the storytelling from the outside in. Folks like Outside.In and Everyblock treat content like data and tear it apart just to reassemble it into infinitely browsable, non-linear experiences (like Amazon does for shopping).

But this leads to an odd stratification: On one side you have parties that produce what were once finished products, but are now just data for parties on the other side who take that fodder and reconstruct it. It’d be much easier for everyone if the authors took matters into their own hands, and wrote stories in a new language, with new tools, for the web. 

So why this hasn’t happened? The tools haven’t changed. Whether it’s Microsoft Word or Wordpress, it’s all still word processing. The workflow in newsrooms hasn’t changed. Authors, rarely being software developers themselves, can’t develop the tools they would want. Usually some third-party CMS company makes it for them. (Jonathan Harris wrote his own software for Whale Hunt, but that combination of talents is rare.) Publishers haven’t committed significant R&D to the development of new tools. If they, did they’d have a competitive advantage, much like Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) developing its own chips or Amazon tinkering with its shopping experiences.

New forms of storytelling could (a) make readers happier; (b) extend the lifespan of stories, making arcs from what are now transient and ephemeral events;  and (c) create new sponsorship opportunities. And perhaps save a few trees as well.

An open question to all the renaissance journalist/designer/developer triple-threats out there: What will be the norm for a “written” work of journalism in 10 years’ time? More like Whale Hunt, or more like Dewey Defeats Truman? What can be done to bring more design and user experience creativity into newsrooms?  Can newsrooms afford to? Can they afford not to?  What other examples of fresh, web-native storytelling are out there?

May 8, 2009 9:02 AM ET

Upendra Shardanand

Share

Posted In: Features, Leading Voices

  • As a longtime journalist of mainstream business news outlets (Forbes, Businessweek, WSJ), the drill these days is soundbyte journalism—the shorter the better. I, for one, would greatly appreciate new tools to protect the age-old craft of storytelling, which as Mr. Shardanand has stated, need to be created.

  • I may be prematurely optimistic, but I think the opportunity for investing in content's evolution is emerging.

    Media economic dynamics are about to make the massive shift from consumers paying for a commodity (e.g., access)  to paying for content.  Kindle is the first to include the price of wireless access to download the content in the content.  Apple has announced it will do the same. 

    The consumer has been spending whatever it takes for access, with the hope for better choices.  When the dollars flow directly from the consumer to the content - buying decisions will be about quality of storytelling, relevance of content, a virtual "live" experience.  Then the economics of investing in content worth paying for and marketing that content will be viable. 

    katherine at comradity.com

  • having experimented with interactive multimedia, interactive storytelling, non-linear experiences and the like over the last decade, I find that text trumps everything else because it's the most efficient, simple and portable means of communication. Mr. Shardanand, you answered your own question when you described straphangers reading printouts of web content. Notwithstanding, when someone is inclined toward a more compelling experience, there are no simple, intuitive apps that allow writers or creators to build something without spending 6 months learning how to use it. And, in most cases, the existing apps force writers and designers into a creative straightjacket determined by a programmer with no sense of the user's needs.

  • j morgan

    actually, amazon does resemble itself from 14 years ago in at least one way— its archaic shopping cart, in which multiple items cannot be manipulated (added/ deleted/moved)  It's truly bizarre. And ask them about it and you get an auto-generated response that is maddening in its illogicSubstantial discounts and fast shipping keep me coming back, but alloting a half hour to create an order as I assemble a dozen items from within my wish lists, my save for later lists and the main pool of search results is a drag.

  • Kevin

    The big publishers have been caught flat-footed.  The dinosaur analogy is so over-used as to have lost all meaning, but it really does apply here.  The consolidation of the newspaper industry created a few massive, slow-moving beasts that proved (and continue to prove) they were (and are) incapable of adapting to a new environment.

    Cutting expenses by dumping reporters and editors (for decades, remember) has just sped up their demise.  Owners have been dumb, greedy, and increasingly desperate (a seemingly common problem in American business, eh?)  Makes me mourn for journalism and society.

    Look for innovation from smaller, more nimble competitors.  Sure, they may look like scampering little rodents now, but give them a bit of time.

    Doing my bit of one-man-band experimenting here: http://welltoldtales.com. 

    Bigger new media outfits (HuffPo, Bleacher Reports, NewsVine) have made strides, but still nowhere near filling the original, pro content gap.  Patch is an interesting small player.  Cash-strapped NPR is a great example that old media companies can be smart online.

    Still, will be a bumpy ride.

  • Upendra, you are correct that Photoshop et al create a fast and inexpensive creative environment. Yes, I can pump out images dozens of times faster and better than I could with film and at nearly zero processing cost. But that is true of the hundreds of millions of people who take billions of shutter-clicks every day. The economic value of the resulting product must drive to zero even as the average quality must also fall. That drives the economic model of the professional photographer from one of selling his product to one of selling his time - and the competition there is tougher every day.

    So when you ask for better tools, what you really want is tools that enhance your creative productivity while providing stunning barriers to the masses. Those tools you must craft yourself. And you must keep them well-hidden if you wish to profit by them for even a little while.

  • @ Mike D. Thanks Mike. You're right, not economical at all today. But the right tools could change that - just as advances in photoshop, CGI, music software, even word processing has allowed a single person to do in hours what formerly took several people days or weeks or months.  And as the tools get more efficient, the storytelling should get more interesting. I hope!

  • Good article.  The reason storytelling hasn't changed—as online shopping has—is that it's not economical to do the sorts of things you're suggesting (which sound great, from a pure consumer perspective).  If Amazon makes one simple technological or presentational advancement to their system, it affects millions of products and can lead to billions of incremental dollars in revenue (see: http://www.uie.com/articles/magicbehindamazon/ ).  If a journalist goes from writing a traditional story in a day or two to spending weeks presenting the story as you're suggesting, you've just lost some important resources for awhile and you've only made a few extra dollars in increased page views and/or uniques.  This is even true on a more granular level, forgetting about presentation and storytelling style.  A quick wire-type article often monetizes just as well as a great investigative piece that took weeks to write.

    I think the fundamental problem is that the "quality" of articles (whether content, presentation, creativity, etc) is not necessarily aligned with how well those articles are monetizes.  And even when it is, the economics *still* sometimes don't work out.  The value of content is in sort of a race to the bottom at this point. Whoever can display the most of it the cheapest seems to be winning.

  • Great articls.

    I'm not sure if the issue is better tools - but connecting the stories that are already being put out there by people using Wordpress, a cheap digicam,  and something to say.
    I think the kind of triple threats you are envisioning are pretty rare, and that placing publishers in the CMS r+d business would be a severe misallocation of resources at a time when the business can ill afford it.

The Economics of Content | paidContent Newsletter

Know something we don’t?

Send Us a News Tip

All tips are anonymous and untraced.

Sponsors

Contributors