“When we launch, we’ll have the largest single professional network online in the UK. The community lends itself to a social media network.”
Building a framework for half a million users to share and rate teaching materials is now the focus for the Times Educational Supplement, the PPA Business Media Brand of the Year in 2008. Head of Internet Edward Griffith talks to JE.com before tomorrow’s launch of TESconnect.co.uk, the social network for education professionals.
What was behind TES’s move into social media?
In terms of content, the old site was really the packaged-up paper. It got some traffic, particularly in the forums, which had strong growth from about 2003/4. The conversations are what you’d expect: some tightly controlled, and some rants. They’re not actively moderated, but we do police them, post-moderated, there’s always someone on hand for that.
Then the business was bought from Murdoch and there were some new eyes on the project. Someone noticed in the forums there were two big conversations going on. People were seeking support and ideas from each other. Second was sharing teaching tools and resources. So we thought, hang on, there are over half-a-million teachers, and there aren’t that many classes, so we thought: what can we do? We had a resources section, but it was a bit of a dog. So we developed a prototype resources sharing tool, and it went through the roof. It’s grown 200% y-o-y ever since.
The really weird thing was that, in some focus groups we ran, teachers were telling us how isolated they were. They were spending a huge amount of time planning their lessons in the evenings and at weekends, and doing it all alone. Link that with what the teachers are looking for in the forums, and we’ve got the premise for biggest single professional social network in the UK.
What’s the thing to watch here?
A way to share material, and a UGC platform. To me they’re the same thing. As a photographer that uses Flickr, you see how tightly community is woven into the content. On TES.co.uk, when the user has found a great piece of content, they click through to see the rest of the content from that user, friend them, and subscribe to their friend feed. That’s the million dollar moment for me, when the users add each other to their networks. And then they can rate the content. We wanted to get the right rating system in place, so it’s not just about most downloads or average rating, but is a useful indicator of real quality, so we’ve worked hard on the algorhythm.
How will you grow the proposition?
The sharing and UGC all works around the resources. There’s a taxonomy, and then users can tag the content. The taxonomy will suggest a more formal classification, such as Physics at a particular Level, and then the user can make it more specific, such as say wave oscillation.
The other tool we’re using really shows the evolution of technology. We’re using Autonomy, which a few years ago was costing half a million, but which now costs a lot less. It’s very powerful. One of the technical people here wanted to interrogate its ability so did a search on Ted Bundy, and the system reads into documents, and it found Ted Bundy on page seven of a literature PowerPoint on Frankenstein and the making of monsters. That’s just so powerful as a tool for sharing UGC.
How are you making money from online?
There’s a strong separation between the two businesses, but we do have a joint pot of money, so we don’t have to cover all online costs. We get most of our money through jobs ads. TES has always been the leader for the education jobs market, and it was a wise decision in the 1990s to migrate that online. In April [when most September jobs are advertised] the paper is a brick; online it’s the same, and advertisers can buy online prominence. We have some display ads, but it’s meaningless in the grand scheme.
Does the move to social media mean the print publication is in decline?
Not at all. The print edition is not disappearing any time soon. For business media and publications that can ride on greater trends that the demand for news print, such as the Economist (we share an office with them), then the future of print and online is very strong. Digital media consumption is driving working-week habits, and then weekends are still old media, weekly media, such as news magazines and the weekend papers. I get all my media during the week online, I don’t touch newsprint. Web can satisfy that desire. And old print news, particularly those that relied on classified advertising, well that’s all over now, sorry boys, there’s better ways to do it. And those old media that rely on jobs advertising, specialist jobs boards are closing those old media down, too.
Is there any tension between TES and TESconnect.com as ad revenue moves online?
There’s no real tension around the commercial. There’s more tension around the share of editorial voice. The TES always been the professional newspaper for the education community. There is the old world media organisation upstairs, and a lot of the content will go more rapidly online, but it’s going to be less important as the years go. The user stuff is going to be more important. What’s key for me is harnessing the creativity of half-a-million professionals who week-in, week-out are preparing and testing the resources in the classroom: that’s the really valuable content for our users.
So print editors feel threatened? As Jeff Jarvis said in the Guardian Monday, who needs editors?
I’m a believer in the role of the editor. The editorial voice still has, perhaps has an even more important role, in the world of mass collaboration. It’s about point of view, but it’s also about promoting what’s out there. Even in today’s world, an editor’s view holds real credibility. If there’s a few thousand people voting on a theme, it’s the editor’s power to take notice of it, organise it and promote that content. There’s definitely a role for editorial, it’s just finding that role to play.
What are you overheads? Do you have a big staff?
We’ve got 30 staff, and only six for content. Compare that with about fifty editorial on the paper.
What Web1.0 features didn’t work for you?
We’re not closing them down, but we are pressing pause on specialist blogs; it was really an old media form online, commissioning copy, and it didn’t seem a good use of time when you think about the effort going into each individual piece and the audience share it might get. It seems a much better use of our time to build a framework for half-a-million people to provide content.
Who did you learn from to put together your social media tools?
Lots of media organisations have related well to their audiences, but it can be a leap of faith to give the audience its own voice. The Guardian and NYT have done that, but there are very few good UGC propositions coming out of traditional media companies. So we looked at all the good UGC sites, and we took them apart, really did, to find out what made them work. And it wasn’t old media habits. In many ways what we’re not doing as well online is the old media bits, you know, publishing articles, and we can do a lot better on that. But I think we’re doing it the right way round. Get the social media right first, and then the publishing.
And what’s going to make you succeed?
The essence of success here is that teachers need information; they’re information intensive workers, and there’s a huge value in bringing that information together so it can be shared. Our strap, and this is a shift from the brand of the print TES, is: ‘for teachers, by teachers.’
Interview by Alex Lockwood
Share
Sphere: Related Content
August 20th, 2008
Rating: 
What do they say it is?
“socialmedian is a social news service that connects people with personalized news and information. socialmedian enables you to easily keep up-to-date on the news that matters to you and to people who share your interests.”
What do I say it is?
Social bookmarking meets RSS reader with a social filtering element.
What’s great about it?
The way it combines the strengths of its influences. The way you can find out more about users. I’m not sure how, but the news mix here seems fresher - or that just might be its early adopter alpha tester user base.
What could be better?
Being in alpha stage, there are bugs. More social connections are desperately needed - I can add a delicious user to my network, why not a socialmedian user? It’s lacking a Great Idea that lifts it above the competition.
How is it going to make money?
The usual suspects would be advertising or a freemium business model. If del.icio.us is any guide, the business model is being bought up by a Big Name.
Should I pay it any attention?
It’s worth a try if you can get an invite (Every Tuesday a new alpha invite code is posted on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/socialmedian), as a useful tool on a personal level. As a business model, it’s not showing anything worth following, yet.
By Paul Bradshaw
Share
Sphere: Related Content
May 15th, 2008
Here is the European news interactivity index. Select a newspaper or country from the drop-down menus and you can compare any two newspapers or countries.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
April 29th, 2008
Rating: 
What do they say it is?
“Friction.tv believes that disagreement - or friction - is a vital element for a healthy debate, to reach new insights and to find out what’s really going on in society. We need disagreement before we can start to find some answers… Friction.tv is unbiased, open and uncensored (except for explicit content)… empowers you to climb on the soapbox and voice your mind about any topic at any time. You can ignore mass media and bring out the issues that really matter… Friction.tv will provide an interesting and stimulating alternative to the sanitised, agenda driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media.”
What do I say it is?
A formulaic video publishing site that relies too much on the soapbox for its claims to be an alternative media platform. For example, it has sections for Politics, Education, Environment, Local Issues, Sport, Society, Entertainment, and sponsored channels. A quick comparison, some of the sections of Guardian.co.uk are News, Sport, Politics, Environment, Culture, etc… Some of Friction.tv’s main content providers are The Conservatives, Greenpeace, LBC Radio. The content is somewhere between Youtube and Current.tv, without ever quite feeling either spontaneous, timely, or usefully provocative.
What’s great about it?
The speed of the viewing interface, the breadth of voices, the open access for any editorial, and the narrow brief—issues that can be debated.
I’m pleased to be able to access , for example, the views of Ian Taylor MP, Chair of the Conservative Science & Technology Committee, “arguing why there should be a rationale debate over this country’s energy requirements” as much as to hear the views of the Washington DC students talking over the noise of the kitchen party about old white men in power.
And forgive me, but I do love the retro curved TV box to watch the video through. I also think the learnt navigation / interaction is great (once learnt), in that you need to roll over the video for the dynamic control box (pause, play, volume, FFWD etc) to pop up. It’s probably a good idea, too, to hide the controls and time counter in this way, particularly when you’ve clicked on a video from David Cameron asking “I think our relationship with America is vital. What do you think?” and the first minute is all about the situation in the Balkans. Who edited that one?
What could be better?
Which brings me onto… content. Of course Friction.tv is subject to the quality of the video and argument uploaded, and some of it… most of it… just isn’t worthy of debate. Some areas of the mass media are banal, celebrity, agenda-driven, dumbed-down versions of journalism. But that doesn’t mean I want an online video debate site to reproduce that same dilute and scattergun approach to content, particularly when that site is claiming to provide an alternative. A lot of the content is either advertising a belief or position, or simply soap-box raving, which does not engender debate. Friction, maybe, but there is a difference.
Take this ‘debate’ as an example. I chose this example for two key reasons. First, it was one of the advertised ‘hot topics’ on the homepage. Second, its headline ties in with what Friction.tv says about itself, providing alternatives to the ‘agenda-driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media’.
Under the title “Islamophobes: don’t believe the media” it is in fact a very softly spoken advertisement for the Edinburgh Central Mosque and activities they are running at the Edinburgh festival (I assume last August, 2007: the debate has been running for seven months, but is on the homepage as it is one of the ‘hot debates’ as it has gained the most comments, 799 when reviewing).
But a) it is not a debate, b) nothing in the video makes reference to why the mass media cannot be trusted, and puts forward no arguments, c) the comments are not a direct debating response, d) there is no response I can see from the makers of the video, and e) can a debate run for seven months? Not to mention f) what are the answers, what next, what happens now?
This seems a fairly typical example. The ratio of video responses for this story (1 out of 799) is also about standard. The people at OneWorld.tv tried this video dialogue back in 2001/2 but it failed. Maybe it was too early. Maybe Friction.tv is itself also a bit premature for video-to-video debate.
A couple of points on accessibility/usability:
- Every video does not have a transcript, which to meet good accessibility standards they should have. Of course this will be difficult, but it does mean Friction.tv is only for those who do not have a hearing disability
- The debates / comments publish last at the top; there is no right answer to this, but if you are trying to read the flow of a debate (rather than just a list of comments) then you need to constantly scroll up, down a little bit, back up, etc. The BBC publish comments from top to bottom. As do sites that encourage debate on their articles, such as OpenDemocracy.net. Another video site, current.tv, also do comments chronologically from top to bottom, so you can follow the debate (as an example view this debate)
- Are the Agree/Neutral/Disagree flags with the original video, or to the comment before, etc? What if the original video is not posing a particular question, or it is crowbarred to fit the format for the site?
- The ‘local issues’ tab also means happening locally, not necessarily local to you. Which needs sorting, as there is no way to sort what is local (i.e. within 50 miles or so) to me. So it immediately frustrates.
How is it going to make money?
The numbers game. The more views and comments, the more traffic, hence the benefit from remaining editorially removed from managing the hot topic choices, for example.
Also, Friction.tv has a number of channels (e.g. sponsored video feeds) from the likes of The Conservatives, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, all organisations that want to create debate and will bring in traffic. These channels are actually one of the better things on the site, as they try (although do not always succeed) to frame the content within a for/against debate.
Should I pay it any attention?
Out of the corner of the eye, yes. Friction.tv is one of the easy to use video/TV sites vying for a position of notoriety and fame (and the advertising revenue) along with current.tv, youtube.com, green.tv etc, and could potentially to be the one to win the race. But with only two subscribers to its Youtube channel, it needs to rely less on the ideal of free speech to make its name and more on delivering some of those ‘answers’ that it talks about in its promotional blurb.
By Alex Lockwood
Share
Sphere: Related Content
April 9th, 2008
Friction.tv is inviting students to make submissions about international, national and local causes and issues they feel passionate about onto our site. We are an independent website with no affiliations to corporations or media organisations and our cont
Continue Reading March 28th, 2008
"social decision-making tool to help research and make decisions online" What do you think of this one?
Continue Reading March 28th, 2008
an interactive portal of information on Vegas restaurants, sporting events, schools and “everything hyperlocal.”
Continue Reading March 27th, 2008
Rating:
Paul Bradshaw looks at FriendFeed
What do they say it is?
“FriendFeed enables you to keep up-to-date on the web pages, photos, videos and music that your friends and family are sharing. It offers a unique way to discover and discuss information among friends.”
What do I say it is?
Facebook, but uglier and more flexible.
What’s great about it?
It does what it says. The suggestion feature allows you to discover people and feeds you would otherwise not know about. Unlike Facebook, you don’t have to be someone’s friend to follow their stuff. The imaginary friend feature allows you to aggregate feeds. It has also released its API, opening up all sorts of possibilities for third party apps.
What could be better?
A more usable interface; some way to filter the information overload that comes from a river of feeds from anyone and everyone.
How is it going to make money?
Given it’s copied Facebook’s success so far, probably advertising. But also selling services to other clients who want bespoke apps, etc. may be another revenue stream.
Should I pay it any attention?
Given the hype so far, it’ll be hard not to. The impression here is of something that will continue to develop in an iterative way, particularly with 3rd party apps, so yes, watch it and see how it grows.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
March 26th, 2008
Rating:
Paul Bradshaw looks at CoverItLive
What do they say it is?
“CoveritLive’s web based software takes your next live blog to a new level. Your commentary publishes in real time like an instant message. Our ‘one-click’ publishing lets you drop polls, videos, pictures, ads and audio clips as soon as they come to mind. Comments and questions from your readers instantly appear but you control what gets published. Try our software for your next live blog. Your readers will love it.”
What do I say it is?
A Twitter-meets-chatroom-meets-poll that you can embed on your site.
What’s great about it?
The combination of different technologies makes for a compelling mix. In particular the comments feature transforms into a chatroom of sorts. Using this to cover JEEcamp I found users were chatting to each other about the event they were following, creating a second level of coverage and discussion. It also enables multiple author coverage (we had four authors posting on separate laptops simultaneously), and more easy and flexible embedding than Twitter. The polls are a nice touch which also enables more dialogue with ‘viewers’, and you can embed video and images.
What could be better?
They are working on searchability, apparently, and have already made it possible to export onto your own site. It has also crashed previously, while embedding may not be simple for everyone (it worked on a Wordpress-hosted site). Tagging and geotagging could be added. Adding images and video could be easier - integration with a live video service such as Qik would make this incredible.
How is it going to make money?
Once they have a foothold, advertising is an obvious option. But more promising would be a ‘freemium’ model where users can pay for extra features. Most likely we’ll see a combination, with the paid-for version being ad-free as well.
Should I pay it any attention?
Very much so. Publishers will find this incredibly useful in covering live events. Entrepreneurs should pay attention to what looks like a potential profit-maker.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
March 26th, 2008
Apologies if we go back to the same ’source’ material again. And this time, I’ll give the author his due
Continue Reading March 25th, 2008
Previous Posts
