The growth challenges of cable and satellite companies

Cable and satellite companies are increasingly finding it difficult to get the growth in customers and revenue they would like.

Over the past 4 decades they achieved growth first by introducing services in new markets and by acquiring smaller providers and then, as unserved markets and acquisition opportunities declined, by offering an increasing number of channels, telephone and internet services.  The strategy increased customers and revenue, but inevitably let to a mature market in which only lower growth was possible.

In the past decade cable and satellite overcome that maturity and achieved growth by offering a variety of new services and products to consumers--allowing them to access programming at times it is not offered on their channels or systems or in different forms--and syndicating their original programs and finding new income through merchandising and related activities. The development of connected TV and use of video on laptops, tablets, and smartphones has spurred use of these new products and services.

These strategies helped cable/satellite company growth by increasing the time consumers spent with them, creating new advertising opportunities, and new sales and subscription opportunities. Many consumers began making use of these secondary and “over-the-top” services, getting used to the idea of cutting the connection to cable and satellite operators and viewing content in different ways.  This move to internet-based services and non-television viewing initially created growth, but that growth is now being challenged by well-funded new providers from outside the cable/satellite industry. These external competitors contend strongly in the new markets and are taking customers and revenue away from the cable/satellite operators—stripping them of growth.

This change has shaken the cable and satellite industry because its executives have been used to growth since its inception and because the internet has taken away the monopolies they held over the distribution platforms that allowed them to charge high prices—about double that for similar services in Europe—and to offer some of the worst customer service of any industry in the U.S. Because easy growth is no longer foreseeable, they are returning to acquisition and mergers as a way to stabilize revenues, reduce costs, and gain immediate revenue growth.  That strategy is being reviewed by telecommunications and antitrust authorities, but—regardless of the outcomes—is symptomatic of an industry that has lost the reasons for its development and success.


The libertine days are over: How the material world is reining in Internet companies

Early in the rollout of the Internet, leaders of the emerging online companies described it as an immaterial world of virtual objects and virtual activity that was not subject to the economics, financing, laws, or business arrangements of the material world. They portrayed it is as world without structure in which informality and collaboration among users would guide its operation. They described it as global phenomenon beyond the reach of governments. Many expressed highly utopian visions of the internet. Most embraced a highly libertarian philosophy; some an anarchistic one. These leaders primary interacted with each other and deluded themselves into believing what they were doing was unique, hallowed, and beyond worldly oversight.

Internet service providers saw themselves as facilitators without responsibility for who used them or for what purposes. Companies such as Google, Yahoo, and Huffington Post created value extracting models in which they expropriated the work of others as part of their essential operations and made money from its use by creating saleable audiences. Social media, such as Facebook, developed by exploiting the common human need to communicate with others and they profited at the price of users' privacy. These intermediaries allowed the public and enterprises to communicate all manner of content without hindrance.  None of the uses and business models they pursued raised political, business, social, cultural, or ethical concerns among the creators of these services.

The views of internet-based firms and their creators resulted partly out of youthful naivety, but also because of a lack of interdisciplinary perspectives. Some were self-educated; others the products of highly technical educations. Most lacked understanding of society, political economy and economics, and human behavior. It narrowed their understanding to the point they did not perceive or comprehend what the Internet was actually doing and the  social implications of their actions.

Two decades into the modern internet era (earlier eras included private telecommunication data systems and military and academic networks) the perspectives of internet firms are being altered by realism and they are increasingly feeling the control of the world to which they thought they didn’t belong.

We are seeing the internet giants increasingly fall under the regulation of nation states and multinational government. The libertine unrestrained days of internet firms are over. Commerce, capitalism, and state power are all forcing Internet firms to recognize reality.

This change is manifest in number of ways. Governments are requiring the companies to behave because the firms want the benefits of raising capital through stock markets that are regulated and protected by states. Governments are increasingly requiring internet service providers and intermediaries such as search firms to report and block child pornography, remove clear copyright violations, and address trolling and stalking. European courts have recognized a right to be forgotten that is forcing search firms such as Google to remove links. The ability to make billions of dollars through tax avoidance by moving across national borders to tax havens is being challenged by governments everywhere. Police are requiring assistance from the companies for investigations of criminal activity by internet users. Security officials are asking Internet companies to reduce the use of their services for communication and propaganda purposes by terrorists and others in armed conflicts . Countries worldwide are demanding that ICANN, the arbiter of internet structure and names, be placed under multinational governance.

As much as the tech firms would like to ignore the government demands and continue to pretend they operate in a detached virtual work, they do so in peril of millions of dollars in fines or orders to cease operating in countries around the globe. The problem is that they are big businesses. And there is the rub. Although they would like to think they operate in a separate virtual world, they also operate in a material world where users and advertisers reside, where advertising and search placement payments take place, where content is created, and where they locate physical offices. These are within nation states that construct legal and banking systems, enforce contracts, and collect taxes. Consequently, the big Internet firms are now under the jurisdiction of not one, but as many governments as the nations in which they conduct business and in which their services are available.

In each of these countries Internet firms face issues of commercial and social legitimacy. Numerous countries are considering taxes on ISPs, search firms, and aggregators to compensate the content creators whose products make the internet businesses functional. Domestic businesses argue they are being exploited by these foreign giants and citizens realize that their personal information is making social media and search firms rich. This creates a backlash in which the operations of the internet firms are seen as—at best—exploitive and shameless; at worst they are seen as nefarious and outrageous. No wonder there are increasing political demands to constrain the companies in countries worldwide.

Many of the internet companies are now arguing that if they are regulated, authoritarian governments will do so inappropriately. They are not wrong in that view. History has shown that authoritarian states have controlled the previous communication systems such as the post, telegraphy, telephone, and broadcasting to their advantage and that even liberal democratic states have done so on occasion.

That, however, is no reasons to provide internet firms license that no other firms or individuals have. We are all part of society, whether we want to be or not. With the benefits of society come responsibilities. Those responsibilities can only be truly be avoided by dropping out of society and giving up its benefits---something none of the internet companies really want to do. There is just too much money to be made.


4 lessons in managing creativity in media enterprises

Most media companies claim they are creative, believing that merely producing
 content makes them inventive and artistic. Most media firms are not particularly creative, however, and we recognize it daily as we are confronted with formulaic and derivative content of limited quality.

But some companies are consistently notable for unique and ground-breaking content that meet higher standards. What makes them successful is their ability to manage creativity.

The concept of managing creativity may at first seem like an oxymoron. Anyone who has worked with talented writers, designers, directors, actors, or musicians knows that the muse of creativity is capricious and does not present itself on a predictable schedule.

This does not mean it is impossible for an enterprise to manage creativity, however. Organizations that consistently produce highly creative content spend a great deal of effort managing the environment and processes in which creativity takes place. They do so to make certain that creativity can blossom and be nurtured within their operations.

Four important lessons emerge from enterprises that are regularly creative:

1)    Hire the right people The first organizational challenge is to identify and attract creative people who can work within an organizational setting. There are many highly creative individuals who are unable to contribute cooperatively and serially to the development creative content. Such people often work well outside organizations, and can even contribute to organizational activities as outsiders, but they can harm creativity if employed within the enterprise. Working successfully inside organizations require more than mere creative capacities. It requires people with the abilities to align their individual creative activity with the goals, culture, brand, and deadlines of the media organization and abilities to collaborate with others in doing so.

2)    Structure to facilitate creativity Successful creative enterprises understand the needs for creative collaboration and the importance of teams in pursuing creativity. Consequently, they tend to create working groups that cut across functions and reduce the stifling influences of rigid organizational structures and unnecessary hierarchy.

3)    Get the processes right The most creative organizations focus on improving processes that facilitate creativity. They ensure that work systems and practices provide incentives and support for the idea creation, risk taking, and failures that are inevitable when high levels of creativity are involved. This sometimes involves hiring writers on contracts that are not limited to a particular television productions, regularly replacing portions of creative teams with new individuals to keep ideas fresh, and giving adequate time for creative processes to work.
4)    Provide the right leadership Creative people require leaders who value and understand creativity and are able to balance the demands of organization and the individuals, keep engagement and energy high, and ensure an ongoing flow of creative content. Unfortunately, such leaders are few and far between and most tend to be charismatic leaders with unique attributes. These film and television producers, magazine editors, audio producers and other leaders are able to convey their vision, sensitivity, and motivational attitudes in ways that induce others to produce and contribute peak creativity. Most of the desirable qualities of these individuals are innate, however, which means managers must spend significant time finding, developing, and retaining such creative leaders.

Enterprises that want to be leaders in content must pay attention to how that content is produced. Creativity must be supported within the firms or claims of being part of a creative industry quickly become fallacious.


Ownership transparency is not enough to solve media performance gaps

Media ownership transparency has become a goal of media reform advocates on both sides of the Atlantic, but is often simplistically presented as a solution to problems in media performance.

As I have shown in my research over time, it is not the form of ownership that matters, but the owners themselves. There are good and bad corporate owners, good and bad private owners, good and bad family owners, and good and bad foundation owners. And many owners whose media perform badly on issues of social service and public interest don’t care if the public knows who they are.
This is not to oppose making it easier for the public to know who the owners are—in some cases (especially in southeast Europe) owners sometimes hide behind shell companies, investment firms holding their shares, and even individuals fronting for them. Gaining transparency may help identify consolidation and concentration for antitrust and pluralism analyses, but lifting those veils alone is not going to solve the issue that some media owners operate media for political or personal financial gain in ways that harm the public.
The continued focus on ownership also masks the fact that many other factors create influences on media and their content. A company doesn’t have to be owned to be controlled.
Those who provide media revenue and lend media companies money matter.
The desires of advertisers skew content so that media serve more desirable demographic groups and produce a content environment that best suits their messages. It leads the media to exercise care, or ignore, news that will offend major advertisers. In some countries advertising from state enterprises and private firms is dependent upon a paper or broadcaster supporting or not challenging political figures or ruling parties. Unfortunately, in many cases, media companies and journalists comply.
Banks and other lenders that holds the debt of a media company are also in powerful positions to influence media managers, choices of the company, and content. The larger the debt, the greater the influence because it is harder to replace the firm lending the money.
Media firms owned by industrial conglomerates matter.
Government contracts given to firms that own media can influence the news content published or broadcast. In many countries defense contractors, construction companies, banks, and service firms own media. These firms receive large public contracts to supply equipment, construct buildings and roads, handle government finance, and support government operations. In these cases, the media keep the companies in the minds of politicians and the governments and the lucrative contracts keep the media from being too troublesome to the politicians and the government.
Creating media independent of economic influences is impossible. While ownership does matter, and transparency may have virtue, a host of control issues come into play that will never be addressed by merely being transparent about who owns a media firm.


Here’s why people won’t pay for news: No one does journalism anymore

I opened my Yahoo home page today and read the news headline “Outgunned Kurds Beg US for Weapons to Battle ISIS” and its lead paragraph.  “Interesting,” I thought, so I clicked on the item, expecting an expanded story from a news agency. What I got was the Huffington Post. 
“OK, they are becoming a decent news source,” I reacted. So I began reading, only to realize they gave me two paragraphs before redirecting me to Newsmax for the entire story. 
Newsmax is a news site established with the aid of politically conservative political figures and journalists. That doesn’t preclude them from reporting news accurately, but can influence their news choice, analysis and opinion. Nevertheless, I read the 14-paragraph story written by Drew MacKenzie. It was a sound story. However, it only paraphrased a story by Washington Post reporter Terrance McCoy, “The strongest military left in Iraq has not stopped the Islamic State.” So I decided to read the original Post story.
When I got there I discovered that McCoy relied entirely on secondary sources: quotes from other journalists, a statement by President Obama and a quote the president attributed to an Iraqi parliamentarian, some previous Washington Post stories, online photographs, a New York Times interview, and an essay by a foreign policy specialist.
4 news organizations. 4 stories. No original sources. And no fact checking, I suspect.
Setting aside the problems this illustrates about journalism practices today, this example of news linking underscores why news organizations are having trouble getting people to pay for news.  As this case shows, they are doing nothing new, adding nothing or little, and essentially copying each other and themselves. This gives readers nothing they cannot get elsewhere, so how can they expect people to see it as valuable. 
This value creation deficit is especially a challenge if news organizations want readers to pay for journalism, but it is increasingly a problem even in asking them to spend time reading free content.
This kind of cheap news of dubious value will cause the death of many news providers in the coming years. If news organizations don't change their behavior, it will be death at their own hands.


Loss of a competitive market is afflicting U.S. single-copy magazine distribution

Single-copy magazine distribution is undergoing a remarkably unheralded transformation and it has enormous implications for both publishers and consumers.
Each year about 3 billion copies of magazines are distributed to 150,000 retail outlets within a large and complex distribution channel. This is extremely important to publishers because it produces about one quarter of circulation revenue and is used to promote subscription and introduce new titles.
In simple terms, the system operates by publishers selling copies to wholesalers and wholesalers reselling the copies to retailers. However, retailers return unsold copies to wholesalers for a full refund and wholesalers return them to publishers for a similar refund.
Because of the large number of titles, copies, and retailers involved, and the geographic scale of the country, publishers and retailers have sought to minimize their effort, create economies of scale, and reduce transaction costs.  Publishers contract with national distributors that organize and manage their distribution activities through wholesalers and retailers now typically select a single wholesaler to provide all the magazine titles they carry.
Prior to 1955, when it became the target of antitrust action, American News Company distributed more than half of magazine titles and accounted for half of the industry’s value. In the years following, 850 wholesalers emerged across the U.S. and they were often given territorial exclusivity for the magazines they handled. This system was highly influenced by TV Guide, which sold 10 million single copies weekly in 150 regional editions and gave wholesalers exclusive distribution to the territories of those editions.  Other major publishers also wielded significant power. They were able to effectively force distribution terms and prices on wholesalers and they set cover prices that consumers had to pay.
Large national and regional retail companies developed during the second half of the twentieth century and companies such as Walmart, Target, Krogers, and Safeway became major outlets for leading magazines. Because of the exclusive distribution territories set by publishers, retailers were forced to do business with multiple wholesalers to get the magazine titles they wanted. As their power increased, however, these large retailers began reducing the wholesalers they used and they began seeking single wholesaler arrangements that undermined the territorial distribution exclusivity for titles. The existing system collapsed in the mid-1990s and, by 1996, only about 100 wholesalers remained in business and 41% of all single-copy sales were occurring in supermarkets and big chain stores. 
Ten years later, in 2005, only 4 wholesalers remained—Anderson News, Levy Circulating Company (later sold to Source), The News Group (TNG) and Hudson News Distributors. They accounted for 90 percent of the wholesale business. These four firms were subject to significant pressure about prices and distribution terms from both publishers and retailers. Although they had strong positions in the market, they lacked power because retailers selected the wholesaler with which they would do business and publishers continued to control distribution terms and compensation paid to wholesalers. Today, only TNG and Hudson remain in business and the two firms account for about 90 percent of the wholesale business.
The history of magazine distribution has thus moved from near monopoly in the 1950s, to competition in the 1990s, to oligopoly in the mid 2000s, and once again to near monopoly in 2014. 
The results of the changes are that publishers, who previously wielded the greatest power over distribution terms and prices, are now dependent upon the services of the two remaining wholesalers. These wholesalers are, unsurprisingly, demanding more compensation for their services and more control over distribution decisions and terms. Retailers are not making many price demands at the moment, but are asking for more transactional efficiencies and changes to the traditional means in which they buy and resell magazines. No one in the business is happy with each other or the system under which they operate.
Consumers are feeling the effects because fewer titles are being distributed in retail outlets—thus reducing their choice—and the prices of magazines continue to rise--taking more money out of their pockets.
The current situation is challenging the efficacy of the wholesaler-based distribution channel, raising issues of distribution pricing, who should bear costs of inventory, and how audit bureaus account for circulation. It is highly fragile distribution channel in which no stakeholders—publishers, national distributors, wholesalers, or retailers—are exercising leadership to stabilize and improve its functionality.
The options to the current conditions are limited and, absent remaking the entire distribution chain, it is unlikely that any solution sought will be pro-competitive.


Digital Consumption is Forcing Newsrooms to Rethink Staffing Patterns

The increasing consumption of news on digital platforms is forcing news organizations to rethink their news production cycles and staffing patterns.

Most journalists, like other employees, prefer a normal pattern of life—going to work in the morning and leaving work in the afternoon—because it is conducive to social and familial life and enjoying the cultural amenities that communities have to offer. This preference helped keep afternoon newspapers the standard in the U.S. until 2000, when morning newspapers surpassed afternoon papers for the first time. 

Even before that time, however, news production cycles and staffing patterns brought the majority of journalists to the office in the daytime hours, with the number of staff in newsrooms dwindling until morning papers “went to bed” about midnight. Most newsrooms then turned off the lights, and only a few larger metro papers sometimes kept a skeletal crew of police/fire reporters and photographers in the newsroom overnight.

That staffing pattern has changed little since the beginning of the digital age. Today, most newsrooms complete and upload news stories for digital sites before midnight or set electronic release times to out them up about the time the print edition is delivered. Efforts to update stories overnight for digital services is only made for the largest, most important breaking stories.

This is creating a problem in digital news provision, however, because one of the largest spikes in use of online and mobile apps occurs between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. for most news providers. This means that the news is 8-12 hours stale by the time it is accessed--hardly the immediacy that digital news organizations suggest they provide.

This challenge is now inducing leading news organizations to rethink when and how they staff newsrooms and provide news on digital platforms.  They using the better audience metrics that are available to understand when audiences read most of their content on different platforms and reviewing when they publish most of their content on those platforms. The intent is to coordinate peak consumption with publication that keeps material fresh wherever it is accessed.

Pursuing the strategy will be easier for organizations than others. The Guardian, for example, maintains newsrooms in New York, London, and Sydney, so its digital operations can be staffed round the clock to cover international and breaking news, rotating staffing with the movement of the globe so it doesn’t have to maintain significant overnight staffing in all the newsrooms. This follows a pattern set earlier by some international news agencies and news broadcasters.

For metropolitan papers, providing morning digital news consumers with fresh content will require increased overnight staffing or cooperation with other newspapers or news agencies to create means for automatic updates to international and national news on the papers' digital platforms. Few mid-sized and small news organizations are likely to staff overnight, but may be interested in automatic update services for their digital products from trusted news agencies.

Changes in the hours work takes place will concern journalists unions where overnight local staffing is required and they will be focus on how overnight staff is selected and additional compensation for less desirable work hours.

Nevertheless, the concerns of editors of digital platforms to keep material fresh, increasing demands of consumers for immediacy—especially when they are paying for digital access, and the growing importance of digital subscription revenue all are impelling managers to rethink the ways and times at which news is produced and this will increasingly alter the patterns of staffing within news organizations.


The Rise of Expert Journalism in the Digital News Ecosystem

Expert journalism is playing an increasingly important role in the provision of news and news analysis. Its emergence and growth is taking away some of the functions of legacy news organizations, establishing new competitors, and creating new opportunities for cooperation. 
Expert journalism is a novel form of journalism made possible because of the developments in digital media. Written by persons with high levels of expertise, and designed for those whose interests in specific topics are greater than that of the average newspaper reader, television viewer, or digital news user, it is providing alternatives to news previously available only through print or broadcasting.
This type of journalism is practiced by scientists, economists, bankers, medical doctors, and civil society organizations focused on issues, regions, and conflicts. These producers work to provide accurate and, often, balanced content. It is also practiced by specialized professional journalists who provide news and information focused on issues such as climate science, energy, biotechnology, military affairs, and other topics. Expert journalism differs significantly from general user generated content because it operates in a professionalized environment and provides a digital location to which the public and many journalists come for information.

The growing reliance on expert journalism providers by news media and other journalists is not a surprise; many of those practicing this form of journalism were previously sources that journalists in general news media relied upon. Many established their own online enterprises so their information and ideas would less mediated by news providers and errors due to misunderstandings or abbreviation of information conveyed would be reduced.

Although some professional journalists are skeptical about this out-sourcing of news and information, research is revealing that expert journalism tends to have higher quality than general news provision.  When traditional measures of journalistic quality are employed, expert journalism tends to convey greater understanding of the topic by the writer, employ more fact checking, provide more background and context to stories, and be more likely to hold authorities, companies, and elites to account for the actions or inactions.

A variety of revenue models are emerging to support expert journalism, but the most significant seem to be paid speaking engagements, foundation support, subscriptions/memberships, and licenses for digital use by other organizations.

The rise of expert journalism is significant for the emergent media ecosystem in which commercial news organizations are increasing their focus on distribution and relying more on news, information, and commentary available from other sources. They are thus increasingly linking to articles produced by expert journalism and entering syndication agreements with them. Reliance on these sources of news and analysis can be expected to grow in the coming years.


4 strategic tipping points for digital content providers

Legacy and born-digital content creators are now approaching tipping points where they will be forced into deep strategic thinking and choices that will affect their future operations. Consideration of the platforms on which they operate, the platform(s) that receives preference, and the income and expenses they will bear will all inform the strategic choices.

The growth of digital consumption is forcing content creators to confront issues of offline and online consumption, but also to respond to the rapid growth of consumption on different types of digital devices—especially mobile devices. These changes are moving many firms closer to the tipping points.

In deciding how and when strategy needs to be reconsidered, managers need to watch for four critical strategic tipping points. These are points at which significant contemplation and decisions must be made or the enterprises will be put at risk by indecision:

1. When content income surpasses advertising income
2. When digital income exceeds print income
3. When mobile use (tablet, smartphone) tops desktop/laptop use
4. When income from print products no longer pays the costs of print operations
The issue of content income surpassing advertising income is important because it means that greater company attention must be paid to consumer needs and desires and that the advertiser interests must become secondary.  This represents a significant change in focus that has not been the norm in commercial media for 50 to 75 years.

When digital income surpasses offline income the question of whether a digital first strategy is desirable becomes moot. At this point digital first strategy becomes imperative and factors that may have been previously moderated moves in that direction must be overcome.

A number of content providers have already reached the mobile tipping point, where the majority of their content use and time comes from tablets and smartphones, and many others are rapidly approaching that point. At this point content production can no longer start with the version for print or desktops/laptops and be migrated to mobile devices, but needs to switch to production for mobile devices with larger screen devices and print secondary or tertiary in importance.

Those working both offline and digitally are likely to reach a point in which income from print products no longer pays the costs of print operations.  Some have already surpassed it. This will force them to confront the issue of whether to stay in or exit print. There is no simple answer to the question because it involves complex cost accounting and brand issues. When the tipping point is reached, however, the question must be considered in much the same way as digital services which did not stand alone financially in the past were supported by print.

Companies will respond to these tipping points in different ways because of their varying markets, resources, cultures, and capabilities. The important thing is that managers watch for the tipping points, consider their implications, and consciously make decisions about how they will respond to them.


A fundamental shift in the mode of news production

Changes in news production and journalistic employment are often simplistically explained as the results of technology, recent economic conditions, or changes in audience preferences. All these factors have played roles, but a more fundamental and consequential shift is altering the nature of news work and news production.

For more than a hundred years news production has been characterized by the industrial mode of production in which news factories mass produced news. They brought together the resources and equipment necessary for gathering and disseminating news and they relied on trained and professionalized news workers. The product became property exchanged in markets, with geographical, market, and economic factors constraining competition to provide news products.

Although some elements of that production mode remain in place, one can observe news provision splitting into two new production modes—a service mode and a craft production mode. These have enormous implications for the work of journalists and how news is provided in society.
The service mode is one in which news products (newspapers, broadcasts) are being transformed into services with news providers streaming news and information across a variety of platforms, such as print, computer terminals, tablets, and smartphones, and other screen-based devices. They are now focusing more on distributing news rather than gathering and producing it and are relying more on news and commentary produced by news services, content provided to them by the public, and links to other news providers than on their own production.

These news service providers are using pricing models that differ from those of the original product base, with varying prices for access to different bundles of platforms and different levels of access to premium and specialized news content. Pay systems such as those of Press+ and Piano Media are providing mechanism for paid access to multiple news providers—a new form of service. The shift to the service production mode follows that of the paid streaming audio and video services that have proliferated in the past decade.

The shift is making news service providers increasingly dependent on acquisition of news content produced by others, leading them to offer their content at relatively low prices, and inducing them to create better user experiences.  We will increasingly see such services offered at the national and international levels by larger news enterprises.
Concurrently, a different form of production is developing and gaining acceptance–the craft mode of news production. This is production by journalist entrepreneurs and small-scale journalistic cooperatives that are emphasizing the uniqueness and quality in their news. Those working in the craft mode are focusing on special topics such as climate or defense, employing specialized techniques such as investigative or data journalism, or serving smaller localities as general providers. Most are providing news directly to consumers, as well as providing materials to those practicing the service mode.

These new modes have important implications for how journalists work, the resources available to them, and how they organize their careers, compensation, insurance, and pensions. To date, little consideration has been given to how cooperative institutional support for news workers should be organized in this new environment. Journalists unions remain an artifact of the industrial mode of production and are changing very slowly and professional associations remain focused on issues other than work and labor. Something needs to change.