The pro-development bias of The Newton Beacon shows up in override article

So Newton’s proposed override is currently dominating the local political discourse. On Monday, there was a long article in Fig City News about an online forum hosted by the Charles River Regional Chamber with Newton Mayor Fuller. The purpose of the forum: to discuss proposals for an operating override and two debt exclusions. I am a small business owner in Newton, and a resident, so I was interested in hearing what they had to say.

Reading the article, it was impressive that several local business owners were willing to ask hard questions of the mayor and share their concerns about the reality of operating a business in Newton. One owner quoted in Fig City said “the focus of the override campaign has been on the impact on homeowners, but there has been no discussion about the thousands of dollars by which the override will increase taxes for businesses.”

I was also interested in this excerpt from the Fig City article, which matches my own observations – local real estate titans get breaks and special treatment that small businesses seldom experience.

 

Today, the same forum was covered in an article by The Newton Beacon, a new entrant to Newton’s news landscape whose motto pledges to be “Independent, Accurate, Unbiased.” Reading it through, I noticed the following section in the Beacon article:

Newton and other cities used grants at various points during the pandemic to help local businesses and that funding could also help, Reibman said. [the Newton business owner] agreed.

“Maybe come up with a concrete way to get grant money or help with some of these expenses,” [she] said at the meeting. “We are nudging up to the line of making Newton very unfriendly for local business. My fear is we get to a tipping point and it no longer makes sense for local businesses to be in Newton and you default to banks and national chains.”

Something didn’t seem right. Is that what she said? What about the bit about real estate that was in the Fig City coverage?

Here’s what Fig City reported (emphasis mine):

“[the business owner] expressed frustration that restaurants are increasingly being asked to shoulder increased expenses via pressure from other businesses (e.g., rents, recycling costs, and third-party delivery costs). She said “businesses have no override, no pot of money we can go to” and “at some point, we make Newton an unfriendly place to do business” — except for banks, real estate, and national chains. She said businesses need concrete support. The Mayor responded that the City gave $610,000 in grants to small businesses and literally delivered concrete barriers to create outdoor dining and will continue to look for other ways to help.”

I checked the video. Fig City had it right. Here’s what the business owner actually said, at around the 35 minute mark:

my fear – because I am so committed to local business – is that we get to a tipping point where we no longer have an economic equation that makes sense for local business to be in Newton, and then you default to Banks, real estate and national chains.”

Here’s the screenshot of Beacon’s coverage of this event, and below it, the YouTube transcript:

Newton Beacon coverage of override forum sample excluding mention of developers annotated
newton override small business comment original

Not only did The Newton Beacon deliberately leave out the small business owner criticizing the fact that Newton is more friendly to real estate developers than other small businesses, it gave credit to the head of the Charles River Regional Chamber for something he didn’t say in the public-facing video … and made it seem like this business owner agreed with him.

Here’s what really happened in the video. The small business owner didn’t “agree” with the head of the Chamber. She made the statement about grants on her own. This is her comment about the grant money, made in context of some of her actual costs of doing business, such as water:

“So far I haven’t been able to find any grant that’s a significant thing, so I’m wondering if we can come up – maybe through the chamber’s dining collaborative – some real concrete ways that we might get grant money or help, to really help us with some of these expenses.”

At that point, as Fig City News correctly reported, Mayor Fuller (not the chamber) responded with a comment about grants during the pandemic to help local businesses. As far as I can tell, the head of the Charles River Regional Chamber didn’t say anything about grants at this point in the video. In the video, the business owner never “agreed” with something he said during the forum.

So why make it seem like small business owners “agree” with the head of the local chamber of commerce? Why leave out “real estate” from a pointed criticism of Newton’s business haves vs. have-nots?

Newton Beacon: Follow the money

I think everyone in the city concurs that Newton needs independent media. I’m old enough to remember when Newton had a robust news ecosystem, with multiple newspapers covering the news and affairs of the city.

But let’s be clear about the origins of the The Newton Beacon, which despite its principled motto, owes its existence to a core of voices representing luxury real estate developers, as opposed to a grass-roots movement. These voices may not be writing copy, but they are steering the organization and exerting influence over what gets written.

These voices include the Chamber of Commerce itself, whose impact on Newton’s political life and major real estate developments cannot be overstated. Over time, the chamber’s board and premier membership tiers have been over-represented by large real estate developers including Northland Development Corporation (the same company which bought a 2020 referendum in Newton) and Mark Development, the luxury apartment developer which has taken over Washington Street from West Newton to the Lake.

Further, out of seven board members listed on the Beacon before it was launched, many are/were developers or represent them in some capacity. At least one of the names on the original list of board members neglected to mention the development affiliation (partner in a development company), instead concentrating on nonprofit and volunteer activities. Note there are some people on the board (as well as other supporters of the Beacon) who have solid media experience, but they are unfortunately in the minority.

While not having a seat on the board, the Charles River Regional Chamber is calling the shots on hiring and other matters. This should come as no surprise. Ten years ago, the organization enjoyed a great deal of support from the now moribund Newton Tab. The chamber could depend on a Tab reporter or editor including pro-development narratives in most stories about big developments on Washington Street, Needham Street, and elsewhere in the city (for an example, see “Riverside MBTA developers Robert Korff and BH Normandy negotiating in bad faith?“). The head of the Charles River Regional Chamber (previously known as the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce) was a former Tab editor, which means that he personally and professionally knew the reporters who covered the city for the Tab. A similar degree of access is baked into the cozy relationships with the current editorial staff of The Beacon, both of whom used to work for the Tab, and know the chamber’s leadership team very well.

I attended (via Zoom) the public meeting last June about the formation of the Newton Beacon. Many local residents were worried about the lack of a real news organization covering the city. It was also clear that the head of the chamber and the pro-development voices pushing for the Beacon were concerned about the loss of exposure for their interests and the lack of “a common set of facts” in the debates circulating on social media and in politicians’ newsletters.

Here’s what I think, as a former journalist (daily newspaper, daily TV show, trade magazines, and online media) and former board member of various nonprofits associated with media and technology: The way  things are headed now, the journalists who end up working for the Beacon on a permanent basis will be carefully selected by the Beacon’s real estate-dominated board and the head of the Charles River Regional Chamber to make sure that they are willing and able to:

  • Under the guise of covering “both sides of the story,” give an outsized voice to a handful of rich developers and their proxies on the Newton City Council and Newton City Hall when it comes to stories about development and zoning, despite thousands of local residents in the affected areas repeatedly voicing objections.
  • Work closely with the chamber of commerce on pitches and positive spin on anything related to development and upzoning in Newton.
  • Downplay or ignore comments by Newton residents, small business owners, and others who raise questions or voice opposition.

As we can see with this article about the operating override and debt exclusions, the Beacon erased a small business owner’s negative reference to local real estate development, and gave credit to one of the Beacon’s primary creators for things that he didn’t say (at least not in the video) and “agreement” from a small business owner that he didn’t receive. This is not an oversight, a flub, or an “oops, we goofed!” moment for the Beacon. It’s a subtle move to advance an agenda, and makes a mockery of the Beacon’s supposed editorial independence.

Bottom line: It’s a terrible sign for independent media in Newton when an organization that strenuously presents itself as “unbiased” and “fair” makes subtle but crucial changes to the facts in a way that puts certain business interests and powerful people in a more favorable light. The Newton Beacon, if it truly is committed to providing independent journalism in Newton, needs to sever all formal ties with the Charles River Regional Chamber, completely reform its board to remove the dominant influence of the local real estate industry, and start covering the news like a real news organization, as opposed to the PR arm of the chamber of commerce and local real estate investors. Concentrate on digging up and accurately reporting the facts, ask hard questions of the powers that be, and report the very real concerns of residents and small business owners who are watching their city and livelihoods turned upside down while for-profit, luxury developers strip-mine our city for profit.

Comments are welcome below.

How I responded to The Harvard Crimson’s request for comment on its Extension School degree article

The Harvard Crimson just published an article about the Harvard Extension School degree designations. I’ve been writing about Harvard Extension School ALM and ALB degree designations for more than 10 years on Ipso Facto and the Harvard Extended blog, and know quite a bit about this topic. The Crimson isn’t breaking any new ground with its article, although for many current Harvard College undergraduates it’s probably the first time they’ve ever heard about the issue.

The Crimson reporter also asked me for a phone interview. Here is my response:

Thanks for reaching out. I don’t do voice interviews about the Extension School — it’s a charged topic, and frankly the treatment of the Extension School by the Crimson and other institutions at Harvard has skewed negative over the years, typically focusing on scandal or how we don’t deserve equal treatment, and often leaving out important context.

The serious students, the success stories, the accomplishments, the areas where the school is doing some very innovative things … those are rarely covered by The Crimson. The Harvard Gazette sometimes does, but it also avoids any discussion of the name issue/unequal treatment. This is part of the reason why I have been active on my @harvardextended twitter account and blogging (Ipso Facto and Harvard Extended) where I try to explore both the good and bad aspects of HES.

Regarding your specific question:

Despite years of lobbying by the former Extension School dean, various petitions and letter-writing campaigns, and online activism, the Faculty Council and Mass Hall have consistently blocked or ignored any attempt to change the name of the Extension School or the ridiculous “In Extension Studies” degree designation. The University has further taken steps to exclude Extension School students from housing and open cross-registration with other schools at Harvard. As a graduate student at MIT, it was even possible for me to cross-register for classes at Harvard Business School, the Graduate School of Education, and the Harvard Kennedy School. An MIT classmate even studied at the Divinity School! Yet as a matriculated graduate student at the Extension School, I was forbidden from attending classes for credit at any of these schools.

Taken together, this state of affairs perpetuates the elitist notion that the Extension School isn’t really part of the Harvard community, and students do not deserve the same treatment or respect accorded others at the University.

In the short term, the only hope for change on the naming front would involve sustained demonstrations outside of Faculty Council meetings and Mass Hall. Failing that, there won’t be change until a new generation of faculty, trustee, and University leadership takes office and realizes that the Extension School, far from being an “extension” of Harvard, is in fact a crucible for innovation, accomplishment, and community involvement that the rest of the University should look up to.

You are welcome to use any part of this email in your article.

The reporter did not use any of this material in her story, so I am publishing it here.

Lastly, I give credit to outgoing Dean Huntington Lambert for commenting at length about why “in Extension Studies” is academically incorrect for graduates who concentrated in computer science, history, or biology. That said, there is a lot more that could have been written about the difficulties that students and alumni experience when presenting a resume with a strange “official” designation. People have been negatively impacted, as one ALM software engineering concentrator found out when he attempted to find a job.

Lean Startup vs. Lean Media

Yesterday, I participated in a live video discussion about my Lean Media book. One of the topics that came up was the relationship of the Lean Media framework to Lean Startup, a business and product framework first articulated by Eric Ries nearly ten years ago. He ended up releasing a book titled Lean Startup, and the concepts outlined in it are now widely followed by tech startups and business units at larger companies. (Eric expands on how some of these innovative concepts can be applied to larger ventures and multinational corporations in his new book The Startup Way).

I’ve acknowledged Lean Media’s connections with Lean Startup since I first proposed the Lean Media framework right here on this blog five years ago, but it’s worth exploring in greater detail how they differ. To some, the two iterative product development frameworks may seem similar, but there are some profound differences, too.

The following chart lays it all out:

Lean Startup vs. Lean Media chartIn the first row, Lean Startup addresses products with defined characteristics – a light bulb or SaaS application. In certain cases there may be design elements, such as a smartphone case or pair of shoes, but at the end of the day such products also serve practical purposes, such as protecting your phone or your feet. They therefore have practical value and can be assigned a price. They can also be designed and produced in a methodical fashion, building out components and features to reach the desired specification. Lean Startup’s build-measure-learn cycle brings in customer feedback to improve development of products with defined characteristics.

Media products, on the other hand, are designed to entertain and inform. In certain cases they may have knowledge value (e.g., a subscription to the Financial Times informs business people about issues that impact their careers) but in most cases they bring no tangible value. Media is all about intangibles — the hard-to-articulate qualities of work that elicit feelings and emotions in the people who experience them. Despite media’s lack of practical value, audiences are willing to spend one of their most valuable resources — time — to consume them. They may also spend a great deal of money on media experiences.

MVP vs. Media Prototype

The MVP (minimum viable product) is perhaps the most famous element of Lean Startup. The concept has also been debated, as I discussed on this blog in 2013 (see MDP: Minimum Delightful Product) and I have heard elsewhere. Ideally, it’s a functional product that can be shown to early adopters in order to test hypotheses and get feedback, but some founders expand the definition to include incomplete models or design prototypes, and often end up showing them to people who are not early adopters, such as journalists or prospective investors. MVPs are by definition not finished products, but early customers (or observers, investors, etc.) may have a hard time seeing past the flaws.

Lean Media does not use the term MVP. We already have lots of terms for early versions of a work — draft, rough cut, demo version, etc. — but in the book I group them all under the term prototype for all media formats. While early prototypes may be simple or incomplete, I instruct creators to be sure to remove from the media prototypes what I call scaffolding before showing them to test audiences. Scaffolding could include editors’ marks, time codes, and annotations that will distract from the work.

In the third row, Lean Startup relies on empirical data and validated learning to test hypotheses. An MVP might provoke some discussions with early adopters, but in the build-measure-learn cycle you need to be measuring what you are doing so you can make an informed, data-driven decision. For instance, will customers prefer a recessed headlight in the new car, or something that’s more flush with the front of the vehicle? Have your design team whip up some graphic renderings in their CAD programs, and then show them to prospective customers and measure which one gets more votes. It’s the classic A/B test.

For media, quantitative data can deliver insights as test audiences experience a prototype, but qualitative data explains why people feel the way they do about a media work being developed. Sometimes the quantitative indicators (20 “thumbs down” vs 10 “thumbs up” after reviewing a draft manuscript of a novel) may be invalidated by the qualitative feedback (75% of thumbs down concerned minor issues relating to chapter titles and the index, as opposed to fundamental issues with the story itself).

Regardless of the type of feedback, it’s intended to inform creators about the work, rather than dictating how they must proceed. This is a big difference with Lean Startup, which practically requires founders to follow where the empirical data takes them, even if it’s far outside their original hypotheses about what customers want.

Finally, Lean Startup is not just a framework for product development, it’s a framework for startup business development. For instance, in Lean Startup, Ries describes innovation accounting as a way for the company to reach its business goals. Lean Media has no such intentions — the framework is purely about product. While a media work that resounds with audiences can be the basis for a successful media venture, I do not explicitly address how to make a media business profitable. That may very well be the focus of my next media book (working title: Niche Media). Stay tuned!

 

Do music playlists hold the same emotional and temporal connections as songs and albums?

A friend of mine asked an interesting series of questions on Facebook about music, noting that certain albums had the ability to bring people back to a certain time and place. I think this is common experience that traverses cultures and age groups — e.g., the first time you heard Miles Davis or the Beatles’ Sgt. Peppers album. He then asked, what about playlists, such as those that might be found on Spotify or Apple Music or some other service?

I started making playlists on iTunes in late 2004, so I could have music to listen to on my iPod as I walked to the bus stop to go to Harvard, where I worked. Looking through the songs definitely brings back memories of that winter walk, especially on cold winter mornings when the temperature was below 20 degrees and the wind was whipping up the street into my face. Later on I set up playlists to keep me going late into the night as I worked on my graduate thesis for the Harvard Extension School.

The mixtapes I made or were given to me from about the early 80s to the mid 1990s also take me back to specific times and places, including other countries where I lived. The ones shared with me also remind me of people who gave them, and where they were in their lives.

I remember one called “Sherman’s Heroes.” A guy named Neil Sherman who I met in a hostel in Taipei gave it to me in early 1993. It consisted of American and British bands that would now be called Shoegaze, such as Love Battery and Ride. Listening to those songs now takes me back to the hot, humid summer, when I was just getting established in Taiwan.

Around the same time, another friend sent me a tape of rap and another one of rock which also takes me back, and reminds me of him.

But maybe all of these examples are special because I or a friend curated the playlists, and knew my tastes and therefore had a better chance of making that emotional connection.

I haven’t had much of an experience with curated playlists. The ones on Amazon Music are generally quite poor — one that springs to mine is the “Classical Guitar Chillout” which contains a small assortment of songs and performances by the greats of the genre (Segovia, Diaz, etc.) but whose marketing copy was clearly made by someone who knows next to nothing of classical guitar (see screenshot, below). The Apple Playlists are really interesting, but because I never got a subscription I have to manually recreate them on Amazon which is a pain (readers, please let me know if there is a way to easily do this by using the comment form below!)

Amazon playlist emotional connections

Whatever happened to the Lean Media framework?

(Updated) I received a message from a European media executive about my Lean Media framework proposal from a few years back. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

A few years ago, before the mobile startup, I heard Eric Ries give his Lean Startup stump speech at MIT. It immediately clicked with me. His focus was software development, but I realized that the things he was saying about product development, feedback cycles, and speed applied not only to software, but to media content as well. I had seen it with my own eyes. Print content, websites, video, music and other products/projects that were developed with these qualities in mind had many positive qualities. They were cheaper to produce, they made it to market more quickly, user feedback loops started sooner, and if they were new brands, they got a huge head start. They were also more fun to work on.

Conversely, products that took the big media approach — bloated teams, top-down directives, planned by committee, limited feedback cycles, etc. — encountered problems. They required huge staff and budget commitments, took years to complete, and seemed to have a higher rate of failure.

Almost immediately I realized there were some issues I had to think through (see Lean Media: The Importance Of Intangibles And Brands and The Lean Media mindset: Can it work for large companies?) even while I found more examples of lean media such as Led Zeppelin (who started lean) and The Deftones (who returned to lean).

Earlier this year, I started writing a book about lean media, but quickly realized that the idea still needed to be refined. This is what I told the European executive:

Thanks for reaching out. I started to write a book about lean media but stopped because A) I have too many other things going on with my business and B) it was hard to think through some aspects of the framework.

For instance: talent/creative can make such a huge difference in the success of a lean media project but “dream teams” with lots of resources can fail. “Creative” is also hard to measure, which in turn makes it hard to translate into actionable advice

Another intangible aspect: “Brand.” It is so easy to create in the lean media world but how it fits in with existing brands (if it is part of a corporate effort) gets very tricky.

There is also the issue of scaling a lean media project into a true business, if that is the goal. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of lean media, though, because more resources and coordination is required.

As you can see I still have some thinking to do about this. Ideally, at the end of the day I want to have a simple framework that managers/companies/entrepreneurs in all kinds of media industries can apply. But I am not sure if such simplicity is possible.

What I probably should do is talk with more people in the trenches. I know there is something here, but expressing it cleanly will talk more contemplation … and perhaps collaboration.

November 2015 Update: I am expanding Lean Media into a book. Read sample chapters here, or sign up for the lean media newsletter.

Harvard headlines: Clickbait and the Extension School

Last week there was a flurry of Harvard headlines, after a male student attacked a senior citizen at Logan airport. I won’t get into the details of the story itself, but wanted to talk about the sensationalist coverage and the collateral damage to the Harvard Extension School.

When the story first hit the Internet, it was all about the Harvard connection:
Harvard headlines extension school
Many of the initial headlines, including those from Boston .com, the Huffington Post, and other national and international outlets, omitted the fact that the student, Cameron Shenk, was an Extension School student. In the absence of such context or knowledge of the Extension School, many people skimming the news would assume it was a Harvard College student, even though Mr. Shenk and his lawyer did nothing to insinuate otherwise. It’s a common assumption, as I’ve cited repeatedly on this blog (see my earlier article about Harvard Extension School resume guidelines).

Predictably, when the Internet commenters and follow-on coverage appeared, the angle turned from tragic crime to criticism of the Extension School and its students. Boston .com’s Eric Levenson claims that Extension School students “just need an interest to learn and some money to spend,” neglecting to mention the wide gap between casual class takers and degree candidates who have to prove they can do coursework at a high level before being admitted.

As I said in the comments section of the Boston .com article, there are a couple of issues at play when it comes to mainstream media stories about the Extension School:

  1. Clickbait headline writers who want to play up any story involving weird/unstable/criminal behavior and “Harvard”
  2. A continuing education division that is not well understood (for example, there are casual class takers as well as degree candidates) and often gets defined by strange headlines or fakers.
  3. A student and alumni population which includes a fair number of people who are apt to play down their Extension School affiliation or deliberately mislead others into thinking they attended Harvard College or one of the highly competitive professional programs, such as the Business School.

I think journalists such as Eric Levenson deserve much of the blame Unfortunately, previous stories about Extension/College imposters, combined with a large number of alumni who claim “Harvard” while hiding “Extension” are adding another negative context to this story.

It’s unfortunate, because the Extension School has some great classes and degree programs, and have helped hundreds of thousands of people further their educational goals. Most of them are good people and are honest about the Extension School affiliation, yet the fakers and bizarre headlines are increasingly defining what it means to be an Extension School student.

I welcome your comments below.

Innovation Hub complaint: Innovation is more than an academic pursuit

In early January, I wrote the following email to WGBH, a well-known public broadcaster here in the Boston area. The station produces some excellent programming, but I have been mildly disappointed in a new program, Innovation Hub, that is close to my heart. Here’s the text of the email:

I would like to make a comment about the radio program Innovation Hub.

I had high expectations for this program when it launched, as there is so much innovation taking place in WGBH’s neighborhood, from the labs at local universities to the small and medium-sized startup companies concentrated in the region. There are also many established organizations trying innovative approaches to their products, services, and ways of doing business. In other words, there is no dearth of guests who can come in to talk about what they are working on or where new opportunities lie, in fields that include biotechnology, manufacturing, media, banking, architecture, and even farming and food preparation. Of course, Skype and other connection tools make it possible for innovators all over the world to take part in the program.

However, when I turn on Innovation Hub every Saturday morning, I’m invariably treated to very long interviews with academics or pundits. Today, for instance, I heard the dean of a school of public health talking about research into innovation, and a doctor and a researcher talking about a minor finding in obesity and mortality data.

This is not an unusual slate of guests or discussion areas. Often I hear authors and researchers talk about innovation in terms of studies or classic examples (e.g., what Google or Facebook is doing), while at other times they discuss some surprising finding in their research that goes against prevailing attitudes or experience.

While interesting, I feel that these discussions are 20,000 feet above the trenches where actual innovation is taking place, and the interviews are so long that there are too few opportunities for the program to talk with people who are actually carrying out innovative projects, product development, or new ways of doing “x”.

There is so much innovation taking place these days in New England and around the world. I hope the program can consider devoting more time to actual innovation and the people who make it happen.

One thing I would like to note: My Innovation Hub complaint was not intended as a passive pitch for my own business. I was motivated to write it by a desire to hear from people in the trenches of innovation. There are so many interesting things taking place right in WGBH’s backyard, and it seems like it would be so easy to get a slew of interesting people from all kinds of backgrounds to talk about the work that they are doing.

Related: A book about free radio and podcast marketing.

 

 

 

A proposal for a Lean Media Framework: Input and iteration required

(Updated) I’m a media guy. I’ve been involved as a producer and manager in various sectors of the media industry my entire adult life, including the music industry, broadcasting (radio and TV), newspapers, magazines, and, starting in the 1990s, online media. I’ve experienced the shift from analog to digital, and the many struggles that have resulted from this sea change.

More recently, I’ve become a startup guy. I co-founded a mobile software startup that released a classifieds app. I’m currently trying to bootstrap an e-publishing venture around In 30 Minutes® guides, and have released more than a half-dozen titles on Amazon, iTunes, Kobo, and other ebook distribution platforms. These guides are aimed at mainstream audiences who need help getting up to speed with mildly complex subjects, ranging from health to technology. The guides include ebooks/books as well as online components — including the guide which people mistakenly compare with Google Docs for Dummies and posts such as What Is Dropbox? to get an idea of the products and information being offered.

The Lean StartupA few years ago, before the mobile startup, I heard Eric Ries give his Lean Startup stump speech at MIT. It immediately clicked with me. His focus was software development, but I realized that the things he was saying about product development, feedback cycles, and speed applied not only to software, but to media content as well. I had seen it with my own eyes. Print content, websites, video, music and other products/projects that were developed with these qualities in mind had many positive qualities. They were cheaper to produce, they made it to market more quickly, user feedback loops started sooner, and if they were new brands, they got a huge head start. They were also more fun to work on.

Conversely, products that took the big media approach — bloated teams, top-down directives, planned by committee, limited feedback cycles, etc. — encountered problems. They required huge staff and budget commitments, took years to complete, and seemed to have a higher rate of failure.

But I also realized that there were some problems with applying the Lean Startup framework to media content.

First, out of all of the “Lean” media products that I had been a part of or had seen close-up, very few could be considered successes. My blog about the Harvard Extension School is one (more than a half-million page views, thousands of dollars in revenue) and an online community for Computerworld (probably 10 million visits before it was retired) is another. But other products floundered or failed out of the gate, and even after iteration, they failed.

Second, it wasn’t hard to find examples of fat big media products that were hits. Turn on the TV, and you can see examples on every channel. A reality TV talent show that takes millions to produce, is planned for at least a year, and follows a format of a three-judge panel with at least one British judge, has a very high chance of success. In the music world, there have been many albums that have taken years to produce and have broken every Lean rule in the book, yet have sold millions of copies. To illustrate, Def Leppard started writing the songs for Hysteria in 1984, yet the album wasn’t released until 1987. The songs on Hysteria didn’t take long to write. But finessing them, producing them, marketing them, and launching them took years. This is the exact opposite of Ries’ Minimum Viable Product (MVP) concept, or even the variation known as Minimum Delightful Product.

Third, it was hard to isolate certain factors that are commonly found in media products but are seldom seen in the software world. “Brand” and “star power” can be hugely important in new product launches for media, but in the software world (aside from Apple) it’s more about the product and what it can do. For media products, another difference relates to creative processes and team dynamics, and the feedback cycles that exist within teams (think of the Beatles in the studio, the New York Times editorial processes, or the Saturday Night Live script readings). There is also the huge disruption that is taking place around business models, which clouds everything around media.

Lean Media: From Theory To Practice

When I launched a mobile software startup, I finally had a chance to put Lean methodologies to work with my co-founder. We made mistakes, especially at the beginning, but eventually released a product that proved to be very popular with consumers, and had high engagement and retention rates. I felt that when we followed the Lean philosophy, it worked very well for product development.

When I started my second venture this summer, the ebook experiment, I pledged to myself that I would attempt to actively follow the Lean philosophy. Get products out to the marketplace as soon as possible. Measure. Iterate. Improve. Some of these processes were already ingrained, owing to my earlier experiences with rapid product development in the online media and music industries, as well as the mobile software startup, and my grad school experience, which emphasized iterative product development. But I was more methodical with measuring and incorporating feedback. I also paid a lot of attention to revenue, something that I had not been focused on with any previous venture or media experiment.

As the ebook venture progresses, my mind has been circling back to the inconsistencies I observed earlier. Yes, Lean methodologies do work for media content. They can lead to better products, and better sales. However, the Lean approach does not take into account important factors — such as brand and creative processes — that can determine the success or failure of media ventures.

The Opportunity For Lean Media

Therefore, I believe there is an opportunity to build a new Lean framework that is specific to media ventures — a Lean “mod” for media, if you will. The goal of building a Lean Media Framework is to help startups and established companies build innovative products, platforms, and business models that have a higher chance of success and can contribute to new models of creation, distribution, and consumption.

In the old media world, an idea like this would have been developed by a single writer or a small team of collaborators. An essay would appear in a communications journal or The New Yorker. If it got traction, the author(s) would get a book deal.

In the spirit of Lean development and distributed knowledge, I am starting with a simple blog post (which took two hours to write) and throwing these concepts out to my favorite forums for discussion and iteration. Share your thoughts below, tweet to @ilamont, write a blog post, or do whatever you think is appropriate to carry the discussion forward and iterate until we have something that we can share with a wider audience.

November 2015 Update: I am expanding Lean Media into a book. Read sample chapters here. I have also launched a newsletter about industrial automation using Lean Media principles.

Update: More thoughts and discussion here: