Lindblom Media

In-Sites’ current electronic strategy worked well when the magazine made the leap from print to electronic formats in 2004, but much has change on the web since then, particularly in the area of interactivity. This paper recommends revising the electronic strategy to include some of these advances, particularly Web 2.0 functionality.

It is worthwhile noting as early as possible that, since the magazine is written in XHTML, the changes listed below can be implemented with a minimum of staff and budget expenditure.

Adding the following features will improve the magazine greatly:
• Allow readers to post comments on a story. Currently, the article pages are static and do not provide interactivity. Adding a comments function would provide a number of benefits, including receiving immediate feedback on the article, enabling readers to become actively involved in the magazine, and attracting new article ideas and authors.
• Allow readers to discuss a story. This is similar, but not identical, to the first point. CCDO has this capacity right now with its Weed and Seed Network Center, which is already home to two online forums. By creating a handful of new forums and providing links directly from each article to the relevant forum, we would magnify the advantages of the comments section. However, access to this feature is currently restricted by a firewall. Office policy will need to be clarified before we can remove the firewall and implement this change.
• Establish permalinks for each article. The magazine already has a strong presence with the major search engines, and its prominence would only increase if bloggers can easily link to each article and be assured that the link will not change.
• Enable readers to print each article separately in a number of formats, including PDF and HTML. Currently, the only option is a “Printer-Friendly Version” link that offers a plain-text version (sans graphics) of the whole magazine (which runs to 21 pages in the current edition). This increases the hassle factor for visitors (thus discouraging repeat or extended visits) and neglects the ability of our authors to print or email versions of their story as promotion or recognition of their work.
• Enable tagging. Currently, articles are identified solely by the section in which they appear in a given issue (i.e., law enforcement, community policing, prevention, neighborhood restoration, prisoner reentry, and American Indian/Alaska Native affairs). By enabling tagging, articles can be categorized and archived in more ways than one way. For instance, an article about the use of bullet-proof vests in Baltimore could be link to more than one forum on the Network Center (e.g., law enforcement, technology, protection, and Baltimore). It will also give us further capability to re-purpose the material in ways that we cannot forecast.
• Dynamic links to helpful resources in the field. Currently, each section consists of about two articles and a resource section. The resource sections include a brief description and link to 3-4 relevant online resources. This is perhaps one of the most popular features of the magazine, but the current format of static content is too limiting. Online resources appear every day, and In-Sites should be able to continually add these new products to the magazine. Perhaps an RSS feed from various federal, state, tribal, nonprofit and trade associations would serve this purpose. Another option is to encourage readers to make suggestions in the forums and comment sections.
What Works Now and How We Can Improve
Publishing Goal
The Good: On the whole, the current format is successful in meeting the publication’s main goal: to better serve Weed & Seed stakeholders by providing fast and easy-to-find information about the program free of charge to anyone who is interested. Moving the magazine online has definitely increased the readership. When In-Sites was a print magazine, CCDO would often send out fewer than 1,000 pieces each quarter. Now that In-Sites is online, the site gets more than 20,000 hits per month.
The magazine also has a good presence among the major search engines. For instance, a search of the word “in-sites” in Google shows the magazine as the #2 result; #1 in Yahoo; #1 in Alta Vista; #3 in Ask.com; and #2 in Dogpile. (The most glaring exception to this result was MSN Live Search, which put our In-Sites on the 3rd page.). Often, more as many as five different In-Sites articles appeared on the front page of search results.
The Better: Although the magazine is successful in its primary publishing goal of spreading content, the magazine could use help with its secondary purpose: to strengthen our ties with local Weed & Seed site coordinators and their ties with each other. The proposed changes will have a positive effect on meeting this goal. The comment and discussion capabilities will help readers develop a sense of community. By responding to these comments (and even escalating some readers’ comments into articles), CCDO will create an organic publication around which readers can collect. We already have the readers. We just need to get them involved in critiquing content, suggesting articles, and promoting the magazine to similar readers.
Audience
The Good: The primary readers of In-Sites are Weed and Seed site coordinators; community leaders; and communities interested in gaining Weed and Seed recognition. They are overworked and underfunded, and the magazine does an adequate job of providing information that is fast, easy to access, and as useful as possible.
The Better: However, it should also be noted that many of site coordinators are not especially tech-savvy. Their strength is working with people in the community, not sitting at a desk in front of a computer. With that in mind, we want to remember that any change that we implement must be easy to understand and not require too much bandwidth. We have seen this technical limitation with the Network Center. The site is firewalled, and even though we provide access information to anyone who asks, a vast majority of people cannot be bothered to go beyond the first dialogue box. The result is zero traffic. If we can remove the firewall and provide direct links from each article, we can drive traffic deeper into the site and encourage them to start participating.
Content Type
The Good: The magazine currently does a fair job of providing browsable content. The articles are already short, quick loading, and easy to find via search engine. CCDO, as the administrator of the Weed and Seed program, is also recognized as the authority in this area, which provides a level of “brand recognition” that drives people to the magazine. The question is how to provide more relevant content and encourage readers to suggest new content.
The Better: Right now, most of the information is newsy with a relatively short half-life. A story about a site’s DEFY summer camp will only have relevance until the weather turns cold. By implementing the changes proposed in this paper, CCDO will create the potential for richer content arising from even the most unpromising article. For instance, by enabling comments and discussion, this DEFY summer camp story could encourage other site coordinators to share their experience with DEFY summer camps, compare notes on how to improve their programs, and advise new site coordinators on how to launch and sustain such camps.
Such input will also enable us to find new authors and develop deeper and more relevant content. The current model is for CCDO to provide information and for readers to receive that information. This strategy proposes a more collaborative approach. Ideas that emerge from the discussions can be developed further into full-fledged articles, which in turn will garner more comments. If we can get enough participants, the magazine will gain a sense of urgency that it currently does not have. It will also acquire a momentum that will make it more sustainable with less direct effort.
In addition, everyone who leaves a comment or contributes to a discussion is a potential author. Many of our potential authors are intimidated by the thought of writing a story, but if they’ve already written a comment, the first barrier has been breached.
Presentation Mode
The Good: In-Sites is currently written in XHTML. This is the ideal format for the changes recommended in this paper. In addition, any changes we make to current issues of the magazine can be quickly retrofitted into past articles. And we can be assured that any changes we might make in the future will be supported.
The Better: No changes are necessary at this time. Choosing XHTML was perhaps the best decision made when developing the electronic version of In-Sites. XHTML gives us the XML capabilities we will require for these changes and any change we might want to implement in the future.
Print Output
The Good: From the CCDO end, print is really a non-issue. The magazine is online-only. This format keeps down costs and is popular with readers, so there is currently no reason to move from this format.
The Better: However, CCDO would benefit by making it easier for users to print articles from their machines. We currently offer only two print options: printing the online page (and risk losing formatting) or printing the whole issue in plain-text. This second option is less than ideal because it is not as attractive as the online page, drops all graphics elements, and wastes paper for people wanting to print anything less than a full issue. This can be easily fixed by equipping every article with print and download options in PDF, HTML, or any other format we identify.
Author Options
The Good: In making the shift from print to online-only magazine, In-Sites successfully retained benefits enjoyed by publishers and trade associations. That is, we retain the professionalism, predictable quality, and other qualities of a publisher; and the reputation, level of commitment, and depth of knowledge of an association. Many people are excited about writing for In-Sites because they know that their work will be seen nationally. It gives them the opportunity to “show off” to their Weed and Seed colleagues. More practically, it serves as an effective PR pieces that they can use as support in attracting funding or convincing a neighborhood that their community’s Weed and Seed program is working.
The Better: Even though the magazine benefits from its status as a government office, its format almost by definition keeps it light on its feet. However, in our current format, the magazine only posts new material every three months. This discourages contributors wanting to post timely content. The changes proposed in this paper will provide a vehicle for posting more up-to-date information while maintaining the magazine’s importance in the field. Additionally, these changes could enlarge our pool of authors—people will come to the magazine to read an article but stay and begin contributing because of the growing community.
Context Choice
The Good: CCDO gains very high exposure as a part of the Department of Justice. The quality links generated by this partnership certainly contributes to the magazine’s prominence in the major search engines. It also gives us a massive audience and a pool of impassioned volunteers to provide content and promotion/linking.
The Better: We want as much traffic as possible so that we can distribute this information to as many people as possible. The changes proposed in this paper will promote the magazine as an even more open source of information. Also, by adding user interaction to the magazine, we will have the chance to learn from our readers. They are the best sources of information on relevant content and effective promotion.
Container
The Good: In-Sites is only available online, with no corresponding hard copies. This format works well for the magazine, and the strategy described in this paper does not propose any format changes. The original point of moving In-Sites online was to save cost on printing and fulfillment, and this reasoning is as valid as ever. Using any other media would increase cost, which defeats the purpose of this proposed strategy of increasing visits and contributors without increased cost.
Comments on cost and process
In 2004, the shift from print to online-only greatly reduced the number of staff members needed to produce the publication. This has had a positive effect on CCDO’s budget, as resources that had previous been tied up with magazine production are now free to perform other tasks such as site visits and grant application review. CCDO would retain these benefits.
In-Sites currently involves three staff members: the CCDO editor, the Contractor copyeditors, and the Contractor web designer. This personnel arrangement is a hybrid in which a single specialist (the CCDO editor) works full time with CCDO and draws upon the resources of a specialized staff when needed (the Contractor’s editorial and IT staff members). The changes recommended in this paper will not require any changes to this arrangement.
The CCDO editor’s time is budgeted full-time to the office, so time spent on this project will not have any effect on the budget. However, it may require a slight shift in focus from searching for and developing content and authors to moderating online comments and discussions. As such, it is recommended that we delay implementation of this strategy until the CCDO Editor has collected at least a full issue’s worth of material.
Beyond the CCDO Editor, it would essentially be business as usual. These changes would have absolutely no affect on the Contractor’s editorial staff. As for the Contractor’s IT staff, they may spend a bit more time on the front end, but otherwise they will see no significant change. Many of the operations will become automated and put in the hands of the CCDO Editor. Additionally, the fact that the magazine is already written in XHTML will reduce even that time spent on the front end.