Editor's note:
This is an electronic age. It is a general trend for newspaper publishing to develop into multiple media. Newspaper publishers are beginning to play the role of a multimedia content service provider. However, unlike the traditional publishing of newspapers under new media, publishers need a lot of technical support. The current situation is that the technical support of technical service providers is generally unsatisfactory. This article is precisely on this issue. It analyzes the embarrassing situation of newspaper publishing, and investigates the reasons and proposes solutions.
First, the embarrassing situation in the electronic era of newspaper publishing Traditional newspaper publishing is based on printing technology, publishers need nothing more than paper supply, printing support, all information selection, transmission, preservation by the publisher independently. With the advent of new media, newspaper publishers have realized that readers need more media to deliver news, which has prompted newspaper publishing to develop from a single print media to multiple media. That is, cross-media publishing ("transmedial" publishing, that is, converting and publishing between multiple media) saves and conveys information content that publishers cannot deal with on their own. Publishers need corresponding dot-com companies to provide technical support. There are indeed many companies offering such services, but it turns out that these current technical support often fail to meet the needs of publishers.
The embarrassing situation of cross-media newspaper publishing can be seen from two examples:
The first is LA Times.com, whose executive manufacturer, Elaine Zinngrabe, is one of the few companies that recognizes the need for multimedia swept paper publishing. For some LA Times companies began to develop the corresponding content management system. LA Times chose Interwoven's Teamsite to build the site. Knowing that Interwoven did not have such experience before, LA Times invested a lot of money in this project, using Teamsite as a pilot site and digitizing LA Times on Teamsite testing. version. The experience of the LA Times was not satisfactory. One year later, it took almost a minute for people to open an article on the system. Perhaps this achievement was enough for Interwoven to meet, but it could not satisfy LA Times. Needed, so LA Times had to cancel this project.
Similar to the LA Times experience is the interaction between the chief technology officer of Beol, Christopher Feola, Feola began to use InSo's Dynabase system to deal with web content in 1999 after entering the Belo company, then Dynabas is a very popular web content Management system, but the operation of the system is not satisfactory enough that Belo sued InSo's services to fulfill contract requirements and win. Feola thinks that software engineers are specialized in technology but do not understand the contents of their management and do not know the content. How it was generated, so they could never successfully install a content management system.
For Belo, it is even more embarrassing that Belo still uses the Inso system even after a successful win, because besides Dynabas, Belo has no other choice at the moment. The content management system currently provided is too few.
Second, the reasons for technical support can not keep up Clearly, the current Internet company's situation has been very different from a year ago. A year ago, investors thought that as long as they were linked to the Internet and venture capital was listed, it would follow. Internet companies would not be afraid to burn their money, but now all this is yesterday’s yellow dot, after the bubble economy What we really think about is what we do and how we do business to make money.
Smart observers pointed out that the current lack of a true cross-media publishing systems system is mainly due to the fact that the development of this system for newspaper publishing is not profitable. Investors are flocking to b-to-b and b-to-c electronics. Business and other such areas of profitable space. Vignette is an example. Vignette was first developed with content publishing. Nowadays, Vignette has quietly turned into an e-commerce platform. The reason is of course the economic interest.
Another important reason, as Feola of Belo pointed out, is that simple technical personnel do not know how to publish, and they cannot fully consider the needs of newspaper publishing when they develop the system.
Third, the Atex example and solutions for the above reasons, the best candidate for cross-media newspaper newspaper publishing or the publisher itself. Atex was the first to join in, but Atex's experience ended in failure.
The Omnex system developed by Atex was developed from the perspective of publishing. It is considered to be a good choice for cross-media newspaper publishing. However, once people listen to their prices, it is hard to be interested in it anymore. The high price of the Omnex system is also the focus of criticism of this system. To date, this system has only been purchased by a newspaper in the “Financial Timesâ€.
The failure of Atex proved an obstacle to the development of the cross-media newspaper publishing system. However, with the development of newspaper publishing in the electronic era, the requirements for this system will inevitably increase, and the profit space for the development of this system will inevitably expand. Recognizing this, explicit investors should not ignore this piece.
The previous examples of LATimes and Belo illustrate that the development of a cross-media publishing system must involve the participation of newspaper publishers, because only from a purely technical point of view, technologies that are truly suitable for newspaper publishing can never be developed. Making the necessary investment in technology is also what newspaper publishers should be.
In general, the current contradiction between technology suppliers and newspaper publishers, the most important reason for the inability of cross-media newspaper publishing technology to follow is that the two positions themselves in the relationship of buyers and sellers, but they are not treated as identical. Collaborators on a front line, so the real solution to the cross-media newspaper publishing problem is that there are a group of people who are aiming for it, and work together to find a true cross-media newspaper publishing solution.
This is an electronic age. It is a general trend for newspaper publishing to develop into multiple media. Newspaper publishers are beginning to play the role of a multimedia content service provider. However, unlike the traditional publishing of newspapers under new media, publishers need a lot of technical support. The current situation is that the technical support of technical service providers is generally unsatisfactory. This article is precisely on this issue. It analyzes the embarrassing situation of newspaper publishing, and investigates the reasons and proposes solutions.
First, the embarrassing situation in the electronic era of newspaper publishing Traditional newspaper publishing is based on printing technology, publishers need nothing more than paper supply, printing support, all information selection, transmission, preservation by the publisher independently. With the advent of new media, newspaper publishers have realized that readers need more media to deliver news, which has prompted newspaper publishing to develop from a single print media to multiple media. That is, cross-media publishing ("transmedial" publishing, that is, converting and publishing between multiple media) saves and conveys information content that publishers cannot deal with on their own. Publishers need corresponding dot-com companies to provide technical support. There are indeed many companies offering such services, but it turns out that these current technical support often fail to meet the needs of publishers.
The embarrassing situation of cross-media newspaper publishing can be seen from two examples:
The first is LA Times.com, whose executive manufacturer, Elaine Zinngrabe, is one of the few companies that recognizes the need for multimedia swept paper publishing. For some LA Times companies began to develop the corresponding content management system. LA Times chose Interwoven's Teamsite to build the site. Knowing that Interwoven did not have such experience before, LA Times invested a lot of money in this project, using Teamsite as a pilot site and digitizing LA Times on Teamsite testing. version. The experience of the LA Times was not satisfactory. One year later, it took almost a minute for people to open an article on the system. Perhaps this achievement was enough for Interwoven to meet, but it could not satisfy LA Times. Needed, so LA Times had to cancel this project.
Similar to the LA Times experience is the interaction between the chief technology officer of Beol, Christopher Feola, Feola began to use InSo's Dynabase system to deal with web content in 1999 after entering the Belo company, then Dynabas is a very popular web content Management system, but the operation of the system is not satisfactory enough that Belo sued InSo's services to fulfill contract requirements and win. Feola thinks that software engineers are specialized in technology but do not understand the contents of their management and do not know the content. How it was generated, so they could never successfully install a content management system.
For Belo, it is even more embarrassing that Belo still uses the Inso system even after a successful win, because besides Dynabas, Belo has no other choice at the moment. The content management system currently provided is too few.
Second, the reasons for technical support can not keep up Clearly, the current Internet company's situation has been very different from a year ago. A year ago, investors thought that as long as they were linked to the Internet and venture capital was listed, it would follow. Internet companies would not be afraid to burn their money, but now all this is yesterday’s yellow dot, after the bubble economy What we really think about is what we do and how we do business to make money.
Smart observers pointed out that the current lack of a true cross-media publishing systems system is mainly due to the fact that the development of this system for newspaper publishing is not profitable. Investors are flocking to b-to-b and b-to-c electronics. Business and other such areas of profitable space. Vignette is an example. Vignette was first developed with content publishing. Nowadays, Vignette has quietly turned into an e-commerce platform. The reason is of course the economic interest.
Another important reason, as Feola of Belo pointed out, is that simple technical personnel do not know how to publish, and they cannot fully consider the needs of newspaper publishing when they develop the system.
Third, the Atex example and solutions for the above reasons, the best candidate for cross-media newspaper newspaper publishing or the publisher itself. Atex was the first to join in, but Atex's experience ended in failure.
The Omnex system developed by Atex was developed from the perspective of publishing. It is considered to be a good choice for cross-media newspaper publishing. However, once people listen to their prices, it is hard to be interested in it anymore. The high price of the Omnex system is also the focus of criticism of this system. To date, this system has only been purchased by a newspaper in the “Financial Timesâ€.
The failure of Atex proved an obstacle to the development of the cross-media newspaper publishing system. However, with the development of newspaper publishing in the electronic era, the requirements for this system will inevitably increase, and the profit space for the development of this system will inevitably expand. Recognizing this, explicit investors should not ignore this piece.
The previous examples of LATimes and Belo illustrate that the development of a cross-media publishing system must involve the participation of newspaper publishers, because only from a purely technical point of view, technologies that are truly suitable for newspaper publishing can never be developed. Making the necessary investment in technology is also what newspaper publishers should be.
In general, the current contradiction between technology suppliers and newspaper publishers, the most important reason for the inability of cross-media newspaper publishing technology to follow is that the two positions themselves in the relationship of buyers and sellers, but they are not treated as identical. Collaborators on a front line, so the real solution to the cross-media newspaper publishing problem is that there are a group of people who are aiming for it, and work together to find a true cross-media newspaper publishing solution.
Haixin Umbrella Industry Co., Ltd. , http://www.hzfoldumbrella.com