Re: UKNM: NMA: Virgin will go free

[Danny O'Brien]

On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 06:19:03PM +0000, Mike Butcher wrote:

> >I would throw myself down on the floor in fawning admiration if I hadn't

> >heard your exclusive from about 10 different sources since the beginning

> >of december.

> >Stefan Magdalinski

> 

> Funnily enough, the beginning of December was precisely when we ran the

> story on News International.

> 

> I was merely making the point in my original posting that rumour is one

> thing - publishing researched news is quite another.


Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.


As I read it, you made a stronger point in your original e-mail.  You said

that if people had heard the rumour about Virgin Net, it was originally from

your piece in New Media Age - shockingly shared by the hoi-polloi without

attribution.  And you made mention that if someone ever tells you that they've

heard a rumour, they should "reach for your copy of NMA and get the friggin'

facts."


I'd like to think that the Virgin Net story illustrates precisely how good

journalism *can* differ from rumour. And also, how a great deal of

journalism is really no better than tales spread by that nasty, untutored and

unprofessional bunch - the public.


The chances are - as Leslie indicated, that the rumour didn't come from NMA. I

imagine it came from the same source as NMA originally heard it: from within

Virgin Net itself. While I don't want to suggest that Virgin have been

actively broadcasting this story, you can understand why they would want to.

Widespread publicity indicating a switch to a free model would encourage their

customers to stay a few more months, while at the same time reassuring their

advertisers and other investors that they intend to keep abreast with the

latest changes in the ISP market. It makes a great deal of sense for them to

dictate the agenda on this issue, by placing the story - both through word of

mouth, and via publications like NMA that pride themselves on their

unquestionable authority in these matters. The story you printed shows just

how easy it is to do this: an NMA journo hears a juicy bit of gossip (just

like Leslie did), and does the simplest bit of research in the world. He or

she phones up Alex, and asks for a quote. Alex gives a sly nod to the

possibility - cleverly drops in Virgin's long and innovative history of "free"

services like the Citibank deal - and, whump. Instant plug for Virgin Net.

Without any breach of ethics, NMA and Virgin co-operate to maintain the

respective reputations that they depend on for income: "exclusive scoops" and

"forward-thinking service provider".


At the heart of it, though, all that's going on is the same as people

e-mailing the juicy bit of news around, for free. Except now, of course, it

has the instant mark of objective respectability that NMA offers. Suddenly,

it's the "friggin' facts".


Is this good journalism?  Perhaps.  Although  any of us, hacks or not, could

have phoned up Alex to confirm or deny the story. In an ideal world, however,

maybe what passes for journalism should have been spiced with the analysis

that readers *wouldn't* have the time or inclination to provide. Perhaps a

broader story would have asked the following questions:


  * _Why_ in "two months"? What is involved in Virgin Net switching to a free

    model? Could you really re-engineer a paid-for service to a free model in

	such a short time? The devil is in the details here: Freeserve's service

	was designed from the ground up to be free, and includes a lot of

	technical aspects that would be tricky to graft onto an older

	system. Off the top of my head: maintaining bandwidth, introducing 

	anti-spam safeguards, scaling up customer service, introducing mechanisms

	to monitor the new cash flow source.


  * _How_ does this affect the NTL-Virgin Net relationship? Wouldn't the

	previous agreements have to be re-negotiated? Who has the upper hand in

	those discussions? How is the revenue to be divided? Who would bare the

	brunt of the engineering costs? Again - could all of that contractual

	hoo-ha *really* be done in such a short time-frame?


  *	_Who's_ been leading the move? It must be somebody high up, to be on such

	a timeframe. Is it at the very top - the Virgin Group level? Virgin Net

	management? Marketing? Technical? NTL??


  * And finally, the meta-story. Why is Virgin Net happy to let a rumour fly

	around that they're switching? Is it a sign of panic or has it all been

	planned for some time?  _Where_ are they going with this? _What's_ the

	long term plan? Is it to sell off Virgin Net, as other Virgin projects

	have been in the past?  Or is it to maintain numbers, to keep ad revenues

	high?


All of these questions require time, thought and research to answer: they

can't be solved by a simple call to the V.Net switchboard. 


I should declare an interest here, and state that whoever does answer these

questions, NTK ain't going to be it. As someone who was involved with the

initial booting of Virgin Net (employee #6? Something like that), I feel

incredibly uncomfortable covering V.Net stories. Even though I left the

company some time ago, it still smacks of writing about your

advertisers: no matter how hard you try to fool yourself that you're being

detached, you're susceptable to all kinds of influences (personal

friendships, insider knowledge, the fact that ultimately, they're paying your

wages) that have no place in writing a good, strong piece. I must admit to

being cowardly: there are plenty of other stories to cover, and frankly, I

think the move to the free ISP model is so obvious now as to be practically

anti-news. I'd rather just stay away from the whole hot potato.


So I don't know the answers to the above, and I'm not going to try and find them

out. But I reckon that anyone with five minutes to spare could frame the same

questions, and anyone who claims to earn their living from selling their

opinions to the public should aim to answer them. I think it would be an

excellent story for NMA to cover. Properly.


Sorry if I sound shirty about this. But you did sound a bit arrogant about how

great NMA is as a source compared to the great unwashed, and I really didn't

see much to be arrogant about here. 


> If you would like to reveal your sources stefan then I'm sure we can all

> subscribe to their ramblings, and forget about those troublesome newspapers

> and magazines.


I stopped subscribing to magazines years ago. Dumbly, I believe that you can

get a much better approximation to the truth by listening to discussions on

the Net, and e-mailing the right people. I've really taken on board this "cut

out the middle man" hype hook line and sinker, haven't I?


I still read the Times Interface section though. Well, it makes me laugh.


best wishes,


d. 

********************

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.

Email Khalil Ibrahimi

khalilexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilexcitecorp [dot] com)

 to advertise on Excite.

********************

Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html