Gray Lady Down

By Jayson Jarmon, CEO, Lux Worldwide

O, my prophetic soul. A little over a month ago, I made the prediction that the newspaper industry had no choice but to adapt to the digital world, that the Internet would entirely eliminate the print versions of local and national newspapers. Furthermore, I said it was a good thing.

I was greeted with skepticism, one friend telling me that there will always be a market for the print version of papers, and that a flagship paper like The New York Times will always be available in some print form or another. He scoffed at my prognostication.

Yesterday, the chairman and publisher of The New York Times announced that they will move entirely to the Internet within 5 years ... if they can survive long enough to do it. The Gray Lady, so called due to their resistance to adopt color printing until the very last (they didn't want to be too much like USA Today, after all) has relied heavily on tradition and old-fashioned newspaper publishing as its main thrust. But now, after losing $570 million between the Times and the Boston Globe, the Times publishing group has been compelled to take action. And "compelled" is the right word: their banker, Morgan Stanley, is attempting to take over the group to stop the bleeding.

Once again, let me just say, everything that can be digital will be digital. The Internet is re-writing the rules for virtually every information and communication company in the world, and those who don't pay attention to the changes or rely on what they have always done in the past are doomed to the same fate as the Times.

I can already hear the moans and the teeth-gnashing from dozens of friends who subscribe to but do not read The New York Times. Soon they will no longer have the New York Times Book Review to conspicuously carry around. Not to worry, the same content will be available on the net so you will still be able to quote Maureen Dowd as if she really mattered in Seattle, and be able to wow your book club with cribbed reviews of the newest Edith Wharton bio.

The Times they are-a changin'.

Project Management vs. Account Management

By Jayson Jarmon, CEO, Lux Worldwide

It's not unusual for clients whose have primarily worked in the past with advertising agencies to express some confusion when they see a role called "Project Management" in bids from web development companies.

It's a term that seem fairly self-explanatory to those of us who come from a software development background, but it is not at all clear to those with an advertising or PR background. This is very understandable-in the same way that web development mixes media, it mixes production techniques and processes from different industries. Web Development companies try to borrow what's worked in the past, modifying it to new media development, and also create new roles that are better adapted to the online paradigm.

Those with an agency background work with an account manager and usually don't see a line item calling the project management work type out in a bid. The idea is that account management is "free" to the client. That is, the person or person who are assigned to watch over the project process, see to it that deadlines are met, and serve as the client's main point of contact is offered up without charge as a cost of doing business. That's why it strikes some people as odd when seeing a bid from a web development company that not only calls out project management, puts it front and center in the project process, but then has the gall to charge good money for it. Some take great offense. If some companies offer it for free, why do others charge for it? Well, they are right about this: someone is trying to rip them off.

The fact of the matter is that everyone charges for project management, but some approaches are just a little more, well, honest than others. You see, the agency that includes the project management cost for "free" is simply marking up their other hourly rates to pay for the project oversight. The costs are there, simply hidden in a mish-mash of numbers, obscured in the design and build rates. The bid is simply cooked and the numbers monkeyed-with until the actual cost is reached.

Lux and the other web development companies that use a software development model feel the agency model is fundamentally dishonest, does not help the client understand the actual costs associated with web development work, obfuscates the process, and prevents clients from getting clear and accurate project feedback. The simple truth is managing the communication, scheduling, process, and production of online materials takes time and money, and hiding it behind other work types, or, worse yet, burying those costs in time and materials deals where it can never be clearly accounted for, is just plain wrong.

So, if you see those project management hours in bids for Internet service work, do not despair. All it means is that the service company is being clear and accurate for you, and that you will get an experienced project manager assigned to your project, not some intern that you never meet or who doesn't know his HTML from his BS.

Y2K Redux

By Jayson Jarmon, CEO, Lux Worldwide

As we all know, the millennial fears associated with the Y2K "bug" never materialized, but that didn't stop Y2K consultants from making billions of dollars by playing on the public's anxiety. Y2K consultants were little better than snake oil salesmen, and their legacy has damaged the Internet service sector's reputation.

Not surprisingly, many of these same consultants have re-emerged as proponents of the so-called Web 2.0 movement, once again panning for gold in a river of woeful consumer ignorance. My advice to potential employers in the tech sector is to scan resumes for references to Y2K consulting, and to deposit those resumes in the garbage can accordingly.

Because many consumers feel they were misled, when problems do arise in the future you will hear them say ... "this is just another Y2K scare." It's necessary to have a healthy skepticism of any doomsday talk, and, like Chicken Little, prophets of disaster will go ignored. I suppose that's because of the profits of disaster.

So here's the newest disaster scenario for you. It will probably have more effect than Y2K ever did, but even if it's twice as bad, two times zero is still zero.

About five years ago, the US Congress ordained that daylight saving time would be extended by a month starting in 2007 in order to conserve energy. In other words, this year we'll be "springing ahead" about a month early. The problem is, banks, airports, government, and the entire corporate business structure has pre-programmed the change to occur a month later-the results, we are told, will send the entire world into confusion … time itself will be set out of joint. Appointments missed! TIVOs recording the wrong program! People arriving early for work! One extra hour of interest paid to bank customers! Half of the people will have to reset their alarm clocks! Panic in the streets!

The fact is, this will have little or no affect whatsoever. As the late Douglas Adams said, "Don't Panic." Whenever you see someone hyping a technical concern like this, ask yourself who stands to gain from it. Somewhere back behind the scenes you will find the same old snake-oil salesmen pushing their new unctions and remedies.

So, watch out for this new ploy and anyone who would profit by its promulgation (sorry, my alliteration key was stuck).