Media in Beta

One&Other: Reinventing local media as agents of change

newschallenge:

1. What do you propose to do? [20 words]

To use existing networks in new ways to redesign local media as inspirers and empowerers of positive change.

2. Is anyone doing something like this now and how is your project different? [30 words]

Local media falls far short of this currently.  We believe this neglects their potential (and responsibility) to cultivate goodwill and to channel this to the benefit of the communities they serve.

3. Describe the network with which you intend to build or work. [50 words]

At the heart of this new news network is progressive editorial agenda that is as inspirational as it is useful and entertaining, linked to calls to action (e.g. volunteer via sparked.com, write to your MP, start a group, share via social media, etc).  This “action” creates new news in itself.

4. Why will it work? [100 words]

It will work because the building blocks already exist and can be compiled cost-effectively, with new layers and opportunities always presenting themselves.  This new form of local media fosters a deeper relationship with the community it serves, is stronger than the sum of its parts, and has a network effect that creates lasting social value.  We have proof of concept in terms of daily consumer appetite for this agenda and their participation in the model, as well as the need to extend the civic core.  What’s more, it can be easily replicated in new locations.

5. Who is working on it? [100 words]

One&Other was launched in September 2011 with a mission to reinvent local media for a new generation.  We are an independent collective of creatives and journalists, led by a strong team of Directors: Founder, Stuart Goulden; Editorial Director, Vicky Parry; and Community Director, Ben Osborne.  Our beta version (http://www.oneandother.com, costing only £1,000) has just been shortlisted for Digital Innovation of The Year at the 2012 Newspaper Awards alongside the Guardian.

We are flexible as to who we work with to help us deliver the various elements of the project.

6. What part of the project have you already built? [100 words]

We have proved the core concept in terms of the consumer desire for a new breed of local media, the format this will take, and its potential for building community cohesion and social change via the beta (and open source) http://www.oneandother.com.  We have learnt a lot which we can carry forward and the connections (our offline network) we have built up in our first city of York has helped us map out how other cities are wired.  In short, what we’ve discovered more than anything is that local media needs to position itself as the epicentre of such networks.

7. How would you sustain the project after the funding expires? [50 words]

The Millennial Generation the proposition appeals to most are of value to advertisers and we will be well placed to offer brand extensions such as events and curated consumption.  We are also well placed to offer marketing and digital services (an extension of our core competencies) to our advertising clients.

Requested amount from Knight News Challenge: $100,000
Expected amount of time required to complete project: 18 months
Total Project Cost: $200,000

Name: Stuart Goulden
Twitter: @StuGoulden & @OneAndOtherYork
Organization: One&Other®
Country: UK

(Source: newschallenge1)

Dazed & Confused still provoking change 20-years on

As long-term admirer of Dazed & Confused magazine and having become enchanted by innovative youth engagement agency Livity whilst researching One&Other, it comes as little surprise I’m a big fan of their recent collaboration - Live Magazine.  The quarterly publication is to be produced “by young people for young people” in South Africa.  

It’s reassuring to see other independents still hold faith in the power of printed media to change lives for the better, from both a production/consumption perspective.  Even 20 years after Jefferson Hack and Rankin first broke onto the scene with Dazed & Confused, it’s impressive to consider they’re still seeking out new cultural and social voids and provoking much-needed change. 

Daisy Woodward provides a great summary of the initiative for AnOther Magazine: 

Who: Live Magazine – the free quarterly publication produced “by young people for young people” – has launched the first issue of its South African sister magazine, Live Magazine SA, with support from Dazed & Confused.

What: Following in the footsteps of the UK version, quarterly Live SA encourages and enables South Africa’s emerging talent (all material has been produced by first-time contributors aged 15-25) to provide a fresh, germane outlook on arts, entertainment, fashion and youth issues and culture.

Why: On the importance and aims of the launch of Live SA, Dazed & Confused editor Rod Stanley explains “In a country where little media specifically addresses the youth and issues relevant to them, it feels that Live which aims to reach ‘ALL SA youth’ can make a big impact, not only entertaining but providing a shared space for discussion of key issues (i.e. poverty, crime, drugs, sex) and also providing opportunity, experience and education. But most of all it makes connections between young people between themselves, and with wider society.”

If anybody finds a copy of Live SA on their travels, please send one this way!

The Beginning Of The End For Local Radio?

Local radio is set to change forever across England if cuts proposed by the BBC go ahead.  The publicly-funded broadcaster is planning to reduce its entire budget by 20% over the next five years, which equates to £670m a year and the total loss of 2,000 jobs.  Local radio stations will take the biggest hit, with job losses estimated between 300-700 across the sector, depending on whether you listen to those delivering or facing the bad news.

My local station, BBC Radio York, which serves 94,000 listeners a week in the region, is facing an annual budget cut of several hundred thousand pounds, translating to an estimated 8 job losses at the Bootham studio and the introduction of more syndicated programming.  More specifically, only breakfast, morning and drive time shows will remain unique to the station.  What’s more, the same material will be broadcast across all 40 local stations in England after 7pm.

The opportunity cost of protecting local news, current affairs, and news bulletins, will be total local programming reduced from 15.5 hours a day to an estimated 9.5 hours.  Medium wave transmission and sport will also suffer.

In the wider context, the proposals – the result of the “Delivering Quality First” review – follow the freeze of BBC funding – the £145.50 license fee – until 2017.  Come that date, the broadcaster will look markedly different inside and out.

The cuts and the supporting narrative make all too familiar reading for the industry and one simply has to look at the plight of local newspapers to predict the irreversible damage it will do. Many commentators argue it would lead to further aggregation of the service from “local” to “regional”, whilstThe National Union of Journalists claims the changes would “effectively sound the death knell for local radio”.  One thing is for sure; the 7.2 million people who listen to BBC local radio every week will have fewer reasons to tune in throughout the day.

A BBC spokesman told us: “These proposals protect peak-time programmes when the audience is highest and the output is the most distinctive.  That is breakfast, mid-morning and drive time programmes plus sport and Faith on Sunday mornings.  These are the times of the day when stations deliver the bulk of their journalism.”

I clearly occupy a biased viewpoint when defending the essential service local media provides.  I believe local media, in all its forms, offer us “ordinary citizens” the platform to voice our opinions on matters that we care about, such as this.  They act as a catalyst for local conversations and empower us to contest and control the future of our communities.  They give the little guys a voice.

Local media also report community news and relay important information before anybody else, in a format that encourages people to listen.  They hold to account local authorities and maintain democracy outside of an otherwise capital city bias.  They ensure relevance in a world of information overload.

These are big reasons behind our decision to start One&Other and we believe wholeheartedly that plurality at a local level must be safeguarded.  Nobody wants to live in a world where the depressing news agenda of a single multinational media organisation dictates the mood and controls the voice of the city we live in.  Different voices offer different perspectives and appeal to different audiences.

A weaker BBC local radio compromises this choice in an already depleted landscape.

MPs have now entered the debate on the proposed changes, but the real power lies with us.  The BBC Trust has opened public consultation on the proposals, which means that as license fee payers and the audience of the BBC, we have every opportunity to shape the future direction of local radio.  Whatever your opinion on the matter, you have until Christmas to exercise it – simply fill out the form on the BBC Trust website.

Pic:  Courtesy of Rafael Kage on Flickr, Creative Commons
Note:  This article first appeared on oneandother.com

Orwell Lecture 2011: Alan Rusbridger – Hacking away at the truth

Giving poverty a voice in local media

At One&Other, we believe the media have the potential (and the responsibility) to generate community cohesion, highlight local issues, and act as a catalyst for people powered change.  Of all the big social issues, poverty is the least and worst reported, with the media pre-occupied with the consequences and crime rather than the causes and circumstances.

I was drawn to this post by Caitlin Moran in yesterday’s The Times (via It’s Neither Nowt Nor Summat…) about the juxtaposition of her experiences, both growing up in poverty and the more comfortable life she now leads.  I had spent Friday taking part in a Disrupting Poverty session in Leeds and Moran’s words echoed many of those we were hearing in that room.  Moran uses the term “heavy” to describe the paralysis of poverty, making it hard for those affected to lift themselves out of long-term hardship without some glimmer of opportunity.

With poverty all to often being out of sight, out of mind, we plan to step up to that responsibility, change perceptions, and be part of the solution.  We’ve a long way to go to achieving that, and we can’t do it alone, but here’s to giving it our best.

The Guardian removes secrecy from newslists

Just when I was wondering what to write about, the above pops up in my Twitter feed.

That’s right.  In keeping with their “Digital first” manta, The Guardian has announced it will launch an open newsdesk trial in the morning.

The thinking behind the move goes something like this: aside from the precious exclusives, the newslist of many news organisations is a rather routine document that holds little differentiation in stories from one newsroom to the next - “same news, different headlines” is a common phrase. With that in mind, only minor competitive advantage can be gained by withholding this from the intended reader, with an argument for there being significant benefits to the publisher of doing the opposite.

What are these potential benefits?  Perhaps the biggest is that it opens up a new engagement opportunity for guardian.co.uk, a site built to serve that very virtue.  By granting a preview to their readers and encouraging feedback, they are making the process more transparent, participatory, and immediate.  The key here is first-mover advantage… a godsend in news, let alone print.  That is, at least, until others follow suit, assuming it is success.

The Guardian also believe readers may be able to add value in the process, helping them decided where to devote and demote resources and column inches.  Presumably they will also be gauging reader perspectives on the individual news stories and inviting ideas for new inclusions.  Twitter has been chosen as the primary channel for this open newsroom, which naturally means competitors will be able to eavesdrop on the conversation both ways – from newslist to audience, and their subsequent response.

It’s not yet clear how much information will be shared and how different scenarios will play out (e.g. how much control will The Guardian relinquish to its readers if they disagree with the newslist?).  With the “experiment” launching via a new blog in the morning, I guess we’ll find out shortly.  Either way it’s a bold move and the industry is certainly in need of more of those.