WHAT'S NEXT: INNOVATIONS IN NEWSPAPERS

The founder of Starbucks (7500 self-operated and 5500 licensed stores in 39 countries) explains the change of the logo, quite better than The New York Time’s laid back design critic Steven Heller.

Designed first by Terry Heckler, the iconic mermaid that beckons coffee drinkers was based of a classic 15th century Norse woodcut

By removing the words “Starbucks” and “coffee” from its green logo, Starbucks joints Apple or Nike with a no-name logo.

As The Guardian says: “this could help as the chain expands into countries that not only have a different language but a different alphabet.”

Only brands with such a great personality can do it.

Well done and really well explained.

Why two logos?

I am sure that the designers suggested the bold WSJ… and the old guard wanted the full name.

And what about the online URL.

Well just in the right corner very small.

A new re-re-re-redesign or how change to don’t change anything.

They want tobe like The New York Times.

So they follow, don’t lead.

First, The Wall Street Journal confronted The New York Times.

So today Sulzberger launched his first main assault to Murdoch in his own British market.

With Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond, a 6,00- word story written by Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker and Graham Bowley, three big guns of The New York Times, Sulzberger tries to destroy the reputation (?) not of the News of the World, the Sunday gossip tabloid of News Corporation, but the reputation of Rupert Murdoch as owner of this popular paper.

The war is here.

My only question is this:

Why British newspapers, magazines, radio, television, blogs… didn’t cover the story in such a powerful way?

The New York Times is again the “solo” paper producing first class real investigative reporting.

A lesson hard to learn by other more complacent rivals.

(Picture by Lewis Whyld/Getty Images)

The New York Times David Carr makes the point about how Consumer Reports i in the “credibility business”

“It was a big week for Consumer Reports and a reminder that media that is unsupported by advertising can often have an impact that more traditional publishing, or even the most tech-savvy, enterprises don’t. With 3.9 million subscribers to its magazine and 3.3 million paid subscribers to its Web site, Consumer Reports has a combined paid circulation of 7.2 million, up 33 percent since 2004.”

—

“If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. That’s a maxim of modern public relations, one that’s on display every day in Washington, on cable TV and, last Friday, on stage in Cupertino. But, with its long history and reputation for efficacy, Consumer Reports is the opposite of a juicy target.”

As Rob Curley said today in Twitter: Bless Consumer Reports!

This is the last one.

But you can see the full collection of infographics here.

The team: JONATHAN CORUM, AL GRANBERG, MIKA GRONDAHL, XAQUIN G.V., HAEYOUN PARK and GRAHAM ROBERTS.

The source: BP.

Amazing work!

(Thanks to Michael Agar)

I just subscribed to The Times and Sunday Times websites.

Cheap and easy: 1 GBP for one month, and after that 2 GBP a week.

Why?

Because you cannot read anywhere else smart columns like this one.

Andrew Sullivan on the real crisis of American newspapers.

A few “tapas”:

-Many US newspapers have simply become pale, quivering shadows of what they once were.

-Once, they aggressively scrutinised the powerful and exposed secrets, but they have — with some exceptions — become mouthpieces for the powerful, enablers of propaganda and prim schoolmarms when it comes to telling people what they want to know.

-A Harvard study recently examined the full record. This was its finding: “[From the 1930s to 2002] The New York Times characterised waterboarding as torture in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and the Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, in 2002-8 the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture.

-The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterised the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture.”

-Over time this kind of editorial cowardice gets through to the average reader. She senses she is not reading a truly independent press, eager to offend, sceptical of the powerful and determined not to mince words. And so she looks elsewhere. The editors and producers of American journalism have long wondered why their industry has been in decline. Perhaps they should try looking in the mirror.

Oh, boy!

Talk about multimedia, citizens journalism, social media, new platforms, interactivity, tablets and other magic words…

That’s nothing.

That’s wrong.

That’s a distraction.

Newspapers will be saved not by gadgets, technology and buzzwords but by real journalism.

Period!

Yesterday’s New York Times front page story was a “tour de force” and a reminder of how it pays to invest in real reporting.

While the Afghanistan war coverage normally gets hidden by the usual “big news” of the day (England exits the Soccer World Cup, the last Lady Gaga silly provocation or the G20 staged event where thousands of recording-journalists play the sources game), James Dao, The New York Times national correspondent starts his dramatic “A Year at War” chronicles.

A one year coverage that starts now but will continue on print and on line.

With pictures and videos that you will not forget.

Welcome to the real world.

Welcome to real journalism.

That’s The New York Times as its best.

Investing in new narratives in a very moving way.

Just read the comments and you will realize how powerful is the story.

Or the “reader submitted” pieces, like this one.

Kudos to the multimedia team that includes the reporting skills of James Dao; the photography and videography of Damon Winter and Rob Harris; the production of Gabriel Dance, Nancy Donaldson, Catrin Einhorn, Andrew Kueneman and Meaghan Looram.

And if this is not enough for you, just read Frank Rich‘s fabulous “The 36 Hours That Shook Washington” column with a devastating indictment to the Washington press corp.

This Sunday edition was, believe me, a “collector’s issue” or a textbook about the journalism of the future.

Not about gadgets, technology, magic tricks, branding, and other disturbing distractions.

Media has failed to cover, before, during and after, the Gulf spill in such a dramatic way that some lesson must be learned.

1. If you get too close to your sources, you follow their agenda.

2. PR dominates and controls business and financial coverage more than ever.

3. “Embedded journalists” get access but a high credibility cost.

4. Online and social media networks react to the news, but are unable to anticipate or prevent them.

5. Politicians and local authorities are trap and neutralized by the constant lobby efforts

6. If you want to report these mega-events you need to be there: virtual journalism is not enough.

7. Filtering, double-checking, asking questions, going back to the past, leaning from similar disasters, and using visual journalism techniques are essential to deliver reliable and compelling news and stories.

8. Avoid to become an activist, fair coverage includes to check with all the involved players.

9. Be aware that PR intoxication is becoming very sophisticated with online webs, search engines, and social networks.

10. As always, report the facts before the opinions. As INNOVATION’s Andrew Mango said: “facts are expensive, opinions are cheap”.

The BP big story has to be told in a different way.

Just some revealing cases to understand how the media missed the story:

•  The New York Times Andrew Revkin reports about “a wild bit of faux journalism recently concocted by BP as part of its  public relations efforts related to the gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. On his blog, a BP “reporter,”  Tom Seslar, describes  a two-hour helicopter flight over the gulf with a team charting oil patches… He somehow finds space in his post to describe the scope and vital importance of the oil industry and the beauty of the coastal marshes. He fits in a plug for the  Louisiana Shrimp & Petroleum Festival scheduled for early September… and includes the festival’s promotional line describing “the unique way in which these two seemingly different industries work hand-in-hand culturally and environmentally” — with no hint of the deep irony, of course… But he doesn’t include a single line describing the spreading gulf slicks that the flight is supposed to chart.”

• Just search anything including the word BP and you will get in the top a “sponsored link” with the BP Oil Spill Response.

• Oild Florida reports that “Florida has received $75 million to date from BP Keys get BP money, Key West Citizen, June 26, 2010: The Monroe County Tourist Development Council announced Friday it will receive $400,000 for an advertising campaign to counter the misconception that the Gulf oil spill is fouling Florida Keys beaches and waters.”

(Picture by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

The New York Times columnist strikes again:

“For the fact is that much of the financial industry has become a racket — a game in which a handful of people are lavishly paid to mislead and exploit consumers and investors. And if we don’t lower the boom on these practices, the racket will just go on.”

Yes, Sir!

Today The New York Times launched his new marketing campaign “numbers” against The Wall Street Journal.

A very aggressive one.

Yes, the “numbers” are very impressive, but…

If you are a leader, you don’t start to look back over your shoulder…

Except if your follower is coming very fast.

And that’s the case.

So, the market reacted as expected: the shares of The New York Times went down almost 5 per cent.