"Publishing Careers on the Web: Extraordinary Oppurtunity or Career Dead-End?" By David Abrahamson Northwestern University "Lunch with a Prof" Talk at Communications Residential College, Northwestern University, 9/17/97 Communications technology largely based on the World Wide Web has certainly come into its own. But the Web itself has existed for maybe twenty years, largely the result of the efforts of the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency. They decided that people doing military research and other researchers at universities needed to talk each other. And that created the physical infrastructure that we now think of as the Internet or the World Wide Web. When you all were sophomores in high school, had you ever heard of the World Wide Web? Have you ever heard of Netscape? Probably not. It is amazing that all this could have matured in the last 2 or 3 years. The question now is: a) What are its effects going to be; b) What are the implications for people in your position who will be looking for a job in communications in the foreseeable future. To get an the answer to that, the easiest thing to do is to step back and say, when was there another similar sort of revolution and what effects did it have? Without any intimate knowledge of history, can you tell me when was the last time that there was a major communications revolution that was largely technologically driven? Student response: Television? You bet. Commercial television was invented in 1948 and fully established by the mid-1950s. Then something really interesting happened in 1960 concerning television. Do you know what it was? I know you were all born in the late 1970s, so 1960 was long before your time. But do you know what it was? Anyone want to take a guess? Have you ever read in your history books or heard your parents talk about the Kennedy-Nixon Debates? Senator Kennedy and Vice President Nixon were running against each other in the election of 1960. Nixon was very, very well-known. Heıd been a vice-president for 8 years. There were some people that liked him, some people didnıt like him, but clearly he was a major public figure. Heıd been on the public stage for more than a decade. Kennedy, on the other hand, was something of an unknown -- very dashing, very handsome, very good on his feet, never without his sailing tan, but not many people knew him. And he had a couple of things against him: a) he was young; b) he was a Catholic. Back then, being a Catholic almost ruled out the possibility of running for the office of the President of the United States. Some people ffeared a catholic Presidnet would, as they said, take orders from the Pope. What was unique in the 1960 election was that that something took place that never happened before: the two presidential candidates agreed to debate on television. That first debate actually took place here in Chicago, late September of 1960. Going into that debate, Kennedy was behind in the polls and everyone was pretty certain that Nixon was going to win. No one was really sure, but it looked like Nixon was ahead. Then they had the televised debate. People that heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had won, said that heıd answered questions better, that he attacked a little better, that he seemed more knowledgeable. They trusted him more. People who saw the debate on television had thought Kennedy had won. And far more people, some 60 million, saw it on television. 60 million people saw it on television. And from that point on, Kennedy never trailed in the polls. In effect, that first televised debate and three others that took place afterward completely turned the election around. Now, the interesting thing is: What was the effect other than that we got Kennedy as president rather than Nixon? It was the perception in peopleıs minds after the debate that had not existed in their minds before vis à vis a specific communications technology. Itıs obvious -- is that suddenly the power of television was indisputable. That if you wanted to, if you wanted to market a mass- market product, the most effective , efficient, dominant way to do it would be through television. And if you tracked advertising revenues, for example, even though televisionıs advertising revenues had passed those of newspapers, magazines and radio before 1960. It had actually passed them sort of in the late Œ50s. After 1960, the television revenues just shoot up, shoot off the top of the charts. At all of the decision makers, at Proctor and Gamble, at Lever Brothers, at Ford, at General Motors, all the big consumer companies, before, no one really accepted television as a marketing media. People sort of said that television is just like radio with pictures. That was the phrase that was used. And radio had its niche in the communications galaxy. After the Kennedy-Nixon Debate, everyone said, we have a whole new ball game. Television is going to have a role in the center of our culture, not just in the communications media but in the center of our culture that everyoneıs going to have to start dealing with. Now, what happened on the media side was that magazines had to somehow come to terms with this new medium because they were losing huge amounts of advertising for television. Have you ever heard of magazines called Look magazine, Life Magazine, Saturday Evening Post, Collierıs? Okay. All these were huge, mass market magazines. Maybe your granddadsı attic had a bunch of those magazines. Itıs possible that they did. They made their living at a circulation of seven, eight, nine, 10 million weekly readers. Paid subscribers, paid readers not just pass along. They made their living with those ads from Ford or General Motors or Sears or Procter & Gamble. All of that mass market advertising went to television; the magazine world got completely turned around. Many of those big magazines, by the Œ70s, had gone out of business and transformed themselves into something else. The niche that they found to then exist in was to have much much smaller circulation, much smaller audiences targeted with more specific topics and the magazine industry today exists because of those events in the 1960 with circulation of a fraction of the size they used to have. Theyıre dealing with very, very particular topics that are of interest to particular people. Itıs in effect, not really a mass medium anymore. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? If I have fewer readers, does that mean I lose money? You all know the economics of media is fewer readers means I get to sell fewer magazines to readers. But we know that advertisers pay for about half of the revenue. But if Iıve got the right readers, I can charge the right advertisers -- maybe not Procter & Gamble wonıt give me the Tide ad but I could charge the right advertisers a premium to reach those readers because those readers are exactly who that advertisers want to get to. Right? If Iım Mr.? and youıre the owner of Skiing magazine, I have to be in your magazine. I know that the only people that read your magazine are the people who like to ski. In fact, they pick up skis, they buy my skis and they buy all kinds of stuff, and three or four years later they pick up white water canoeing and I donıt have to work with you???theyıll just let the issues expire. So, rather than pay???thereıs a thing called CPM, cost per thousand, have you all of heard of that? Itıs a way to equate the cost of advertising with the circulation media. Itıs the cost for every thousand readers or viewers. The CPM for prime time television is about 5 dollars. Not coincidentally, the CPM for TV Guide is five dollars also. The same people, right? An undifferentiated mass audience. The CPM of Time or Newsweek is about $15. Thatıs a little more select audience. The CPM of the womenıs service books, they buy a lot of Revlon so itıs a little more, thatıs like $20, $25. The CPM of Popular Photography, Skiing, Road or Track, Golf Digest, all those very, very targeted highly specialist books, could be as high as $50 or $60. Compare $50 or $60 to that five dollars, current dollars, that Life or Look were charging. I can reduce my production costs and have a much smaller magazine, not just send the printer as much money, and I can actually make huge amounts of more money than my advertising because Iım delivering those skiers. Iıll pay whatever you charge me to reach those skiers because if I donıt advertise in your magazine Iıll lose them. Theyıll be buying The Comet or K-2 or some other. You can see how it sort of tightens the relationship. Thatıs all what television did to magazine. Now weıre sort of in a brave new world and weıve got a new medium called the Web. First real big question is, you have to ask yourself: is it a mass medium or is it a targeted medium? The World Wide Web. Going back to magazines versus television, what do you think? (STUDENT RESPONSE). You think itıs targeted. (SR) Targeted. (SR) I think youıre right, right now. I think in the long run thatıs a problem that has to shake out. Remember, the web user makes a decision of where to go and so itıs like a web user is standing at the newsstand. Now, think of it not so much in terms of property but in terms of buyer. At a newsstand at an airport, the person that comes to the door of the newsstand is the representative of the mass audience. We donıt know anything about them. Right? Thatıs just a body.. That a person that watches the X-Files?. Who knows who those are? Right? The second they take four more steps and go someplace in the newsstand, theyıve identified themselves as having a particular interest. I think the clicking, I think the clicking -- URL saying ³Go To² defines, I think, a specific audience. Now, what we donıt know and what has not been worked out at all is how we get from that undifferentiated man -- how do we know how theyıre going to find you ? What are the links that are going to take them to where you are? ??? Addressing their particular interests, that hasnıt been worked out yet. Now, the question is, the next big question is, how is this going to affect communications? You can go beyond that: How is this going to affect society? Television has certainly affected society. Wouldnıt you say? The world in 1995 is very different from the world in 1945 and I could make a good argument that a third of that difference has to do with television. That third is not the better third either. So, okay, whatıs the effect going to be? What do we know so far about what might or might not happen? Letıs say within the next five years when the media matures. What are some of the possible communications effects, what are some of the possible social effects? Those are valid questions to ask. The real answers are going to be determined by people like you. What do you think? Letıs make it easier for ourselves. What are some of the good effects, nice things, some good things that could happen? (SR) Absolutely. A lot more information access. So, the basic ideology of both information technologies is essentially a democratic one. The whole thing is: More people will have access to more things. Okay. Whatıs the flip side of that? (SR) Save that for a second. Whatıs the flip side to much more access to much more information? To take a spin on your comment -- itıs not so much regulation but itıs the quality of the information. We all know really, itıs in the quality. In a way, if you buy The New York Times -- do any of you read The New York Times - - a couple of times a week at least? Okay, you buy The New York Times you are reading someone very, very competent -- whether you agree with their view of the world or not. Someone very, very competent made some real decisions about what they think is important and put it on the front page of that paper. This is what you need to know. The evaluative function has taken place and that in many ways is what really adds volume to media. Someone whoıs supposed to know something about this said, ³ ŒThis is what you need to know.² The problem with everyone having access to everything is thereıs no evaluative function. You could get the garbage off of my web page as well as the really important stuff off Bobıs web page and thereıs really no way to know whoıs going to tell you that mine probably should be taken with a grain of salt. How many of you are journalism majors? A bunch of you. Have you had problems already getting information off the web that you could not verify the accuracy? The other problem is that thereıs an awful lot we donıt know the quality of. That will probably improve over time but itıs still a real issue. Okay. The other issue was sort of the democracy, the democratic aspect of access. Are the rich going to get richer and are the poor going to get poorer? We all come from quite privileged backgrounds although we may not think of ourselves that way. Your first computer in school, you encountered at what grade? (SR) First or second grade. What grade? You encountered your first computer in the classroom at what grade? Second grade? We are all aware that we come from specifically privileged backgrounds . What happens to people that sort of not fall on the ??? but were never on the ??? How far are they going to be left behind. Letıs say that the web is the dominant media communication, in some form , transformed from what it is today. My God. Can you imagine all those people in ??? of American cities? Theyıre going to be like people today that canıt read. This is a is fairly deep medium. (speaking to student) Historically, thatıs not the way it happened. Get to another parallel of something. You have to have to have -- for modern life -- the telephone. Having a telephone requires that you have electricity. Up until about 1935, vast regions of America did not have electricity. One of the programs of the New Deal was rural electricity. Do you remember reading about that in United States history? Basically brought electricity to people to have phones. Prior to 1930, less educated, less affluent -- rural population of America did not have a telephone. They didnıt have it; they had no access to it. Thatıs the parallel that youıll apply 10 years from now. Sure, telephones were all around, thereıs nothing exotic about it anymore. Theyıre a commodity. But you know theyıre ??? in the South Side of Chicago ??? that could be a problem. ??? What if web access clearly within your lifetime. In ten years, suppose it becomes a necessity. I donıt have the answers but Iım just saying, itıs a serious democratic issue. Letıs look at other countries. You know what France has done? Itıs not a very good computer but eight years ago, no, nine years ago, France, in effect, bought every household a computer. A little mini-tel, it was called, a lousy little screen. They computerized and databased all the phone books in France and dating services and reservation services. By todayıs standards, it was a pretty limp effort. But they said this is terribly important to our society as a whole. It is cohesion. Thatıs really what weıre talking about. Nine years ago, France bought each household a computer. Will we be prepared to do that? Will middle-class Americans pay taxes -- increase their taxes so that people can afford a computer? We have trouble of getting people health care? Weıre in a mode now where weıre denying people health care because middle-class people donıt want to pay taxes. Will middle-class people pay taxes to give someone a computer? I donıt know, I donıt now the answer to it but itıs going to be something to wrestle with. Okay. Next question. If we donıt know whatıs going to come, we donıt know how itıs going to work out, but we know this big thing is coming, what are the implications for us?.??? Right now in publishing of all its kinds, the job breakdown is sort of, the ratio is 2-to-1. There are 200,000 jobs in newspapers; there are roughly 100,000 jobs in broadcasting; there are roughly 100,000 jobs in magazines, and there are 50,000 in newsletters. There are nearly half as many jobs in newsletters as there are in magazines or broadcast television. Thatıs actually kind of amazing, isnıt it? Thereıs this secret thing going on that no one???and???the newsletters outpay the othersı jobs because theyıre real, real specialized. Medill only offered its first newsletter course last year. Even then, people were like ³Thatıs not Œreal journalismı² So in that market place, what do we have? 250,000 jobs in that areas. The question is, when you people graduate, how many of those might have a significant web component and would you consider -- or should you consider? Hereıs the data we have right now, thereıs a one-year lag in the data. Two years ago, a survey of all BSJs and MSJs in the country, revealed that hardly anybody that graduated from a journalism school got a job with significant on-line components -- data from probably two and a half years ago. If you think about, that means that, that was still Mosaic, remember the software Mosaic. That was still in the infancy, not a lot of people went after it. One year later, like a year and three months ago, of all the respondents, that number had gone up to about seven or eight per cent. When you think of answers of why did it suddenly jump like that. What are the driving forces? What are the forces we have to consider? Last June, using Medill data, roughly 10% of Medill graduates got jobs with an on-line component at the undergraduate level and that goes up a bit higher at the graduate level. The good news also is that it pays much, much better. By and large, The median salary is $5,000-$6,000 higher than the entry-level salary in traditional print or broadcast. Median entry-level salary is $30,000 and there are an awful lot of entry-level newspaper jobs that pay $21,500. Now, ask yourself: Why is there that premium of salary? Why? Exactly. Itıs specialized, itıs rare and theyıre scared and they, every media mogul, knows this is coming, doesnıt know what shape itıs going to be when it hits the beach but think ³We got to get ready. We got to get ready. Go get us those bodies to get that with.² At the same time, nobody over 40 that already works for them has a clue whatıs going on. So, in effect, they have to go find really bright, young people that are going to take the whole organization to the technological frontier. You can bet that there who had passed those 42-year-olds, who have uneasy???with this stuff. Bob and I are pretty fluent. We are in it because we are in an educational environment, we have access to it, itıs part of our educational environment, we have access to it, itıs part of our world. We have to learn it. It is part of our world because we have to teach it to you. As adults, weıre the real exception. Thereıs some people down in the basement using manual typewriters. ??? This is a ??? speaking of a whole new language so all of these big, big media companies are desperate and so the brightest, most competent people they can find they want to hire and theyıll compete. In effect, theyıre competing for a rare resource, that is, you guys, and thatıs why they pay a lot of money. But thereıs another question and that is, should you take the money? Whatıs the future of this? Right now, a lot of these companies are just reacting out of fear; they are just start getting this stuff up on-line. They donıt know whatıs going on. The Chicago Tribune on-line network, called Tribune Media Services, has something like 300 employees right now. The Tribune has 300 on-line workers right now. ??? A lot of itıs developmental work. Thereıs a lot of programming work for on-line people. That leads you to the heart of the question and that is, is this something that someone interested in a communications career ought to pursue or is this sub??? Will all of this flurry of activity, everybody talking about it, all of these wonderful salaries, whatıs the downside to taking one of these jobs? Would you ruin your career by doing so? Wouldnıt it, for example, if it all goes away or thereıs a transfer that youıre not prepared for, would you then be obsolete? What if they changed their minds and say they decided to do something else instead-- interactive television or who knows what itıll be. Will you suddenly find yourself having made a choice, selected a stallion, saddled it, went off into the sunset, and it turns out to be the darkest dawn. What would you do? How would you know? What are the implications of that? Is there anyway to kind of come to a conclusion about that? I donıt presume to know the answer about that myself...(SR) Iıll tell you what my guess is about -- itıs only a guess . I think that our colleague unfortunately has to leave has a big part in the answer. I think ultimately, no matter where you end up in a communications profession, what youıre being hired for is youıre still as a reporter and a writer. To go find, evaluate, organize, re-manufacture. One of the wonderful things about Northwestern as a whole, about the writing programs and Medillıs program is: We produce people who know how to do that. They know how to do that at a very, very high level. Thatıs ultimately what youıd be hired for. So, in the end, I think thatıs the savior. The technological -- not skills -- technological familiarity-- does anyone know URL?-- kind of a little bit, a web page, you know, just that sort of basic knowledge so you know what a URL is, you know the ACML, you can do front page, you can do PageMill. Those kinds of pretty basic technological skills, I think, are a very nice veneer to put on the top as a mention probably in the job interview. But theyıre not your core competency. Your core competency is your reporting and writing and if youıve mastered that, youıll always be worthwhile. Another thing that comes to my mind is youıve got some choice about what happens once you report for one of these jobs. Suppose the job is just converting already existing material and putting it up on-line. Youıre just translating. That would be a kind of job for a bore. I would ask the person hiring me, ³Will there be original reporting and writing involved in this: I really want to continue to do that.² So that you end up defining your job as something other than just a technician. So that you keep those skills honed, thatıs important. Another factor I think would be to be sure that thereıs some way -- what is the career path into this? What is the career path out of that? Do people move from the Washington Post on-line to the real Washington Post newsroom, back to the Washington Post on-line? That way you sort of hedge your bets so you donıt end up getting pigeon-holed. Being pigeon- holed per se, Iım not sure is a bad thing. You might continue to have a wonderful salary, have interesting work. But I do think there are some possible ???. Even if on-line continues to flourish, thereıs a dead end- - not that on-line itself is a dead end but thereıs some dead end little box canyons on your career path that you have to make you donıt ever get stuffed into. The good news is that when you get stuffed in the dead end or not, itıs largely up to you to determine. You all know about writing your own job description? You all know that when you get hired, they hire you -- in most communication profession jobs, roughly a third of what you do every day is pretty much up to you to decide what to do. Hallelujah. And so, what you do is you go insinuate yourself, go to the man, go to the editor of the magazine or the person that edits the book review. Youıre on Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone on-line but go to the book review editor and say -- Iıve done some book reviews -- God, Iıd really love to some more -- and you can re- define your own job to have a conventional print dimension to it within your own organization. Look for those kinds of opportunities, a lot of that -- if you accept the responsibility for a degree of self-direction, youıll never be pigeon-holed, it never has to t have to become a dead end. Whether I, if I was a junior right now -- would I or would I not get a job on-line? My answer would be absolutely yes, I would. But Iıd be very canny about who I took it from, Iıd really want to know a lot about the context, what the actual content of the job would be and Iıd ask those sort of career development questions rather than just be snookered by the by the money or some kind of dazzling title. Weıve had graduates at Medill, graduates of the graduate program at Medill, they got $36,000 salaries -- it was on-line, so it was really kind of whiz- popper, and what theyıre doing is essentially working in a classified advertising department. Itıs a very wonderful paper, itıs the Washington Post, but they work for the classified advertising department and they came to Medill to be a journalist. Itıs not defined as classified advertising but thatıs sort of the section theyıll be working on. I think it was a bad career move. Theyıd better get out of there quickly or theyıll probably be in trouble. I would take the job but Iıd be very kind of deliberate about it. Prior to getting a job, Iıd really make a point to, of going to ACML, going that technological path. Thereıs no reason for anyone to graduate from college anywhere, even if theyıre an English major and not have that technological property. I think that every college should have made their own web page -- itıs simple to do. Weıre taking about two days worth of self-instruction and you can do it. Because when people come to ask, to do the job interviews??? Somewhere was here a year ago and I said, how important is that to you, you know, the technological stuff, and I remember the answer they gave me. ŒTell them to put it on their resumé above their phone number.ı Itıs more important than their phone number. Because of that 40-year-old problem that every media company has now. Theyıre desperate for you guys to do it for them. So, cash in but my advice would be -- cash in wisely. Any questions? Any comments? (SR) I think itıs going to be. Iım kind of showing my own colors but itıs sort of like, I remember reading a book about computers in about 1978 and I actually learned how computers use binary codes to do an addition. Iıve always felt really empowered by that, not that Iıve ever done it but that the one and the zero go together. I just read this little book and I think that the application of ACML, that mark-up language ??? donıt see it anymore but I think just the basic knowledge of what the codes look like will be a real confidence-builder if nothing else. Thereıll be software that comes out within the next two or three years and youıll never see those codes anymore. (SR) I also find -- you know when Iım using Front Page of Page Mill that sometimes the tweaks I want to do, I go back into the source code -- not the source code -- but I go back in the ACML code, and make my change in the ACML code and then go back into the operating software to go back to the code just for a little tweak -- you know, spacingıs wrong -- itıs easier to do it at that level than it is use it. The software can do it but itıs easier to drop down to the code level. So, itıs so easy to learn. (SR) Always look at downstream, thatıs where the fault is. Iıll give you another example. We at Medill, in the Magazine area, we do a lot of placement advising for our students, weıre really proud of our placement, especially at the graduate level. Thereıs 36 students a year; they all get great jobs. They all get like, no one believes us when we say, but they all go on like 30 interviews and they all get five or six offers. The real problem is which offer to choose from. No, they canıt believe it. Itıs true, every time, itıs true. The real thing is what happens if you get an offer as a fact-checker or researcher at Fortune Magazine or Vanity Fair? Boy, wouldnıt you rush back to the reunion and brag about it or -- you get a job as an Assistant Editor or maybe even Associate Editor with heavy writing responsibilities at a small magazine that nobody every heard of? Oceans Magazine, Success Magazine. Even some kind of downscale. Which job should you take? Thereıs a real incentive to take that job at Vanity Fair, right? Because thatıs status, even assuming that money would be equal which it probably isnıt, people probably think the Vanity Fair job even if the money was less because of the status. Unfortunately, that job at Fortune Magazine, youıre not going to do any writing, youıre never going to get a by-line, youıre going to do your work and stick it in a slot and someone else will go over it and youıll never see it again. Now, in terms of what youıll learn in that position, really minimal. A lot of people stay fact-checkers at Fortune magazine for 14 years. Whereas a job with no prestige at all, no status at all, less money, at some magazine that no oneıs ever heard of but you have a lot of responsibility, you can learn a lot at really thatıs the better choice. I would argue thatıs the better choice to take. Thereıs sort of a parallel here of you have to sort of say what are the consequences going to be? Always ask yourself, what will this job teach me Thatıll be of value to Me enterprises in five to 10 years from now? Now, thatıs really a hard question to answer. Iıve got two job offers, which one am I going to learn the most? Go talk to people that work there already in the same job, ask faculty members -- investigate a little bit. But that seems to me more than any other criterion, the key thing you need to know to make a first job choice. I think that applies exactly here. It canıt just sort of be the money. Investigate where it leads to, where is this going to lead. Now, five years seems like a huge distance down, I know, and a lot of people just hop into any job the moment they get the offer but be a little canny if you can, and I think itıll really pay dividends. Because there are great-paying, high prestige jobs out there that really are dead ends and there are not so well-paying jobs, and not very much status that mean that 20 years from now, youıll be promoted to Editor-in-Chief of Sports Illustrated or The Portland Oregonian or whatever it is. Because the learning experience you encounter in that first five or 10 years, thatıs a crucial time. Once weıre done, once weıve given you all we can give you, which is only that much, the rest that you add to that comes in those first 10 years of employment. Of the experiences youıve had, of the responsibilities youıve been allowed to take on -- thatıs whatıs so career-crushing about those other jobs at the really big, prestigious companies -- is that youıre never going to get any responsibility. Youıre just a little cog in a little wheel. Itıs not all of them but a lot of them can be that way. Not all of it but a lot of it can be that way. Would you agree with that? Copyright 1997 David Abrahamson. All rights reserved.