Ten (or more) media industry news items you might have missed recently:

1) Surprisingly, the biggest news items of the past two weeks come from the ‘dying’ world of publishing. The ‘Time’ in Time Warner is officially breaking off as Time Warner has announced a split with its magazine division, Time Inc. The spin-off will make Time Inc. an independent, publicly traded company, currently the number-one magazine publisher in the U.S, featuring People, Sports Illustrated, Forbes and of course, Time. But Time Warner isn’t the only conglomerate making bold publishing moves, as News Corp. is creating a new publishing-focused company, still named News Corporation, granting it a healthy starting-allowance of $2.6 billion. This has led to multiple reactions from the industry with fears of possible layoffs at Time.

2) Staying in the world of magazines, Next Issue Media has expanded beyond Apple to launch on Windows 8 and Microsoft products like the Surface. Following a subscription model for unlimited access to over 80 magazines, Next Issue has been called both ‘Hulu’ and ‘Netflix’ for magazines. (The jury is still out on which one we are all going to call it. Post your suggestions in the comments below!) CEO Morgan Guenther is aiming for 1 million subscribers in the next 18 months.

3) Back to battling conglomerates, new information in the legal battle between Cablevision and Viacom has come to light. To catch you up, at the end of February, Cablevision filed an antitrust suit against Viacom, arguing against the mass media giant’s method of bundling its less performing cable networks with must-watch ones claiming, “The manner in which Viacom sells its programming is illegal, anti-consumer, and wrong,” in what may very well be the least self-aware statement ever made by a corporation. Now, Cablevision is claiming Viacom was threatening a $1 billion penalty if Cablevision refused the lower-tier networks. More on this irony as it develops.

4) The release of EA’s highly anticipated reboot of the SimCity video game franchise may go down as one of the biggest disasters in the industry’s history (though nothing touches the unforgettable landfills of Atari E.T. cartridges). Utilizing EA’s already highly controversial always-online DRM protection, SimCity became unplayable for thousands of players due to server issues and shut-downs. An alleged EA employee blasted the company on Reddit, expressing frustration and disappointment over the launch. EA responded by increasing server capacity and offering a free game, but many have not been assuaged, especially after computer modders/hackers revealed the game can function offline, but EA refused to allow that capability despite the massive amount of server failure.

5) In more video game news, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) have announced a new campaign to educate parents on the industry’s ratings system and parental controls. This comes as a response to increased media scrutiny, particularly in the possible connection between video games and violence in teens and young adults. In a related move, the ESRB has changed its policy on game marketing, following a model similar to Hollywood in that publishers may show trailers for Mature (M) rated games to a wide audience, as long as a green slate (a la movie trailers) precedes the footage.

6) Hulu’s future is in question, as Disney and News Corp. are discussing strategy for the online streaming service, with the implication begin one may buy out the other’s stake (which would be another third. The final third is primarily owned by Comcast, who is barred from management decisions to a federal regulatory agreement). The talks appear to be centered around the companies’ divergent views on Hulu’s primary operation, with News Corp. favoring the paid subscription model of Hulu Plus while Disney wants to focus on advertising-based revenue from free streaming.

7) News from the ‘upfront-line’: upfront season has begun! Cable and smaller broadcasting divisions have already begun the annual process of selling airtime to advertisers. Two of the more newsworthy reports come from NBC News Group, where Matt Lauer joked about recent negative reports on his image and Today’s slipping ratings, and Disney Kids, pushing the use of multi-screen viewing patterns and, much more importantly, the upcoming summer spin-off “Girl Meets World.” We demand Mr. Feeny!

8) At the box office, the past two weekends played Jekyll and Hyde for Hollywood, providing them their first flop and first mega-success of 2013. Two weeks ago, Jack the Giant Slayer brought in an estimated $28 million domestically, just 14% of its nearly $200 million budget, though it shows promise in Asia. Last weekend, however, Oz: The Great and Powerful proved to be just that, bringing in over $80 million domestically and $150 million globally. While this is good news for a Disney, who started planning for a sequel before Oz‘s release, it is better news for the entire domestic box office, as current year totals are 17% behind 2012.

9) Unionized healthcare workers at the Motion Picture Television Fund hospital stated their intention to strike for three days starting this Monday, March 18. MPTF responded with intentions to hire replacement workers for the strike. Talks fell through this past Wednesday, and the union plans on following through with their strike.

10) A new study from Carnegie Mellon‘s Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics, published on March 6, draws the conclusion that since the shutdown of piracy-giant Megaupload, legal digital movie sales and rentals have increased, drawing a distinct correlation. Their findings show, “a positive and statistically significant relationship between a country’s sales growth and its pre-shutdown Megaupload penetration.”

And finally, The Silly Side, the news stories too inane not to share:

• A countersuit has been filed over the Fifty Shades of Grey porn parody (Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation). Smash Pictures (really) is claiming Universal’s lawsuit is unjustified on the grounds that due to its being originally published online as part of a fan fiction series, it is technically in the public domain.
• Please don’t turn off your smartphones. App, a new horror film from the Dutch studio 2CFilm, involves utilizing a free interactive app movie-goers can use during the screening, that adds complimentary information and scenes that are activated by audio cues in the film.
• Russell Crowe saw a UFO and posted a video of it. That’s really all I have to say about that.

Even so, there is much to defend in peer review. I like that in our business, authors have to have their work reviewed by readers who are, if not strangers, at least chosen by an editor with vision for a publication and not the author. I like that there is a difference between self-publication and other kinds of publication. Authors are not necessarily always the best judges of their own ideas or their own prose (and I would include myself in this group). But clearly, it is time for reform.

So how do we keep some of the good parts of the system while changing the problematic ones? One of the main features of peer review, and one of the most criticized, is the unfortunately-named “double-blind” process, where authors and reviewers do not know one another’s identities. I say it is unfortunately named because it partakes of all sorts of problematic constructs of blindness and sight. It oversells the importance of vision, and it assumes that the blind can’t identify things, which is patently ridiculous. These notions have been well criticized by Georgina Kleege (2005) in her analysis of the “hypothetical blind man” of philosophy, but “hypothetical” (as she calls him) also wreaks havoc in our scholarly world as well. We assume certain things of “blind” review that are untrue in practice. Many of us have been able to guess the identity of the author we are “blind” reviewing, and many of us have been able to guess the identity of our “blinded” reviews. Blindness is supposed to indicate objectivity, where the words on the page signify for just what they are. But of course they never do: we all have our critical hobby-horses, our preferred and, well, not preferred approaches to theory and method.

There are many proposals to transform institutions of peer review, and perhaps in time some will come to fruition. But there is a simple step that every concerned reviewer could take, right now, to make the process better, fairer, more useful and more human.

Reviewers, sign your reviews, and tell your editors that you decline anonymity.

This would have a few immediate effects. First, authors could read the reviews against the reviewer’s work, which would help them understand where the comments are coming from. Second, they would also get to see who is performing gatekeeping functions for the journal or press, which would help them evaluate it as a potential publication outlet and make editors accountable for their decisions. Third, it would make reviewers responsible not only for their words but for their tone since their names would be attached to it. This would result in fewer irresponsible reviews dashed off that are of little help to the author, and fewer “seek and destroy” operations. It would pressure reviewers to more carefully consider the author’s standpoint. It might even, in some cases, nurture some of that solidarity that Richard Rorty says scientists have over humanists as a result of their consensus on first principles.

I have begun the process over the past year and largely been successful. It is easy with book manuscripts where you know the authors’ names—you can just send them the review. With journals it’s a little trickier. And I have found that journal editors have wildly differing interpretations of what the “ethics” of disclosure might be, under what conditions I am allowed to attach my name to the review, and so forth. That in itself is revealing because it shows there is no clear consensus on the advantages or usefulness of the anonymization process. My choice has had no effect on my acceptance/rejection rate, but it has led to some interesting conversations. It has also forced me to be both fair and careful in my reviews. I think I was before, but now even moreso. Perhaps there are also people out there silently cursing me, I don’t know. But the beauty of tenure is that it doesn’t matter as much.

Of course the mere proposition of authors signing their reviews is a tremendous pain in the ass for everyone involved. Editors aren’t going to want to reveal the names of their reviewers because of the likely flak from authors. Reviewers aren’t going to want to spend the extra time or be accountable for saying “no” on a journal submission or book project (despite the fact that we do that all the time to students who know very well who we are). Authors may underestimate the value of a review from a person they don’t know. And reviewers without the security of tenure may not want their names out there in case vindictive senior colleagues get wind of their rejections.

My proposal is not a panacea, and it certainly won’t solve lots of other problems in publishing. It probably introduces lots of problems I haven’t even considered yet (which is why this is a blog post and why I won’t be responsible for anything bad that happens as a result of my proposal). I’m not even 100% convinced it’s a good idea. But naming has a way of imposing responsibility, and that seems like a good reason to give it a try. We could just limit it to tenured faculty to begin with and see how it works.

And unlike so many fixes to the peer-review system, we can try it out right now. All you have to do is sign your reviews.

—

Blair, Carole, Julie Brown, and Leslie Baxter. 1994. “Disciplining the Feminine.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (November): 383-409. doi:10.1080/00335639409384084.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2011. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. NYU Press.
Kleege, Georgina. 2005. “Blindness and Visual Culture: An Eyewitness Account.” Journal of Visual Culture 4 (2): 179 -190. doi:10.1177/1470412905054672.
Schwartzman, Roy. 1997. “Peer Review as the Enforcement of Orthodoxy.” Southern Communication Journal 63: 69-75.

—

Jonathan Sterne just edited a big collection of essays entitled “The Politics of Academic Labor in Communication Studies,” where 21 authors ask us to confront and deal with the big issues we now face in a changing landscape: from defunding of universities to feed the war machine, to the politics of careers, to tyranny of powerpoint, along with a host of proposals and programs for organizing. It appears any day now in the International Journal of Communication at http://ijoc.org.

Figure out how you work. One of us, for instance, writes best in the morning and maintains a 9-5 approach (or at the most productive worked 6-6 with lunch at the desk) but isn’t much good by late afternoon, which is therefore when to schedule student meetings, grade papers, course prep, and the other stuff that doesn’t require deep thought. Once you know when you work best, protect it vigilantly from all intruders. Others can work in coffee shops, burn the midnight oil, etc. If what you are doing isn’t working, audit your time, see where you are losing opportunity, and try something new. And may we recommend firm rules regarding checking and responding to email and other social media. Remember, many people get no more than 2 weeks vacation a year and don’t get paid for time off. The most straightforward answer to how we have been so productive is that we each maintained about a 50-60 hour work week (not counting evening viewing or any non work-relevant computer use) and took very few hours or days off in the first decade of our careers.

Related to this, procrastinate by doing other work. There are times when your head’s just not into what you’re doing. But if you’re struggling with writing, read, assemble your bibliography or something wholly mechanical like that, compile data, watch and take notes on something, read the trade press, etc.

Be strategic about what you choose to write and where you send it. As you start a project, think about what journal or press you could see it ending up at, and make sure there’s more than just one option there, so it doesn’t get caught in publication limbo. Think carefully about the fit of your article to the journal; many rejections come simply from being a poor match, but this can set publication of your work back by 6 months to a year. Double or triple up by making your big conference presentation this year feed into and inform that article you’re working on, which in turn forms the basis of a chapter for a book. When people ask if you’ll contribute to a special issue or a book they’re editing, think about whether this will help your research profile, or whether it’s time away from it (the latter may well be worth doing, to be clear: but you should go into it knowing that’s what it is).

Always meet your deadlines. On one hand, the more that you miss, the more that you’re required to be late with other things. On the other hand, meeting deadlines gives you capital with presses and journals. Precisely because so many academics are late, when you meet your deadlines, you win editors’ love and respect, which in turn  may lead to them treating your work with more care, trying harder to find reviewers who will be as serious about a deadline as are you, and siding in your favor if you’re in a grey area.

We’re probably writing to an undercurrent of anxiety we witness that holds up R1 jobs as the highest pursuit. This often happens because graduate training only takes place in R1 institutions. R1 jobs aren’t right for everyone and people in R1 jobs aren’t the smartest or best around, even if your advisor suggests that’s the case. R1 jobs are a good fit for people who feel that half of their job performance should be based on their scholarly productivity. But real success is a curious thing. Although we rarely talk about it, if we want to be honest, we’re not curing cancer here. At the end of the day, having a shelf of authored books is only one form of gratification, and not one that keeps you all that warm at night. Though our universities may never acknowledge it, the most significant work most all of us will do is in the classroom, by touching lives and opening up new ways of thinking and understanding the world. Think on these things and make your peace with them in thinking about the version of this career and level of productivity that’s right for you.

Questions? We’d be happy to field them. Or your own suggestions? Please share.

[This post marks the beginning of a new column at Antenna in which a range of authors will discuss issues related to the profession of being an academic – publishing, parenting, pedagogy, “para-academic” professions, prestige, productivity, and many other topics, not all beginning with “p.” We also invite you to pose topics for us, either that you wish to write, or that you’d like to see covered but can’t write yourself. As always, just contact us at antenna@commarts.wisc.edu]

The two of us are often asked how we’ve been so productive and published so much. It’s cute sometimes when people expect a single answer—eat a bunch of cauliflower, sleep with your head on your laptop, write with vetiver incense burning—but below, we’ll offer a few tips, and we encourage others to post their own tips to continue the discussion.

First, figure out what you want this job to be for you and come to terms with the varied expectations. The day-to-day and the measurement of performance in academic careers vary widely. One of us started at a small liberal arts school, where the provost said that the job was half teaching, half service, and that an active publication profile was required (and indeed it was a job whose expectations seemed to add up to more than 100%). A recent memo from one of our Research 1 Dean’s, related to “buying” oneself out of teaching (for those privileged to have grants) catalogued the university’s expectation as 50% research, 40% teaching, 10% service. While the actual make up varies over a career (10% service would be a dream), recognize that jobs at different places require very different levels and types of publishing.

What jobs are available in a given year and the specializations most sought are beyond anyone’s control. If you don’t initially land in a job that fits you, you need to do all that is expected in that job and develop the profile required for the job you want so that you look like you fit when it comes along. In other words, you will need to publish at the rate and the kinds of things that your hoped-for next job will want, not just at the rate and the kinds of things that your current job wants.

Understand that productivity isn’t an abstract requirement and think about why you need to be productive or why you’re publishing. This has a broader level—recognizing publication as participation in a dialogue that advances the field and wanting to participate in that conversation, and recognizing that good research feeds into good teaching—as well as a specific level related to the practicalities of job expectations noted above. If you resent the need to publish, that’s unlikely to help you … and you may need to ask why you’re choosing this career path at all.

Some other tips:

To those in grad school, read a lot. All the time. Many people are slowed down in their progress by having an idea of something they want to write on, then needing to spend several years reading into that topic. If you’re constantly reading, and trying to keep up on a variety of fronts, however, you’ll have more already in the tank. Trust us: you will never have more time to read than you do in grad school, and the more you read now, the faster you can work later.

Similarly, always be writing. Don’t be scared of writing. Start a blog or write for other blogs if you need a little extra help. Or simply write drafts of sections now and then. Commit to it. Don’t ever look at writing as the thing that happens once you’ve finished research: see it as a process of discovery, and hence as a vital stage of ongoing research. And don’t be scared to share this writing, whether with a few others, or in a conference or publication. No writer is happy with everything s/he’s written, and you won’t be an exception, but you can react to that either by never writing or by recognizing that writing is part of a dialogue. Some of the smartest, most highly revered scholars regularly revise earlier statements of theirs, so you can too.

If you started other writing, like blogging, to overcome a block, stop when unblocked, or at least be aware of “what counts” and allocate your time accordingly. Blogs can be a helpful supplement to the dialogue of the field, and may create a public, but peer-reviewed publications are still the coin of the realm in terms of hiring and promotion. If you aren’t where you ultimately want to be, think carefully about what you put out there. You want to contribute your most fully-considered ideas that represent the skill of your thinking to the dialogue.

Part 2 tomorrow …

1. In a significant development for internet cinephilia, Hulu is heading down more of a movie buff route than Netflix is and has grabbed the Criterion catalogue for streaming on Hulu Plus. In a significant development for the deaf, the hard-of-hearing, and Americans who watch early Guy Ritchie movies, Netflix is boosting its volume of subtitled English-language streaming content, which is more complex than you might think but also has some questioning Netflix’s math. And in a significant development for people who write up links to media industry news, Redbox is still working on its own streaming site, but it might emerge too late to compete effectively.

2. If you have a few hundred million dollars lying around, you could bid for Blockbuster, though you’d also have to contend with studios still looking for what’s owed to them. Those studios’ windowing experiments haven’t significantly affected dwindling DVD revenue, so Disney is turning to a new digital distribution strategy (as well as raising its Redbox and Netflix rates). Unfortunately, it may find that no one wants to purchase online movies (as opposed to renting) or to actually pay anything for them.

3. 16mm film stock is looking endangered, as is Hollywood film production in Michigan, while the New York Film Critics Circle is scrambling online to stave off such a fate, and some European filmmakers are turning to fan-financing to keep going.

4. Once again, Hollywood movies have been declared dead (shouldn’t they technically be a zombies by now?); and once again, box office revenue is up but attendance is down (except among older audiences, interestingly); and once again studios love franchises, and international box office is key (even more important than Oscars). Maybe Hollywood scouring Europe for remake ideas and turning to untested directors are new? Well, not really.

5. Apple might improve the sound quality of iTunes downloads, but some wonder if users would really care and if it’s just an excuse to enable higher charges. Sony plans to stay on iTunes, but has also just launched its own streaming subscription service, which is cloud-based and not yet mobile. But according to some really cool charts, the revenue right now is in single downloads, not subscriptions.

6. Apple has concerned many with its new App Store subscription policy for magazine, newspaper, video and music distribution, which some predict will bring open war, kill publishers, kill streaming music services, turn away developers, violate anti-trust laws, and possibly get even more unreasonable. Google has launched a web-access counter-plan, which could capitalize on the Apple backlash, but some are skeptical about its potential too.

7. Google has cooked up a new algorithm for better searches, which, though it hasn’t really said so, mostly involves weeding out useless content farms. Thus far, it seems to be working, though some wish Google was more open about its algorithms. Speaking of useless, as I was just there, Flowing Data presents some info on troll comments, and speaking of access, as I am about to, much of rural America is getting the short end of broadband.

8. Borders’ bankruptcy has shaken the publishing industry, and some are projecting the death of bookstores, but a former Borders exec observes that Barnes and Noble is doing fine and points out the bad strategies behind Borders’ demise. There are also concerns about the future of USA Today and hyper-local news online, plus a questionable publisher’s limitation for library e-books, though we may get to read them on a free Kindle.

9. You might see some tanned gamers around, because they’re spending less of their budget on video games and more on outdoor activities. Or maybe they’re just seeking increased social experiences, as social gaming is on the rise, a factor that companies like News Corp. are capitalizing on and which challenges the future of blockbuster games.

10. Some good News for TV Majors links from the past two weeks: Live Well Model, Sheen Coverage, Public Media Importance, Ivi Halted, Streaming Competition, The 10pm Problem, BBC News US, Retrans Money, TV Criticism, Sports Impact, ESPN Endorsements.

11. Oscar Day bonus entry! The Guardian details the Academy voting membership structure.

In 2008, after some substantial acquisitions on the European television audience measurement front, Nielsen proudly informed its clients that it now controlled three quarters of the world’s television currency data.  But again, traditional television ratings represent only the tip of the iceberg for a company that is also a primary source of information about video sales (Nielsen VideoScan), book sales (Nielsen BookScan), video game sales (Nielsen Games), music consumption (Nielsen SoundScan), newspaper audiences (Scarborough Research), mobile device usage (Nielsen Mobile Media) and Web traffic (Nielsen NetRatings).  Nielsen has even begun competing head to head with Arbitron in the measurement of radio audiences (Nielsen Radio Audience Measurement).

And yet there remain many more media audiences – or at least aspects of these audiences –  to capture.  Today, Nielsen’s growth involves expansion across three dimensions.  The first is geographic.  For instance, Nielsen now provides television audience data in over 30 countries around the world.  The company’s NetRatings service has established panels and site-centric measurement systems in countries around the world, to the extent that Nielsen now claims to monitor 90 percent of global Internet activity.

The second dimension involves expansion across platforms.  One of Nielsen’s most significant ongoing initiatives is the development of its Anytime, Anywhere Media Measurement (A2/M2) system, which seeks to provide comprehensive audience data integrated across the “three screens” (television, computer, mobile device) by which the bulk of electronic media consumption takes place.  Nielsen also measures audiences for what it calls the “fourth screen” – location-based video outlets such as those found in health clubs, bars, gas stations, and elevators. As new media platforms enter the mediascape, Nielsen is there.

And the third, and perhaps least discussed, involves expansion across the criteria by which audiences are valued.  That is, today, buying media audiences has become about much more than simply buying audience exposure. Data on the size and demographics of the audience that consumed a particular piece of media content represent only scratches the surface of audience understanding in today’s rapidly changing media environment.  Today, advertisers and marketers also want information about how engaged those audiences were, how well they recalled what they consumed, and how their behaviors were affected (to name just a few of the emerging currencies).

Nielsen is continuing to expand to meet these demands as well.  For instance, Nielsen recently invested in a firm called NeuroFocus, which specializes in applying brainwaves research to the analysis of advertising and content effectiveness.  And just this month, Nielsen acquired an online audience measurement firm called GlanceGuide, whose primary product is an “attentiveness score” for online video content.  Nielsen IAG measures the extent to which television audiences recall the details of the programs they watched.  And Nielsen BuzzMetrics measures how much online conversation is taking place about various media products – both in advance of and after they are released.

The obvious question that arises from this scenario is whether it is a good or a bad thing for one firm to play such a dominant role in the construction of media audiences.  Even Congress has looked into this question.  I’m not going to try to answer the question of whether this situation is good or bad.  It’s too big a question to try to answer here. But what I will say is that this situation may very well be inevitable.  Media companies and advertisers hate uncertainty, and what a sole audience measurement service provides is a bit less uncertainty. Competing providers means competing – often contradictory – numbers.  And such contradictions equal uncertainty.  This isn’t to say that Nielsen’s numbers are necessarily right.  But as long as everyone involved chooses to treat them as right, uncertainty is reduced.  Such are the somewhat bizarre machinations of the audience marketplace.