Sunday Excursion with the Fellows

Injo Fellows excursion Apr 29 2007

Here are some pictures from yesterday's excursion to San Gregorio State Beach with the injo fellows located in the Bay Area.

EJC and Amsterdam Maastricht Summer University Runs INJO Seminar

The European Journalism Center (EJC) and the Amsterdam Maastricht Summer University will be running a three-day seminar on innovation journalism on July 25-27. I'll be going there - hope to see you in Maastricht, too!

The dynamic director of EJC, Willi Rütten, has selected innovation journalism as one of the themes for the EJC, so more things will be happening before long.

This is what the EJC writes about the summer seminar on their website :

The European Journalism Centre, in association with the Amsterdam-Maastricht Summer University (AMSU), will organize on July 25 - July 27 the seminar “Innovation Journalism: Detecting Weak Signals”. The seminar will be held in the main office of the European Journalism Centre in Maastricht, in the south of the Netherlands.

David Nordfors, who has been developing the concept of Innovation Journalism at Stanford University, will hold the keynote speech on the ideas behind “Injo”. During three days the participants will discuss various topics related to innovation and innovation ecosystems in Europe. The seminar will provide a close look into the winners and losers in the innovation space (Apple vs. Sony, Skype vs. Telcos) and discuss innovation developments in the (soon to be) integrated newsrooms (e.g.: Workflow and convergence issues when integrating print/online/audio/video etc.).

The seminar is of interest to journalists, journalism students and other media professionals who are covering innovation within traditional newsrooms, or work as freelance “tech writers”. At the same time, it targets PR experts and business developers within innovation driven companies and also scholars in media and communication studies.

For more informations and to apply for this seminar, visit http://www.amsu.edu/courses/MEDIA-1/.

IANS: "Indian news industry should innovate to survive competition: Media expert"

Here is a news clip today from India:

By Nayanima Basu, Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, April 15 (IANS)

The Indian news industry needs to innovate constantly in order to survive global competition and cater to the changing needs of readers and viewers, says David Nordfors, a senior research scholar at Stanford University's Centre for Innovations in Learning.

Nordfors, who was in India to hold extensive seminars and discussions on 'Innovation Journalism', coined the concept in 2003. He is an adviser to the governments of US, Europe and Asia on the role of journalism in the economy and its application in public innovation policy.

"The Indian news industry needs to embrace innovation right now as it has the resources to take the lead in developing new markets and can be an authoritative source of knowledge for the whole world," Nordfors told IANS in an interview during his visit.

"If the Indian news industry chooses to lean back and not become innovative, it will fall behind, and others will tell the story of India to the rest of the world. The choice is with India and I believe it can be more competitive at innovation than China, who are going for innovation too," said Nordfors, who is also a writer and columnist with a leading Swedish IT magazine.

According to him, the Indian media, which grew at 20 percent in 2006, is held in high esteem in the world for its content and analytical ability. But in order to sustain the credibility the industry has to shift its focus from quintessential reporting to something new so as to take a lead in the developing markets.

"Don't lean back and focus only on traditional news on paper. This will work fine for some years, but it is a fool's paradise," Nordfors said.

He also said India should learn from the failure of the media industry in Western countries which did not shift its focus from the traditional mode of newspaper reporting and hence reached a point of saturation.

"Everywhere in the Western world, the news industry is being hammered because they hung on to paper for too long. Now they can hardly afford to develop the products they need for securing their future because they are too busy surviving," he averred.

Adding that the Indian news industry should try and find newer ways to innovate, Nordfors said: "The Indian news media should look into ways of publishing news to cell phones, personal computers for ordinary people. This way you (Indian media) can reach incredibly large markets, also outside India."

Nordfors, who as a journalist initiated and headed the first symposium on the Internet that was held by Swedish Parliament, said: "The newsrooms need to be reorganised, and the newsbeat structures need to be looked over. Develop expertise in reporting on innovation. It is the big thing in all industries today.

"It is not about business or tech or politics, it is about business and tech and politics. The journalist needs to combine technology, business and politics in order to get the bigger picture."


Indo-Asian News Service

Injo at Global Innovation Summit in India

Innovation Journalism was on the agenda when the 1st Global Innovation Summit in India was arranged by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in collaboration with Dr. Charles Wessner of the US National Academy of Science (NAS).

The summit was headed by the CII chairman Dr. Surinder Kapur, and featured many of the top innovation leaders in India, representing industry, academia as well as government. I had the pleasure of being an invited speaker together with Prof. Clayton Christensen, who led a workshop on disruptive innovation.

Christensen's presented his ideas on how producers of low-cost innovations that turn large groups of non-consumers into consumers can pull the rug from beneath the incumbents. One example is the auto industry, and how Toyota managed to become the top dog from having started as a manufacturer of cheap low quality cars. This example is particularly pertinent in India, where Tata motors, the succesful domestic Indian automanufacturer is aiming at selling a car for under $2500. If they succeed, perhaps they can become a new Toyota? The tremendously large Indian population offers a huge amount of non-consumers, that can be turned into a powerful customer constituencies by low cost innnovations. Fuelled by a rapidly growing domestic market, perhaps India can make ripples across the world? This is definitely an interesting possibility!

The interest for Innovation Journalism is large. I met with editors of the major Indian business news publications, and was interviewed in the ADTV morning show. The IANS news agency (Indo Asian News Service) published a story (see next post).

Christensen's thoughts are definitely relevant also for the news business. India has excellent journalists, they are well educated, the job has a decent status, and best of all: the business is doing well. The growing literacy in India is providing many millions of new readers every year. The Indian media and entertainment industry is expected to grow by 18% per year until 2011, according to the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry! If the Indian news industry goes for innovation, watch out competitors in the rest of the world!

For those who are interested, the program for the Global Innovation Summit in India is attached.

GISProgram.pdf

MSM vs Google: News Follows Music?

(this is a re-post of a blog post I originally published elsewhere on Mar 17 2007)

It was bound to happen – Viacom is suing Google for a billion dollars for hosting uploaded clips of their stuff on Youtube. The prelude occured only a few weeks ago, when a group of newspapers in Belgium won a court case in Brussels against the search giant, barring Google from re-publishing any snippets of their news on the search engine. Google is now in danger of becoming a main target for the struggling main stream media.

The news industry has been facing tough times for a several years now, and it is steadily getting worse, as Craig’s list and other web companies are taking over ads that have been the backbone of the news industry for over a century. The foundations of the fourth estate are shaking, well respected newspapers are downsizing or being sold off. No more Mr Nice Guy, as the saying goes, Hollywood-style. The victory in the Belgium court raises hopes among traditional media houses that pay-back time may be coming, and their lawyers are most probably sharpening their knives.

This can lead to a very very bad development for us all, I’ll tell you why.

A lot of people want your attention, but it’s limited. The more competition for your attention, the more it’s worth. The news industry are “attention workers”: they catch your attention on a page by putting catchy stories on it, then sell parts of the page to people who are willing to pay for getting your attention diverted to their own stories. That’s ads. It was working well for 150 years. Enter the Internet.

In the beginning, many in the news industry thought it was a good thing to be visible on Google search, because it directed attention to their news stories on the web. Google was a young company, smaller than the news giants. They decided to stay out of content production, perhaps they thought this would keep them away from competing with the news industry. But the news industry does not sell stories, they pay for stories. They sell ads. Google sells ads, too. Google is now earning better than the news industry.
OK, they are not direct competitors to the news industry. Instead they are rapidly becoming the “alien invasion”, and that is not necessarily a more favored status.

Tourist guides like kids to direct customers to them, and they don’t mind if the kids get some pennies from the tourists while doing it. Replace the kids with grownups, give them more contact with the tourists than the guides have, and let them earn more than the guides. Now the guides will be less happy, they might even feel exploited. This is what is happening between Google and the news industry.

The news industry is paying for making stories, but is having a tough time selling ads. Google is not paying for making stories, and is selling ads like crazy. “Foul play”, says the news industry. “The stories are ours. If you sell ads on links to our stories, the ad revenues are ours, too”. Now it has reached the court rooms, and the battle might be long and bitter, like with the music industry and the Internet.

That will be too bad, because there is a fundamental common interest between the news industry and Google that can bring them to the same side of the table: both want to maximize the value of your attention, because this is the source of their income. They are only lacking a way to work together on it, and don’t have a working way to split the costs and revenues.

The larger part of the news industry does not know how to earn big on the Internet. Most of them don’t have the resources, the mindset or the traditions to innovate. For them, news is a commodity, innovation is a threat. Google is all about innovation and Internet, and they are earning more money on it all the time. No big match there at this time.

The old fashioned news industry has lawyers. So does Google. Match! It’s a big risk it’s going to end up in the court rooms. Once the parties dig into the trenches, people on both sides will be restricted from working together on a constructive future. It will be war between the main stream news and the web, like it was with the music industry.

In order to spend human time and resources on building value, not destroying it, the following is required: The news industry needs to become innovative and find other business models than paper. It will both provide them with a future and will save scores of trees from the axe. Google needs to realize that they are the big guys now, and that they will be put to blame by the echelons of society for the demise of the business of journalism, whether it is reasonable or not. High class content is good for their business, why not see what they can do for supporting its existence?

There are two types of deals that Google and the news industry can focus on. The first type is a fictitious zero-sum game, with endless fights in court rooms over how to split the pie, where the deal might even be obsolete by the time it hits the street. The other type is where the parties agree to work together on finding new ways of doing pies, or even doing other things than pies that might taste even better.

Isn’t it obvious what the choice ought to be?

New concept: Innovation Requires New Words, Requires Journalism

By David Nordfors and Turo Uskali

When SRI President Curtis Carlson first heard about the concept of Innovation Journalism, he said injo is important, because it will establish a common language for discussing innovation processes. This makes it possible for society to discuss innovation.

Chuck House, Stanford Media-X executive director and former head of ACM, independently made a similar reflection: A reason to why HP back-then could spearhead innovation was that many of the engineers came from Stanford, sharing a unique set of vocabulary for describing electronics, which made it possible for them to efficiently communicate ideas with each other.

Language is at the core of innovation!

We suggest journalism is even more important in innovation societies than in traditional societies!

Here goes:

1. Innovation is the introduction of something new
   
2. In order to introduce something, it needs to be communicated
3. Communication requires shared language
4. New things need new words or word combinations to be a part of the language
5. The News makes/spreads the new words to us so that the new things can be included in our language, discussed and introduced.
6. Therefore: Journalism enables society to discuss new things and introduce innovations.

This applies for all journalism covering innovations.

Injo - journalism about innovation processes and ecosystems - is a special case, but a very important one. It disseminates language for discussing how innovation happens in society. So innovation journalism enables society to improve innovation processes, which can affect the rate of innovation even more than the journalism about the innovations themselves.

If you agree, and have a bit of an academic mind - here is the word to hook up with injo: neologism. "Neologism", according to the dictionary (Wikipedia), is "a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism." It continues, "Neologisms often become popular by way of mass media, the Internet, or word of mouth (see also Wiktionary's Neologisms:unstable or Protologism pages for a wiki venue of popularizing newly coined words). Every word in a language was, at some time, a neologism, though most of these ceased to be such through time and acceptance."

So innovation journalism and neologism form together a new key concept.

We are presently preparing a paper, to be presented later this year, that will develop this concept further.

InJo Fellowships 2007 Kickoff @ Stanford

Here are photo albums with pictures from the kickoff week with the Innovation Journalism Fellowship Program 2007 at Stanford.

New InJo Book

(by David Nordfors and Turo Uskali)

Erkki Kauhanen and Elina Noppari at the University of Tampere have now released the results of their research on innovation journalism in Finland, a project that has been going on for two years with funding from Tekes, the national Finnish agency for technology and innovation.

The study is the largest single compilation to date of empirical research on innovation journalism, setting a benchmark for future research. This seminal Finnish research has more emphasis on social innovations than previous work. This is clearly its most important achievement, and contribution to innovation journalism research.

Erkki and Elina argue for a wider definition of the concept of innovation journalism than the orginal one (which they call "Nordforsian" InJo). The focus is not on the innovation ecosystem, rather on the future of society. We agree that more emphasis may have been put on social and cultural aspects in the original work, and it is definitely key for innovation journalism to be able to discuss the future. Still, it seems constructive to limit the definition of Innovation Journalism to journalism about innovation, covering innovation processes and ecosystems. Yes - all innovation affects the future and all innovation causes change, this is true. But not all change is innovation and not all of the future is set by it. So it does make sense to keep some distinction between innovation journalism and forward-looking journalism, and to journalism of change. InJo is a subset of these wider scopes. With this said, we are happy about this book and the discussion it raises.

The Finnish study points at important issues, such as that journalism covering innovation in Finland today does not present the future perspective very much. Another interesting finding is "the hyperdominance" of ICT themes among the technology innovation related topics at the cost of all other fields of technology. Furthermore, the emphasis of the stories are centered on Finnish perspectives on innovations, and not on the international dimensions of innovation processes. The study identifies several needs of improvement.

The report is available for download on the Finnish innovation journalism site and at Tekes official site.

InJo Elevator Pitch: Why Democracies Should Care

For a democratic society to focus on the innovation economy, independent journalism needs to cover it. So journalism is an important independent actor in innovation ecosystems. But news rooms are usually organized as traditional production line organizations, where each news beat is a separate line. Innovation crosses the traditional news beats (tech, business, politics, culture news), and is therefore a difficult for traditional news organisations to cover. So even though innovation is the leading driver of economic growth, it will be under-represented in the news. The InJo program is trying to do something about this.

Here in powerpoint

The Fourth Conference on Innovation Journalism Has Been Announced

JOURNALISM DRIVING INNOVATION.
INNOVATION DRIVING JOURNALISM.

This is the theme of The Fourth Conference on Innovation Journalism, which will be held at Stanford University May 21-23 this year.

The Fourth Conference on Innovation Journalism is a gathering for professionals to discuss the interaction between journalism and innovation, including how innovation is changing the profession and business of journalism, how to cover innovation in the news, and how journalism links innovation with society. Target participants for the conference include journalists, professionals connected to the media/communications industry, innovation experts, students, and researchers.

The aim of the conference is to improve the understanding of how journalism and innovation drive each other, and to identify the key components of innovation journalism. This will involve looking at the innovation ecosystem as a playing field for journalism and choosing strategies that will allow media outlets to deliver quality news using the latest technology and to thrive in a competitive marketplace.

For more information or to register for the event, go to the conference website.
There is also information for those who are intrested in making a contribution to the conference.

Innovation Stories May Be Easier Done on Web than on Paper

Innovation Journalism is about mixing the traditional news beats. That may be more difficult to do on paper than on the web. Here is why:

The innovation story is nowadays rarely about tech OR business OR politics OR culture. It's increasingly about the mix of them. For those who need an example: Look first at the introduction of the music CD. Tech news reported on it in 1979. It was introduced to the market in 1982, and a few years later the business news could report on how it was taking over the market. That gave the news consumers the full story. Then look at what happened one decade later, when MP3-music got onto the Internet. This time the story was different - tech, business and culture were nested. Technology, business models, legal frameworks and culture are all interacting components of the story, and none of these components can reveal the story on their own. Which section should it be printed on in the newspaper? Tricky choice! It can only be printed in one news section, no one will print the same story in several places in the newspaper. Each section has a title and character of its own, like "business", "technology" or "culture", and is headed by an editor who is responsible for what goes in. Newsrooms are built for speed. News editors will have an easier life not overlapping each other. So many of them will drop important parts of a story in order to make it fit into their slot and not tread on any other editor's turf.

Ergo - news on paper offers a snug fit for a traditional line organization. The organization of the work force mirrors the structure of the newspaper. Each employee reports to one boss. And this usually means a bumpy and unsafe road for maverick writers attempting to cross the lines, trying to work with several bosses. Mixing tech, business, politics and culture - that can mean trouble for a writer!

The Web offers different circumstances than paper does. News sections are no longer physical spaces, they are tags. Each story can easily carry several tags, so there is no problem running the same story as "culture" and "business" and "tech" at the same time. There is no problem introducing multidisciplinary labels, like "innovation". Beats can overlap.

I am not saying that organizations doing news on the web can't be organized like paper newsrooms - many of them are. The point is: they don't have to! The crucial difference to paper news: News on the web does not inherently enforce a line organization with separated news beats.

Journalism Now Subject to Moore's law

Using fossil fuel for distributing yesterdays news printed on dead trees will not remain a sustainable value proposition. We all know it, and the birth pangs of the new news industry can be felt all over the world. Established newspapers are changing owners like never before in modern times, the LA Times being the latest - but certainly not the last - monolith to go on the auction block.

The ad-based newspaper is a classic business model which has served society during the past two centuries with only minor changes. Printing and distribution technologies have improved, as have the tools used by journalists and marketers. But the basic principles have remained. So it is hardly surprising that large parts of the newspaper industry are unfamiliar with R&D departments and lack a true innovation culture. Something they will need more and more.

We can only speculate at this time how the new news industry will look like, but one thing we know for sure: any tool or solution introduced today will need to be replaced in a very short time. By going on the Internet, the news industry has become subject to Moore's law (things entering the market in two years time will have double the capacity of the stuff being released today).

Many newsrooms are bothered by introducing new tools and routines. They better start enjoying it, because as from now, as soon as they have made a change, they need start planning for changing it again.

The news industry is about to join the family of R&D-intensive innovation industries. Can the old news industry do it? Those who don't risk being toppled by the new kids on the block.