The Feedback Loop

It's amazing that not many journalists talk about the "Feedback Loop." I have never heard one mention it, other than myself. When I was first taught communications theory, many years ago, that was one of the first concepts I was taught.

In essence it goes like this: With any communication there is a rebound - an echo - a response. Something comes back. Or nothing comes back. In either case, there is a feedback loop. If nothing comes back - then the feedback loop tells you that you bombed. Stony silence. Your joke fell flatter than a squashed armadillo on a Texas highway. You still have feedback, though. You learn from it.

Many disciplines talk about the feedback loop. You hear of it in economics, medicine, psychology, electronics, teaching (especially teaching) and many others. It is applied to about everything - it just makes sense. Take a look at Google's image search results of charts from various disciplines which reference it. The images alone give you the idea.

Important is the concept that the communicator must be a listener as well as a speaker. The feedback allows you to modulate your message so that it is properly received. Without feedback you cannot do this.

The feedback loop on the Internet is fantastic. Not only is there the option for open feedback, in the form of comments, posting of your communications on other blogs or in other stories, email to you, and so forth; but there is hidden feedback in the form of metrics which tell you how many people are reading you, how long they stay on your site and where they came from. It is an amazing advantage to the modern communicator that very few journalists use.

When it comes to multimedia, it is even more powerful. When my message is communicated with various forms of storytelling - video - blogging - transcripts of interviews - whatever - I can look and see what people are paying attention to. If I listen and learn, then I can improve my storytelling art and become a much more listened-to journalist.

Watching giants stuggle - the New York Times rejoices that it is keeping its head above the quicksand

The New York Times has an amazing article about its survival chances - one that would have been unthinkable 3 years ago. It exults in a tiny profit (actually a miniscule "plus") and the fact that it smartly positioned itself to "ride out another year of the recession, maybe two."

The article is called:

Resilient Strategy for Times Despite Toll of a Recession

The tone of the article shows how desperate things have become. For an industry where 20-30% profit margins were the norm a few years back it is a jaw-dropping shock to hear the company pride itself that it has only lost 14.2% in ad revenue in 2008, as opposed to 16% industry -wide.

The author then congratulates the company on the fact that it only has to take out small loans, rather than huge ones (hard to get) like other newspapers are scrambling for.

How the mighty are fallen.

Even more unbelievable is the sense one gets reading the article that their business plan has not really changed. Sure, they have "integrated the newsroom with the Web...added blogs and slideshows..." and tried some other digital experiments. But everything else seems the same. The author of the article seems to think that is progressive.

Well - they might have been progressive steps in 2000.

This is 2009. In Internet Years, as in dog years, that is six decades behind.

If only the business side of things were affected, they might be able to blame it on the recession. But the last 5 or 6 years have also taken a terrible toll on the Times' credibility with the revelations of several major scandals within its core journalism ethos. There is more amiss in the crystallized newspaper world than Internet competition. (That is a post for another time).

I don't exult in the demise of an American institution like the New York Times, or the newspaper industry as a whole. I do, however, find myself continually amazed that they cannot see the big picture.

American society - world society - has changed.

People are not reading newspapers, in print or online. They are reading news stories - not newspapers.

There is a vast difference.

Google, a popular hashtag on Twitter, your Facebook friends or even a good cable news blog can link you up in ten minutes to dozens more news stories you really like than your newspaper can in a total read.

It is not just that it is free. It is the fact that the filters are different. You can choose your own set.

But the giants can't see it - or won't.

Their editorial model and business model have to accomplish a lot more for them than just getting by.

If I may make a prediction - the end of the recession will not so much witness the end of problems for the NYT and other big papers as it will the huge success of their competition.

The real competition is news and opinion coming from everywhere, professional and amateur, aggregated online.

Welcome and Let's Begin!

Welcome to my new blog. If you poke around on the Internet (or on this site, as it grows), you'll find a number of other blogs I host or participate in. I love to be a part of what one editor I knew called, in roundabout terms, the blathering masses.

We differ on the importance of such. I actually believe that is one reason that so much of traditional media has a problem today. They are stuck in a box that calls this blog and millions like it "blather" and they are not real fans of listening to the masses. They would rather the masses listen to them.

Which type person are YOU?

• Thinking inside the Box
• Thinking outside the Box
• What is a Box?

Good food for thought.

More to come!

•