A would-be Gen Y worker speaks out

The Centre for Information Leadership at City University London has put forward its first challenge paper, which looks at whether information and business leaders are prepared for the entry of Generation Y into the workplace.
The paper, entitled "Responding to the Millennial Generation", looks at Generation Y in contrast to its predecessors and highlights the level of individuality and the entrepreneurial spirit of 'digital natives'.
IWR asked intern Jack Phillipps to take a look
As a member of Generation Y myself studying for a university degree and entering the workplace in a year's time I would say I can judge pretty well whether the paper has any validity or is talking utter rubbish. There are several things about this generation that make it completely different from those that have preceded it; the root of these differences is that millennials are the first generation that never been without a computer or a mobile phone to hand.
I myself could not imagine living without the internet, mobile phones and text messaging; they make our lives so much more convenient but while previous generations appreciate the difference between before and after, to Generation Y they have a permanence similar to that of the sun and the moon.
A study in the US found millenials were comfortable with using technology and found novel ways of using it not originally envisaged by the designers; this is Darwinism at its most contemporary. Some other findings were that there was more ethnic diversity, the tendency to sleep with their mobile phones under their pillows and despite a high proportion of unemployment there was confidence about finding a decent job in the future. Another discovery that will surprise no one was the preoccupation with social networking sites, the 21st century form of gossiping.
The white paper makes a number of observations, some valid and others I would disagree with:
• Apart from medicine, the law and the civil service businesses will not be able to give a young twenty something employment for life, it's just not feasible. So Generation Y has naturally adapted to this changing job environment and if they are to stay ahead of the game the larger employers must keep up or they will stagnate.
• No doubt generation Y's individuality will change the expectations they have in relation to the work-life balance; the older generations' ideas of a template for how to use technologies will eventually be outstripped by the millenials who will find other options when present ones bore them.
However there are a few points I would dispute:
• Generation Y needs support in going beyond the initial Google search and weighing evidence from authoritative sources; this claim seems to completely ignore a good number of universities which are making their courses increasingly relevant by showing how to adapt their courses to the job market. The weighing of evidence from authoritative sources is an essential part of my own university degree and I'm sure this cannot be particular to me and my circle of university friends.
• They prefer to deal with folksonomies and tend to rely on cognitive authority. Again, this claim can be viewed as weak because I know from personal experience that university academics spend hours of their time drumming into their students the danger of relying on unreliable sources, so that when we enter a search term into Google we should not select the first site on the list, usually Wikipedia, which academics hate for the fact that anyone and everyone deems themselves an expert in something or other.
This White Paper is an interesting piece which is particularly relevant at the moment with the number of university applicants increasing every year and the economic downturn threatening the job market. While I would say there are flaws in the argument put forward it is a good place to start.

Drop the silo approach

Two research reports on the impact of social networking and Web 2.0 tools in the workplace highlight the anxiety among experts over these issues. Suggesting identical outcomes, both reports - one from Economist Intelligence Unit on managing technology democracy in the workplace and the other study by Recommind on the use and implications of Web 2.0 tools in businesses - urge businesses to "act now and manage Web2.0, it's already late".
The reports found that even today, over 40% of senior executives in organisations said they restrict the use of such applications and have no training in place to manage the uptake of these tools by staff in the near future.
The concerns these executives raised were about security, lack of productivity, loss of information, data breaches, difficulty in preserving and accessing information and legal implications.
The moot point of discussion at both the events were about "Who takes responsibility for implementing and enforcing the company policy on Web2.0 use?"
Companies are finding it increasingly difficult to tackle the tricky issues of Web 2.0 because they acknowledge and identify its benefits in this internet age. Meanwhile, staff insist on "technology democracy".
People may be techno-savvy but they lack digital awareness and history shows that we pay a huge price for this lack of awareness. Young staff have been sacked for posting negative comments about employers or customers; public sector organisations have lost and misplaced highly sensitive information and personal data has been used for vetting future staff.
The question of responsibility is a tough and dodgy one. And the Recommind survey suggested that 70% respondents think it is IT department's responsibility, 17% said it was the legal department and the others were divided between dedicated Web 2.0 specialists in offices, team leaders and individual members of staff.
It's time to drop the silo approach. Not only does the IT department, legal team and staff need to work together, it is time individual users, application providers and regulatory services take responsibility too. Until now, the legislation and public awareness has always been catching up with technology. It is time to stop playing catch up and get even with technology.

Give us a newspaper revolution

And another newspaper [thelondonpaper] closes down because of falling advertising revenue. Archana Venkatraman
The scene will only get grimmer now on.
The fight for winning adverts turns bitter not just between the newspapers but also between newspapers and other consumer-facing companies and websites. Ailing airline company British Airways announced it was to sell advertising space on online boarding cards (presumably with some care- life insurance ads just before you get on a flight may not be quite the ticket). Meanwhile, property website Rightmove reported buoyant results citing its share of property advertising "grew substantially" even as advertising in traditional print media declined.
It is clear that advertisers operating on a shoe-string budget are swayed by a slew of companies with online presence that claim they can target users "more directly" than newspapers can. Companies such as British Airways step on the toes of traditional media institutions to rescue their business amid worsening economic climate.
Almost at the same time, consumers are increasingly considering news and information as something of a free-commodity and are not willing to pay for it.
So what seemed like a straight-forward and obvious business model for newspapers is turned upside down with the world wide web bringing along a slew of avenues for the advertisers and heralding a permanent gloom for the newspapers.
In case of BA and other brands, advertising will be complementary to their core revenue. Are newspapers too naïve to continue believing in advertising as the only and major source of income?
Arguably, the newspapers, with their compelling content have battled bravely with radio, television and even online news-sites and have continued to survive. But as the internet-savvy consumers crowd specific websites for booking tickets, shopping, viewing properties, and even investing their money and buying insurance, the newspapers must find an alternative to traditional advertising.
It may be hard to visualise a new revenue-earner different from advertising, but who would have thought of a "search engine" or "penicillin" in the early 1600s. Because, most times, identifying the problem is the first step for resolving a crisis.

Are we a digitally-confused society?

...Or is our digital consumption, marked by a classic characteristic of jumping on the bandwagon? Asks Archana Venkatraman
On one hand, Ofcom research suggests that people are willing to give up on celebrations and routine pleasures such as meals out and holidays to hold on to communication services, if a choice has to be made. That fits in with the EC's digital competitiveness report found that two in every three Europeans under 24 years of age use the internet every day.
But almost exactly at the same time, another research report from social media analytics company Sysymos analysed over 11 million Twitter accounts and found that about over 85% of Twitter users post less than one update a day and that 21% of users have never posted a Tweet. In addition, the social networking site Friends Reunited is sold off for a fraction of what it was worth in 2005.
Arguably, the reason for the burgeoning success for Facebook as against Friends Reunited could be attributed to its free access as against a subscription model, which was eventually dispensed with. Similar trend was spotted by the EC's report where it said that a third of young people would not pay for online services such as music and video downloads.
Have we assumed that most internet services we use will remain free and that we just have to factor the hardware costs? Media baron Rupert Murdoch has just shaken this belief to its core.
We haven't yet sorted out our digital behaviour and our inability to put a value to our digital services. We embrace digital services- general search engines, social networking sites, news sites, email accounts, YouTube and numerous download sites - that are free, without assessing their real value and importance to us. We all know of people who have opened a Twitter account to obtain a desired URL before it is too late.
The real question is how many of us would actually give up on holiday and dining-out to keep Facebook and Twitter and Skype if all three were in fact subscription-based? In such a scenario, people willing to keep communication services would have to pay for the devices, internet connection and individual websites.
It is time we start putting a price on the communication technologies we use and choose more selectively. Web 2.0 has certainly revolutionised the way we live and communicate but if we do not exercise our discretion then the companies providing these services will gain revenge, either by charging or disappearing.

IWR Information Professional of the Year Award

The IWR American Psychological Association Information Professional of the Year award has been announced and went, deservedly to Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus for the UKOLN organisation.

The award is judged by a panel of previous winners and the IWR editorial team. As editor of IWR when I judge the award I look for an individual who is pushing the limits of information, technology and making the role of the information professional as far as possible and making it an exciting role.  When looking through the final results I could see that the other judges felt the same way and Brian was an excellent choice.

Brian's role is a national Web co-ordinator, an advisory post funded by the educational body JISC and the Museums, Library and Archives Council (MLA).

In this role Brian is looking at the web as central resource for learning and research in higher education and is looking at ways to make the web a successful resource, which is a challenging role, because the web is still very young and is constantly changing. This can be seen with the recent changes dubbed Web 2.0, therefore Brian is going to be pretty busy for some time to come.

Based at the University of Bath, I know from information professionals I have dealt with in the academic sector that he is very well respected and his thoughts are often the basis for great debate within the industry. Linked to this is his blog, which is one of the most popular blogs in the sector.

I hope all IWR readers will join me in congratulating Brian for an award very much well deserved. 

Jimmy Wales on the role of Wikipedia in society

Jimmy Wales, chairman of Wikipedia was the keynote speech of Online Information 2007 with a presentation Web 2.0 in action: Free culture & community on the move.

Starts with Britannica editor Charles van Doren 1962, who said the encyclopaedia should be radical, but Wales claims they have been anything but.

Small showing of hands for those that have edited, although Wales believes it’s a good showing, "but not as many as college kids".

I consider us to be the Red Cross of information, he says as he describes its charitable status. Have 10 full time staff and will spend about $2 to 3 million this year, which is tiny compared to the major publishers. Vast majority of the money is from small donations, which he likes because its grass routes and not dependent on advertisers.

Wales talks about the desire to extend the languages that are in use on Wikipedia, including Hindi and Afrikaans.

Wiki is free in the sense of GNU, its free to copy, modify and distribute.

Shows a video of his travels to India and how he learnt that the local communities want to use the English version, as the English language is a route out of poverty. His organisation has been out to South Africa teaching students how to edit Wikipedia. "One of the things we have learnt is that if you can get five to 10 editors working together, it can make a great difference." These groups make progress and then they look towards outreach and who they can include. Hence the organisation has set up an academy to find the founding editors. It has begun in India, with 10-20,000 articles a month being put together by academy organisations.

Wikia is his next subject, a separate organisation with 66 languages, including a 67th, Klingon. Wales goes on to demonstrate using Google search results for Muppets and how the top result is the official site, but the rest of the results are from web based conversation, ie Wikipedia pages, forums and fan sites. He demonstrates an article on the Ford motor company and how on Muppet Wiki site, there is an article on Muppet Ford ads and how this demonstrates this level of information would never have been available before.

The search engine is a political statement, in a small P sense, Wales says. The proprietary software of the main players is a mystery in that people have no control of the accountability. The Wikia search will publish its algorithm.

Wales believes that the trust of social networks and setting up trusted networks can be utilised in search. .

On the role of collaboration, he asks the audience to imagine that they are designing a restaurants, discussing the idea that we trust the people around us, we don't put people in cages in restaurants because they will be using knives.
The wiki philosophy is to allow people to do good.

Specialist publishers ride high at Frankfurt Book Fair

At a major international publishing event like the Frankfurt Book Fair the bright lights of trade publishing and all its household star names could easily drown out the academic and scientific publishers. But this has not been the case.

Talk at the event, in all circles, is about books and technology, in particular search and eBook readers. On both subjects the specialist publishers are leading the way and the trade publishers salute them.

Amazon and Sony were expected to steal the show with their eBook
readers, they are instead conspiquous in their absence, but that has
not stopped publishers and technology providers from talking about the
devices and their potential.

I was particularly interested in a conversation I had with sceintific,
technical and medical publishers WIley where they hinted that they and
other specialists may get involved in driving the adoption of eBook readers.
Could we see the eBook reader adopt a similar model to the mobile phone
where users sign up to a subscription service, content of a particular
kind in this case, and in return they get a sleek and sexy device? Its
certainly worked for the mobile industry, which now resembled the car
world with its emphasis on styling and marketing.

But such a move could also be a blind alley, as one expert said to me,
these devices don't support the interlinking and interactivity that
content users are currently enjoying with the web.

During the fair Google, Ingram Digital Group and Amazon have all used the scientific and academic publishers as case study beacons for just what can be done with books on the web.

Geographically the Far East is the leading adopter as its markets radically develop according to Mark Carden, Ingram senior vp.

Perhaps Amazon spread rumours of a possible launch to see if there was real interest, well if the level of conversation we've heard is anything to go by, the eBook reader is in demand.

Fair use benefits the economy, so Free Our Data Mr Brown

A report from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in the USA shows that fair use of copyrighted material is beneficial to the national economy. According to the CCIA industries that can use material under the terms of fair use earned  $4.5 trillion, which adds more weight to the arguments of the Free Our Data campaign from newspaper The Guardian.

Free Our Data wants information held by the government, and therefore paid for by tax payers, to be made freely available so that organisations can use it.

Amongst the organisations using fair use terms that have benefited the US national economy are media organisations, education sector and software developers. 

Industries bound by copyright control with no fair use aspect contributed just $1.3 trillion to the US economy.

Fair use under US copyright law is described as being the use and copying of copyright protected material to comment upon, criticise or parody. Examples include summaries and quotes from medical articles for news, use of media content for teaching or the use of copyright protected material as evidence in a court case.

The Guardian Free Our Data campaign, run by its Technology supplement argues, rightly, that information collected by the Highways Agency, the UK Hydrographic Office and Ordnance Survey should be made available to organisations in the UK without being encumbered by clunky copyright restrictions. Although designated as trading funds, these three organisations receive almost 50% of their income from the public sector, which means taxpayers pay for it. Access to this data is charged for and as a result, organisations are turning to Google Maps for mapping information rather than using information they have already paid for through their business rates.

IWR supports the Free Our Data campaign because we are passionate about online information and want to see the UK remain a leader in information provision and we want to see British information professionals continuing to manipulate information in innovate ways that is beneficial to their user community.

Partying like 1999

Earlier this week PaidContent.org launched its UK and European information service at a swanky Scottish bar in, err, London.  IWR went along and once underneath the deer antler chandelier it was as if a time and space wormhole had opened up and we were transported back to 1999 and they heady dot com boom.

The zeitgeist was unmistakable, young trendy professionals in Chris Evans glasses, sharp suits, bright shirts and an excitable level of conversation about "content" and "funding". It was uncanny. The headache's from the launch parties of Boo.com, Handbag.com and anything you like .com have only just cleared at the IWR Editor's desk and all of a sudden I get the feeling that it is all about to happen again.

The last web boom rapidly replaced CD-Rom in the professional information space and for those of us commentating on it for the traditional information sector, we were regularly told our days were numbered and the geeks would inherit the earth. In many ways everything has changed, yet also, nothing has changed.  Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia are significant changes, but despite falling ad revenues, the stalwarts of information still remain kings of the jungle.

Interestingly at this party, fund toting entrepreneurs didn't make the same mistake of predicting the demise of traditional information providers; instead I heard many conversations about partnerships, relationships and hosts. Kewego, just one of the bright (complete with lime green logo) Web 2.0 start ups present talked of the importance of the "content owners" and rattled off the names of respected information providers. The general feeling I left with is that if we are about to start partying again, but the difference is not that the new players think they have all the answers and will replace our libraries, publishing houses and research departments, instead they see themselves as a component and supplier.

Widgets is a term used widely in the blog world and already newspaper groups are adding widgets to their online portfolios. The next information wave appears to be about a wealth of new ("funded" and partying) companies offering to add their widget to your information. For information professionals this means understanding what a widget is, what it offers your users and negotiating a good deal for all parties involved.

Business models and sustainability. How do we maintain and develop e-content?

Catherine Draycott, chair of British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA) and the Wellcome Trust discusses how difficult it can be for image libraries within an organisation, including museums because there is often a need to generate a profit. She wants the industry and BAPLA to consider new models where there is an exchange between the academic community and the image provider, whether it is partnership or digitisation benefits or other ways of sharing revenue.

Wellcome now makes its images available under Creative Commons and a large percentage of the royalties goes to the creators. They have gone to the attribution model, because it is in line with the Wellcome's OA policies and the policy applies to the images on the Wellcome trust. If the images are for teaching, academic research and non-commercial publication the fee is waived.

Intelligent Television a documentary company that looks to make educational material more widely available, chief exec Peter Kaufman begins talking about screen based visual material, which is what a TV producer considers and so do information professionals. Gartner believe that paid search is a $15bn industry. The JISC digitisation strategy doesn't talk about free  and open access and focuses on business models and public private partnership and Peter Kaufman thinks that is a practical approach.

In the Q&A Draycott describes an idea of using the same metric as PR companies use to quantify the value of media coverage compared to the cost of an advertisement, to the re-use of images from an image library and how that may be useful for archive holders, especially as they are subsidising commercial organisations by providing the images.

Online information could be the education utility of the future

Chris Batt, chief exec of MLA has a hard hitting presentation.

Libraries contain the raw material of the future, Batt says, and describes knowledge as being about learning, cultural identity, social development, and it has to be available to everyone.

"Understanding builds empowerment and cohesion and Batt considers this his aspiration. Our mission is to help people to take learning journeys, whether it’s the time of the next bus out of

Cardiff

or genetics. Being motivated will encourage people to carry on learning.

The only successful technology are the ones that are invisible, no one worries about how the TV or telephone works. Batt points out that presentation is the most important thing to the user and he shows and criticises examples of an archive page and the 24 Hour Museum page, both of which he states do not demonstrate to the user what they can do there.

Museums, libraries and archives have collections and customers, there role is to be the connections between the two. Collections are cared for by cultural heritage, education and research and they are passionate about it. Batt believes users though "don't give a toss" about whether these things are cultural heritage, education or research, they just want stuff they need.

Public Catalogues Foundation, could be a fantastic digital resource, it’s a collection of images of the publicly owned oil paintings in Great Britiain, county by country in the

UK

.

Batt ends on the statement, compared with fighting a war, the costs are minute and the benefits infinite. He believes the strategic e-Content

Alliance

is very important. Content in a networked environment is more important than institutes. An image of a little girl at a library hit home as Batt reminds every one that what they do now is important for her future. He wants knowledge as a utility, as trusted and as accessible and invisible as pure running water.

JISC Digitisation Conference

IWR is in the Welsh capital Cardiff for the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Digitisation Conference, which has been opened by Carwyn Jones of the Welsh Assembly.

The event is the launch pad for the digitisation strategy from the education group; and will also show case the work that has already been carried out and to analyse the role of JISC as the conduit to academic digitisation and what lessons the organisation  and academia have learnt so far.

Based at the St David's Hotel on the regenerated Cardiff Bay area, this gleaming white tower is an example of the new Wales and the new Cardiff, a country at the forefront of technology and the cultural landscape, whether its the location for Dr Who or ground breaking broadband and content strategies.

The conference has launched a blog for the event and is asking attendees and members of the information community to contribute to the debate.

The event has attracted leading members of the information community from universities in Manchester and Oxford as well as the Open University.

FT parents bidding for Dow Jones, claims The Telegraph

Broadsheet newspaper The Daily Telegraph has claimed in an article that Pearson, the corporation which owns the Financial Times, is involved in an "desperate attempt" to buy US business information group Dow Jones. If successful the bid will scupper the plans of media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

According to the Telegraph, Pearson has been looking for a partner to counter the £2.5bn bid from the Aussie known as Dirty Digger. Unnamed analysts tell the Telegraph that a combined Pearson and Dow Jones group, which owns news aggregator service Factiva, would be a "formidable force in business journalism". One describes the Dow Jones newswires as another useful arm to the FT. Not only would a combination include two of the world's most famous business newspapers, the FT and Wall Street Journal, as well as Factiva, but would also include leading magazine and market analysis group The Economist.  Pearson owns 50% of The Economist group.

There are global benefits from a link up between Dow Jones and Pearson. The latter has a strong presence in the US with its education division, but the FT has not fared well there, no doubt because of the power of the Wall Street Journal. Equally the Wall Street Journal has not done well in Europe.

According to the Telegraph Pearson is in deep talks with General Electric to construct a joint bid. General Electric owns the CNBC business channel in the US, which competes with Murdoch's Fox business channel. CNBC is supplied by Dow Jones and has close relationships.

There is widespread concern about Murdoch buying the Dow Jones group, the Bancroft family – a majority stakeholder - is concerned about Murdoch's famed reputation for meddling with editorial independence to push his own right wing agenda. The information and media industry is also deeply concerned about Murdoch owning another major slice of the information real estate.

Murdoch has been preparing his bid by wooing the Bancroft family and got shot of his share of weak Australian news group Fairfax to release more funds.

If Pearson and a partner are to be successful, they will need to beat the $60 a share  offer that Murdoch's News Corporation has placed on the table.

It's OK to be scared

Recently I was lucky enough to be part of a discussion panel organised by the City Information Group (CIG). The discussion centred on the future role of research and information professionals in the face of new networking technology, all dubbed Web 2.0, and how this technology will affect the working lives of information professionals.

My  hat  goes off to the information professionals at the event who put their hands in  the air and admitted they didn't fully understand the technology and the issues it presented to their working lives. It's a brave move in a busy room full of your peers. But it is OK to admit you don't understand the full complexity of the Web 2.0 plot. I left the conference feeling that almost everyone, apart from my colleagues Euan Semple and David Tebbutt, is a little shaky on some areas of Web 2.0. I too feel out of touch with RSS and FaceBook.

The problem with Web 2.0 is that there are so many different iterations of this technology, blogging, wiki encyclopaedia, virtual worlds created by users, social computing networks and image systems for sharing videos and photographs.  Is it any wonder that information professionals are, despite their deep natural understanding for information issues, lost in a virtual Sargosso Sea. 

At first I was worried that the attendees didn't fully understand this technology, but as the evening progressed I was re-invigorated to learn that on the whole, information professionals do want to learn and engage with this technology. And that is good news, because if the information community does not, it will lose out, because the next generation of information users will interact with information in a way so radically different from the way we do.

The first step along the rocky road to Web 2.0 is admitting what your level of understanding is, and I have nothing but admiration for those information professionals that admitted to a packed room that they were not part of this next generation, because by doing so, the information community can step back and take a look at what is required to fully embrace the technology and the all important information professionals.

Futurology – predictions for social media and enterprise 2.0

In a wide ranging conversation Forum host Euan Semple asks the panellist what their assumptions and predictions are for the future of Web 2.0.

Simon Phipps, chief open source officer of Sun Microsystems begins with the idea that a something starts out as a wild idea and then becomes less contentious as it is discussed through comments, and wiki tools, you get the feeling that he sees this as the concrete that will ensure the foundations of Web 2.0 are strong.

Phipps describes Atom as the thinking man's RSS and he thinks forums, blogs and wikis will have Atom feeds. Semple adds how you have lots of little things that no one pays any attention to within an organisation, but then it builds up. Phipps responds that all of Sun's tools have tagging tools that do just this.

Nick Ward, media analyst with Panmure Gordon & Co, takes on the debate about where will Web 2.0 go as a business. Phipps finds it difficult to believe the profits of these companies will be difficult realise. So far for these companies to be floated on the stock market would be difficult and points to the fact that Last.fm and Friends Reunited were bought by large existing vendors, CBS and ITV respectively.

Thomson-Reuters deal is a sign of businesses having to restructure.  The city is sceptical are worried whether the ad supported model for the likes of Myspace really has legs to it. I simply think the whole issue of the business model for these and the loyalty towards general social media sites will struggle and it’s the more specialist ones that will triumph. There are a lot of B2B businesses that operate through jargon and barriers and they will have a great deal to lose through transparency from Web 2.0, law firms and broker firms are amongst those that could be threatened.

People want the name of a very big bank like UBS in on a deal so that if it goes wrong they can say, "well we had the best people in the world on this," but I would argue there are a few years while the barriers to remain up.

Semple says he would pay to be part of high quality networks, the ad revenue can go, Ward reminds him that subs revenue model is very slow to develop.

Marc Monseau, PR person for drug giants Johnson & Johnson thinks there has to be some guidance, Phipps adds that Sun bloggers all have to go through some training. "I see that as being one of the advantages, you then have a well informed workforce and that has benefits," Monseau said. Ward believes because it is public, it can make people more sensible, it is self regulating. Semple reminds everyone that it is easy to consider Web 2.0 as geeky for teenagers, yet there is an audit trail, which is a corporate thing.

People are using Facebook to create and manage their own identity and it means they cannot be treated as demographics anymore. Phipps agrees, all of the internet's evils is because it doesn't have strong identity mechanisms and is looking forward to strong identity, which he believes will damage spam and other areas.

Sun has a lot of tools being developed for identity management. Ward adds that mass culture is no longer needed to make a profit, discussing the long tail. Instead all of us watch and read block-busters and absorb all its marketing, we can all indulge our individual tastes and there will be greater cultural diversity. He thinks it is already happening. Phipps responds that the long tail is also about monopolising niches, but Ward doesn't believe that its all niche businesses pandering to Rupert Murdoch, because it will be easier to make and distribute products and make a profit from them.

Adriana Lukas believes it is all about focussing on the individual and the organisation will follow.

Murdoch inches closer to Dow Jones deal

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch is closing in on a deal to buy the Dow Jones media and financial information group according to the weekend's news reports. News aggregation service Factiva is part of the Dow Jones group following last year's acquisition of the remaining half from Reuters.

At the centre of Murdoch's bid is the Wall Street Journal newspaper, which "Dirty Digger" as Murdoch is affectionately known, covets. The Financial Times believes Australian Murdoch will raise his bid for the group to the expected $5bn. A series of alternative bidders may also surface, including Thomson-Reuters rival Bloomberg, General Electric, Yahoo and even the FT's parent company Pearson.

A potential stumbling block for Murdoch has been his reputation for meddling in editorial matters. The Bancroft family, which holds 64% of the voting power at Dow Jones has now agreed to meet with Murdoch to discuss these issues and it is reported that Murdoch is minded to offer the family a seat on the News Corp board, his news empire.

The Wall Street Journal is revered for its editorial independence and there is great concern that ownership by Murdoch will erode this.

Unlike News Corp, the Dow Jones group has been very successful at the transition from print to online information delivery, with the Wall Street Journal charging online users, just as it does offline. Murdoch's online attempts have so far not been as successful and he could benefit from an infusion of Wall Street ideas.

Informa acquisitions continue as it swoops on Datamonitor

Acquisitive journal, books and business-to-business publisher Informa has acquired market analysts Datamonitor for £502m in cash today.

Under the terms of the agreement Informa will pay 650p per Datamonitor share. Informa, famed for publishing Lloyds List, has been on an acquisition spree of late, acquiring Triangle Journals, Institute of Physics book publishing arm and IIR Holdings in the last two years.

Datamonitor provides market intelligence and forecasts in six areas: automotive, consumer, energy, financial services, healthcare and telecoms and technology. Together the two companies expect to make savings of £3m. David Gilbertson Informa MD describes Datamonitor as a company that "slots" into Informa's existing offerings and will increase their range of products in those key six markets.

Datamonitor Michael Danson told the Daily Telegraph he founded the information company in 1990 on credit cards from a flat in West Hampstead.

Thomson and Reuters tie the knot to create financial info giant

With the ink barely dry on the sale of Thomson Learning, the Thomson Corporation has succeeded, barring regulatory problems, in taking over news provider Reuters. The deal worth £8.7 billion will create the world’s largest news and financial data provider. 

The BBC claims the deal is not popular amongst Reuters reporters and some users because Reuters legendary independence is  now in question.

By merging together Thomson-Reuters, as the new company will be know, has leap forged market dominator Bloomberg, the US provider owned by the mayor of New York. Michael Bloomberg.

Reuters and Thomson believe the tie up will create £250 million in savings, although no specific plans on these savings have  been released yet. A statement did highlight that together Thomson and Reuters will be in a better position to compete with Bloomberg. Niall Fitzgerald, Reuters chairman said in a statement,  “The shared expertise and complementary strengths of these two companies makes for a strategically compelling and financially attractive combination.” 

Reuters, Thomson and rival Bloomberg compete fiercely in the financial terminal information market used by stock exchange traders.

Great Britain

’s Reuters is also famed for its news agency that supplies news coverage to the world’s newspapers and broadcasters. Bloomberg has 33% of the terminal market, according to analysts figures out in April 2007, with Reuters holding 23% and Thomson 11%.

The new company will be listed  on both the

London

and

Toronto

stock exchanges and will have an annual revenue of around $12 billion.

According to the BBC, the merger could damage Reuters standing as an independent source of news information. “For more than 150 years, Reuters has been one of the great independent news organisations. No longer,” said Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor on the Radio 4 Today programme. “Reuters’ independence has been guaranteed by the structure of the business, which prohibits any individual from owning 15% or more of the company.”

He went on to say that Reuters journalists are unhappy with the deal because the “prohibition is being waved for the Thomson family” which will now own 53% of the new larger business.

One clear winner is Tom Glocer who has led Reuters back to health and presided over the sell off of its half of the Factiva business. Glocer will now take over the helm of Thomson-Reuters when Richard Harrington, Thomson president and chief executive retires.

Murdoch wants Factiva and Dow Jones web abilities

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has his sights set on the Dow Jones conglomerate which includes news aggregator Factiva. When a newspaper tycoon like Murdock looks to add another company and newspaper brands to his stable, the conversation is understandably dominated by the newspapers involved. But the strength of the Dow Jones group online, in my opinion has a lot more to do with Murdoch's ambitions than owning another newspaper.

He's admitted it himself, Murdoch has yet to make the most of the internet and the new information medium has dented his newspapers and television stations. Dow Jones meanwhile has a strong web strategy. The Wall Street Journal is a subscription access newspaper and a successful one at that. Factiva, now fully owned by Dow Jones has a wealth of technology and knowledge on extracting value from the web.

If Murdoch's News Corporation could adopt the technology behind Factiva, and learn Dow Jones' tricks of the trade in charging access to news the results could be staggering.

No doubt the news today that Reuters and Thomson are considering a tie up will add weight to the case for acquisition, the only question is, will the Bancroft family, which owns the majority of the shares sell?

Information industry must join the Wikipedia community

Every time I use Wikipedia I discover a new widget or facet to it that I really enjoy. I enjoy it because these facets make my user experience better.

In juxtaposition to this I have been talking to publishers about the changing shape of the market and how they do feel threatened by Wikipedia. To combat this, publishers are, rightly, publishing promotional material to educate students and users to skip the fast food Wiki diet and tuck into some healthy peer-reviewed material from the library.

All well and good, but as our attendance to recent conferences regarding greener business practices demonstrated, telling people to turn the telly off standby just doesn't work. Instead we have to develop integrated processes that subtly change their behaviour by meeting them where they want and making their existing behaviour greener.

I can't help feeling that our own community needs to do something similar. IWR doesn't want to rubbish the teaching of good information literacy, but we can't help feeling that this education and an improvement in the information should take place within Wikipedia.

Now, before you all shoot me down, let me explain. Wikipedia is a community, not just of those that put time and effort into editing it, but also the users. Therefore the best place to meet your perspective users, introduce them to your content and advise them on better information gathering practices is at Wikipedia. Information professionals and information providers should be playing a considerable part in improving the content on Wikipedia; you can cite their own content and generate leads and users from there.

Wikipedia is in many ways a platform, it has a host of information within it, and it seamlessly leads users to other sources within and beyond Wikipedia, so therefore the information industry should accept and embrace Wikipedia. After all it would be a waste of time telling anyone not to use Google as the web search engine of choice today, Google is a platform and it has become a part of our landscape. Wikipedia has the same potential, IWR knows publishing houses in the business area that are updating entries for areas they are specialists in and have gained around 200 extra visitors a month from Wikipedia alone and the subsequent revenue.