It’s an interesting move, as it shifts the service even further from her it started. In the beginning it was an image sharing app, that tended to focus on people creating “arty” effects via the inbuilt filters. That faded somewhat as the filters were toned down, but it still remained a crafted photo-centric service. But the net effect of this and the rapid growth of Instagram Stories has turned it into a general purpose visual communication and relationship maintenance tool.
Still, might make some verification work easier. One image is much easier to fake than 10.
In an internal memo that Fortune managed to get hold of, publisher Jay Lauf said the site’s traffic rose by 65% in December to almost 17 million unique visitors, more than The Economist or the Financial Times.
Wile it’s worth bearing in mind that the uniques of both of those venerable titles are constrained by paywalls – that’s still remarkable growth from the digital upstart.
Magazine’s failure to build complementary digital products is hurting them badly…
In fact, according to a new report from global consulting firm McKinsey, every category of media—from cinema to educational publishing to video games—should see an increase in consumer spending in the next few years.
Every category, that is, except magazines.
In many cases, their room to innovate in digital has been reduced by the number of pure digital players eating their lunch. It’s a tough picture: but is it the endgame?
Tonight’s panel discussion will examine the political landscape of the historically conflict-ridden cities of Belfast and Jerusalem, with guest speakers Dr Wendy Pullan from the University of Cambridge and Professor Liam O’Dowd from Queen’s University Belfast.
Maybe I am finally getting old, but this change depresses me:
According to several app makers and media companies, many of the world’s video consumers don’t seem to think vertical videos are wrong — in fact, a lot of us prefer them. There is a simple explanation for the dawning preference. According to the venture capitalist Mary Meeker, we now collectively spend about 30 percent of our screen time with devices that are best held vertically, like smartphones and tablets. That time spent is growing quickly, and on tall screens, vertical videos simply look and work better than those shot “correctly.”
LeWeb has a concierge? Who knew? Well, clearly the social media team. Probably the VIPs as well. But I’d never encountered him before. Still, it was worth a try, surely? I e-mailed, and then called after a prompt from LeWeb on Twitter, and a charming French chap turned up – and took my shoe away. And that left me like this:
Now, I was really nervous. I had visions of myself hopping to the Metro, hopping through the streets of Paris, suffering gallic disdain for my strange British ways. But no, he came back. And my shoes were fixed:
I think I can safely say I’ve never been so glad to see a Frenchman in my life. So, three cheers for the LeWeb concierge. He heeled me:
I’m sorry, Mumsnet charges writers and actors or their publishers and producers for the privilege of providing content for its website? I shouldn’t have been shocked. The logical next step after asking writers to write for nothing because they get valuable ‘exposure’ is to demand that they pay for their valuable exposure.
This story of how a writer discovered that one of the UK’s biggest websites is blurring the line between editorial and commercial content so thoughrly that there is, essentially, no difference is eye-opening:
I have to say that when I visited her site it was not immediately clear to me what features Mumsnet was puffing because writers or publishers had paid Roberts to puff. Even if Mumsnet openly admitted that it was promoting a film or book, not because they thought it was worthwhile, but because Roberts had been paid to promote it, a deeper problem would remain. If it gives prominence to people who can afford to work for nothing or to pay for space, it will deny prominence to those who cannot. If others follow suit, and I am sure they will, writing in Britain will become a self-indulgent racket run by and for the wealthy.
There are some parts of traditional media’s working practices that deserve to die in the digital transition. Its sense of ethics around paid, commercial content is most certainly not one of them.
UPDATE: That said, is it as bad as that?
Here’s Mumsnet’s response:
I’m struggling to see how you can accurately and fairly headline your piece as Mumsnet Racketeers? What kind of illegal business is going on here? We didn’t offer you a fee to have an online chat with our users (who don’t pay to come on the site). I don’t remember the Spectator or Guardian ever offering to pay me for an interview. It’s a hugely misleading, horribly unfair and damaging headline – plus it’s being retweeted everywhere by outraged journalists believing we are charging our online interviewees. Would you have another look at it, please?