Thanks for the tip. I’ll check out the BREW site./////////////////////////

Gary

I agree with the statements above that company sponsored media has made it tough for the readers to discern what content is trustworthy. In fact I’d go ahead and say that it is increasingly tough for one to wear two different hats – pay for play blog/review/analysis or the independent reviewer one. It is a digital world there with credibility taking a beating if one were to straddle across the two – and hence (in my opinion), the subscription based biz model is most likely an interim one till someone figures out one how to get the money in through either an independent 3rd party or through the companies but in a unbiased mode. That then would be termed as another piece of the semicon eco-system.

Company social media is making great contributions to the discussions and education. I especially liked Qualcomm’s Brew site (an application development platform created originally for CDMA mobile phones featuring third-party applications). It had a lot of discussions and facilitated the company to get application developers to port their applications among all BREW devices.

Good to hear where you landed. Does this mean you get to spend your daughter’s birthday with her rather than at DAC;-> And one more time I’ll update my note with your name and Teledyne LeCroy………………………………………….

I didn’t know that the print press had received so much pressure from the Companies. It sounds like when the Web came into the picture they thought that they had another viable choice than print media. Seems like they shot themselves in the foot. Now we are trying to find out how we can fund some “trusted source media”. I wonder if the Companies are going to figure out that while they’ve generated some great Company content, by not funding advertising of the Brands they have lost the independent/ trusted resources of the past that they relied on………………………….

Gary

Somewhere up above you said:

I still believe that the readers trust the analyst, or editor, and not specifically the Brand. A Company can help, as long as their Brand is trusted, but still the analyst or editor must make his own reputation as a trusted source. The readership expects the Company to fire employee who threatens their Brand’s reputation.

What you wrote is very true. However, the game changes when the editor is put in the position of having to write “sponsored editorial” (or “advertorial”) content — under his or her own byline. This began happening at my old haunt many years ago despite the editors’ loud protests. Now, as you also commented earlier, it becomes even more difficult for the average reader to discern what content is trustworthy. Sponsored content spread like wildfire into not only print but podcasts, videos, etc. Advertisers loved it (well, for a time, anyway) because they could now control the messaging. Sure, editors were told that they could include other viewpoints in these pieces, but the reality was that the content was subject to sponsor review. At the end of the day, they had final say and their dollars backed that up.

It was quite a quandary for those of us who had spent 20 or more years building our reputations as trustworthy and unbiased reporters. When the opportunity to move to the corporate marketing side arose a little over a year ago, I didn’t hesitate. I sleep a lot better now.

“The Wall is Gone”///////

The wall between editor and advertising used to be a barricade. Mike Santarini tells a funny story about one day when a sales person walked into the journalist area. The sales rep was loudly told to leave and never come back./////

What I feel for you guys now is that you are having to do both the editorial and the sales to make a living. It takes time and energy that takes away from the time to do just the editorial. The ‘Brands’ used to be there for you to do that.//////

Now it’s not the ‘Brands’ fault. The Corporate advertising sponsors went away and starting moving those dollars into their own Company sponsored media. The Brands weren’t making the same money and needed to make changes. Now the positive is that we have a new breed of technical Company Bloggers that we didn’t see in the old days who are making some great contributions to the discussion and education. Jem Davies from ARM and Jason Andrews from Cadence are two of my favorites. Now I’m only listing 2 of my favorites (of the many that there are) because my inadvertently leaving editors names off has hurt feelings of my friends who just failed to remember that sometimes I forgot.) I agree Brian seems to be in the best position to work this corporate sponsored media thing out.///////

John, you rightly (and your peers as well), on occasion write for clients. What’s lost for me as a engineer is that I don’t always know when it’s commissioned work or just your editorial. I’m just wondering how we get back to independent/ trusted content.//////// Gary

I agree that it’s complex but what will the future look like?

I miss the user surveys that used to be done at Gartner where we had the opportunity to compare the tools from the users’ reviews. I miss the independent reviews by editors of new tools that come out.

Much of the missing content has been replaced by the company-sponsored media where they highlight new features and applications for new products. Much of it is quite good.

I miss the independent, non-commissioned analysis by editors that was a feature of the old media that’s not as frequently written now.

Gary

Good conversation, thank you.

I think the term New Media best applies to SemiWIki. We are consultants, not editors or analysts. By day we work with emerging technology companies on strategic: business development, sales, and marketing activities. We write write white papers, help with messaging, do webinars, and speak at events.

More than 600,000 people have read SemiWiki since we opened in 2011. I just hope New Media continues to get traction. The fabless semiconductor ecosystem really needs an open communications channel like SemiWiki.

Cheers,

D.A.N.

As far as representing clients and non-clients (who often compete,) it is well known that I will publicly (and privately) challenge my clients if they are wrong (in my humble opinion). I of course give then the opportunity to change my mind but if they don’t I feel free to oppose their position. Interestingly one of the ways to get a promotion at Dataquest was to have a client tell Dataquest to fire an analyst. That isn’t happening today.

I still believe that the readers trust the analyst, or editor, and not specifically the Brand. A Company can help, as long as their Brand is trusted, but still the analyst or editor must make his own reputation as a trusted source. The readership expects the Company to fire employee who threatens their Brand’s reputation.