Historical Profession

With Digital Content Creation, the Tortoise Will Win the Race

I don't get SnapChat. Why would you spend time creating content that people can only access for a limited period of time? I shared this musing on Twitter and enjoyed exchanges that culminated in the fact that I'm old.

I may be a first-year millennial (I did in fact graduate high school in the year 2000), but I'm a member of the "Oregon Trail" part of the generation. The part that embraces new technology and still appreciates what came before it. I'm also a member of a profession that still lauds the book as the ultimate form of scholarly production. Books vary in quality, but they all take time to produce.

In the world I grew up in and the world I work in, it takes time and energy to produce content and preserve memories. These ideas and experiences shape the way I think about digital content and how it should be produced. They also make me a tortoise living and running in a hare's world.

 

The "Hare Approach" to Content Creation

In comparison, "real" millennials and "post-millennials" have grown up using smartphones, tablets, apps, and hardware, like Snap's Spectacles, to easily create digital content. As a childhood friend pointed out, "now, basic content creation is nearly effortless." You can create content and preserve a memory in seconds.

We live in a world full of digital content, but most of it's created quickly and it's not very good: bad blog posts, blurry photos, mundane status updates, and shaky videos. This mediocre content clogs the internet and means something only to those who created it and to those who understand the context of its creation.

Thinking about SnapChat within the context that content creation should be easy and effortless is when SnapChat started to make sense to me: The social app caters to people who want to create fast, effortless content. And thinking about SnapChat in this light has allowed me to appreciate how Snap may be doing our digital world a great service by making low-quality, hastily created content available only for a short period of time. Less clutter means more space for the great stuff to shine.

But what does the idea of creating fast, easy content on-the-go mean for the future of content creation? Has my belief that historians and other digital content producers should expend effort to produce high-quality, well thought out content become outmoded?

Should I morph into a hare?

I don't think so, at least not yet.

The "Tortoise Approach" To Content Creation

If my ideas about content creation were outmoded then Amazon, Netflix, HBO, and now Apple wouldn't be investing HUGE sums of money in the production and curation of high-quality, niche programs like Game of Thrones.

All of these companies are producing high-quality shows unlike anything you can see on a traditional network to draw people to their subscription-based, digital content libraries. And if you're like me, you enjoy programs like Game of Thrones more than the programs on network television because of their production value. They involve many characters, have huge story arcs, and contain great special effects (hello, real-looking dragons & dire wolves). These high-quality shows also aren't beholden to the traditional time clock of network television-- episodes don't have to adhere to 30- and 60-minute time slots.

And premium digital networks aren't the only ones investing time and money into highly-produced content. Masterpiece Theater produces shows of similar quality for PBS. Think Downton Abbey, Victoria, and Poldark. They have less special effects than a show like Game of Thrones, but they all have high-quality production.

It's also interesting to compare the types of content networks are producing. HBO produces content like Game of Thrones and TrueBlood to appeal to fantasy lovers. People accustomed to good stories and who have a track record of paying for merchandise, books, games, and content. Masterpiece Theater's main goal is to drive people to support public broadcasting. They mainly produce mysteries and history-inspired programs. People who like history tend to enjoy culture, are civic-minded, and they have a track record of donating money to support the work of organizations like PBS and NPR.

Video-based content companies and companies that service digital video apps aren't the only companies investing in high-quality, digital content. So are traditional news outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR.

The New York Times and The Washington Post have publicly declared that they are redoubling their efforts to produce well-researched, long-form articles to differentiate themselves from other news outlets. They're banking on the fact that high-quality content will drive ad sales and subscriptions. They've also started audio divisions to lead people to their print content and to advertise their areas of expertise-- The Washington Post specializes in political podcasts; The New York Times produces podcasts about culture and they just released The Daily, a podcast that focuses on a big news story and leads you to its printed or digital newspaper.

NPR is also investing money in high-quality podcasts. The powerhouse networks that feed a lot of content to the national NPR network-- WBUR (Boston), WNYC (New York City), and WBEZ (Chicago)-- all have podcast and mobile divisions to produce apps like NPR One and great shows like Modern Love, Death, Sex, & Money, and Serial. Further, NPR-trained talent has started a whole host of new venture-funded podcast companies like Gimlet and Pineapple Street Media.

These new digital audio companies were founded to produce high-quality, on-demand audio content. Their funding models are based on three ideas:

1. High-quality, intellectually-driven content attracts listeners that advertisers will pay a premium to get access to because host-read podcast ads aren't yet regulated by the FCC, which means ads don't have to sound like ads, and the listeners the intellectually-driven content attracts tend to have disposable incomes.

2. If you have enough high-quality content, listeners will pay to access a back catalog like a subscription network. (These paid-subscription models are just starting to appear and will become more visible as these networks add to their content catalogs.)

3. Big companies recognize the value of high-quality content and are willing to pay networks to create custom content for them--like Open for Business by eBay, produced by Gimlet, and GE's podcast The Message, produced by Panoply.

 

Why the Tortoise Will Win in History Content Production

Tortoises like me live in a hare's world. We look slow and outmoded in the way we produce digital content. But our goals are different from those of the hare.

In my case, I want to create content that resonates with people, that creates wide awareness about history, and that cultivates a sentiment within society that history and the work historians do is worth supporting. I'm, in fact, running a tortoise's race. So my ideas aren't outmoded, they're timely and they make sense.

I believe there is a place for the hare's content. Photos and images created quickly with smartphones are fun to produce and share. However, the hare's content won't build a lasting audience. Within the last decade we've seen Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram content producers who quickly built massive audiences only to watch those audiences dwindle and leave as new apps and social networks came out and interests changed. The quick and easy content they produced entertained only for a limited time.

History has staying power. People will always be interested in history because it helps us grapple with the big, existential questions of who we are and how we came to be who we are. This is why historians have always invested time and energy into producing content that lasts: books, articles, museum exhibits. And this tried-and-true method of investing time and effort in the content we produce should also be our approach in the digital world.

We should embrace the hare, borrow everything from its technological toolbox that will help us communicate history, and then adapt these tools to amplify our work. Because just like in the analog world that came before the digital world, quality work will rise to the top, be consumed by more people over time, and will last-- just like tortoises, which live an average of 200 years versus hares, which live an average of 5.5 years.

 

Finding and Making Time For My Research

hermione-time-turnerI often wish I had some sort of time creation device. I'd take Hermione's time turner if it were available. However until such a device exists, I must create time the old fashioned way: by finding and making it within my schedule. I need time for my new research project on the Articles of Confederation. I started this new project during a two-day research trip I tied in with a speaking engagement in late October. Since then progress on the project has been slow, but I'm making progress.

Over the last year and half, I've found it difficult to find time to work on my historical research. It seems like I'm either working on the podcast or away speaking about podcasts. Still, my questions about history are important to me and they will go unanswered if I don't make time to research them. Plus, I love to research and I miss it. So I've resolved to make what time I can for it.

I know many historians who advocate for the 1-hour-per-day method of research and writing. They note that devoting an hour in the mornings before work or in the evenings after work is not that onerous and over the course of a week you can make 7 hours of progress, which multiplies over the course of a month and year.

I love this notion and after trying to develop this habit, I found it doesn't work for me. I find that by the end of an hour I've only just begun to think about my project in productive ways. I need bigger blocks of time to work and think; I need two 3.5-hour blocks in my schedule.

Right now, I've found that I can set aside time on Sunday mornings. I'm an early riser, my partner and dogs are not, so I can work before they get up and we need to run our errands and go about our day.

The tricky part comes in trying to create the second block of time. Early mornings work once a week, but I use early mornings during the rest of the week to practice yoga and run. Self-care is important and I want to make time that doesn't come at a cost to it.

Evenings and weekends are also tricky for me to make and find time. Ben Franklin's World is a time-intensive project that has yet to fit into a 40-hour work week. My work spills over into nights, weekends, and holidays, just as it does for every historian I know. But where there is a will, there is a way and I need this time so I think my extra block will come on Mondays.

My writing buddy Megan Kate Nelson and I used to get together to write for 4 or 5 hours just about every Monday afternoon. We met consistently for about nine months between 2015 and 2016. Unfortunately, our schedules worked against us for most of 2016 and we got out of the habit of meeting. We've decided to try and make our write-ups regular again starting on January 2, 2017.

I know our work schedules will continue to interrupt us and that other work deadlines will often seem more pressing. Yet, this is where having a writing buddy can be helpful: writing buddies can be accountability buddies too.

Although we haven't been able to meet in person for months, Megan and I have started to send text messages back and forth asking each other about our projects (Megan is writing about the Civil War in the West). We've found these text check-ins useful and motivating. One exchange helped Megan work through a small problem with her workflow and narrative and the idea that Megan would ask about my "morning with Merrill Jensen" (I'm working my way through his Articles of Confederation (1940)) motivated me to get out of bed and get to work this morning even though I stayed up entirely too late last night attending a holiday party (it was fun) and watching the Big Ten Championship football game (Penn State defeated Wisconsin).

These text exchanges are working and I think they are something we can, and will, continue to do throughout most of the week and as we continue to run into Mondays when we can't meet.

I'm not sure whether this latest attempt to make time for my research will work over the long term, but as it has worked for about a month, so I'm hopeful.

How do you make time for your scholarship?

 

Talking Politics: Interview Tips for Historians

Election2016The 2016 election cycle has been difficult. Not only does it have me worried about the future, it's presenting me with unexpected editorial headaches. Since April, I've had to consider what to do about guest references to Donald Trump in Ben Franklin's World interviews. Mentions of Trump occurred sporadically until the Republican National Convention. Since the RNC, I've been confronted with decisions about whether to leave these references in episodes or edit them out on a near weekly basis.

 

What To Do About Trump?

I don't make editorial decisions lightly. When I edit each episode, I listen for the flow of the conversation and what I can do to improve it. Most of the time that involves removing verbal ticks, pauses, and breath sounds. Other times editing involves cutting tangents that don't add to the larger point of the episode. Sometimes it means moving answers to follow-up questions into previous answers so listeners have the context they need to follow what's being said and enjoy the episode.

I don't consider it my job to edit ideas. After all, part of the mission of Ben Franklin's World is to present and make available different ideas about early American history.[1] So, I figuratively sweat over each Trump reference and whether I should leave it in or take it out.

Thus far, all mentions of Trump have conveyed frustration and anger with Trump's politics and many Americans' positive reception of them. All references have sounded spontaneous and gratuitous. I sympathize with my guests. I find Donald Trump’s political views terrifying and I do think historians should do more to speak out against him. With that said, I have cut all anti-Trump statements from conversations I’ve posted through Ben Franklin’s World.

Why?

The primary goal of Ben Franklin’s World is to create wide public awareness about early American history and the work of professional historians. I can’t create this awareness if listeners stop listening. Surveys and interactions with BFWorld listeners reveal that its audience spans the spectrum of the political, cultural, and ethnic diversity of the United States. As such, I've chosen to keep Ben Franklin's World as non-partisan as possible.

However, non-partisan doesn't mean that the show couldn't discuss present-day politics and viewpoints. I believe there is a constructive way guests could bring up and discuss present-day politics without alienating listeners. This way involves historians doing what they do best: approaching and commenting upon modern-day politics from a historical viewpoint.

Guests would need to approach their modern-day political positions on Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton, from historical standpoints if they wanted those views to air on Ben Franklin's World.

 

Approaching the Present from the Past: A Fictional Example

To give a broad and fictional example, say a guest comes on the podcast to discuss a book or exhibit about early American immigration. Over the course of our conversation, the guest discusses how their research on colonial Boston reveals that there was a a mass influx of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Scotland, and Portugal around 1750. With this wave of immigrants came Jews, free blacks, and a large number of Catholics (I’m making this up).

After discussing why these immigrants came to Boston around 1750, the guest discloses the findings of their detailed study into the settlement patterns of those immigrants: The immigrants didn’t settle in enclaves, they settled in equal proportion around the city. The guest explains the significance of this finding: members of the different religious and ethnic immigrant groups intermixed with native-born Bostonians, and vice versa, every day.

Our fictional guest goes on to relate how this intermixing created cultural, religious, and racial tensions that made both new and old Bostonians uncomfortable. However, the need to keep their community united in the face of French imperial threats, meant that the Bostonians used x, y, and z methods to overcome their discord. These methods demonstrated to native-born Bostonians that the diverse immigrants who had settled within their community were assets, not liabilities.

The guest closes by discussing why the colonial Bostonians’ realization is fascinating. They muse about how Americans are still grappling with similar questions about immigration and immigrants today:

“Hillary Clinton wants to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who work to support the United States and their local communities. Donald Trump wants to deport all immigrants regardless of whether or not they have become valuable and productive community members. These modern-day positions make me wonder what would happen if we tried some variation of the colonial Bostonians’ methods for overcoming religious, cultural, and racial tension because if Boston had deported all the immigrants who arrived around 1750, there’s evidence to suggest that the French would have besieged and conquered the city."

The above example is fictitious, but it illustrates how historians could comment upon modern-day politics in a productive way. The fake guest provided listeners with a historical case study and raised ideas about how the past speaks to the present. Their answer invites listeners to wonder what would have happened if colonial Bostonians had deported the immigrants in their city: What would a French Boston have meant for the American Revolution? Would the Revolution have still happened? Would some of the colonial solutions this historian found for overcoming difference work in our own society? Are immigrants really bad for society?

Our fictional historian did not state their political viewpoint. They alluded to it. And they never made a partisan political statement such as “Trump is crazy” or “Hillary is nuts,” statements that would have caused many listeners to stop listening. The fake historian also invited listeners to think about ways the past speaks to the present without telling them what to think. Not all listeners will change their minds as a result of the thoughts and questions the historian raised, but some may, and they will change their minds because the historian included them in a productive thought exercise.

If historians want to make a point about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton that I would keep in a Ben Franklin’s World episode, they would need to make it in conjunction with historical and factual points. Their statements must add value to the conversation and to how the larger historical point we’re discussing relates to the present.

 

Historians in the Media

I offer my thoughts on this contentious issue because I believe they are valuable to historians’ broader interactions with media. If you want to influence the election, you need to consider and know the audience of the media outlet you are addressing.

If you are a guest on a political show with a largely partisan audience, consider taking a partisan tact because it’s likely expected. If the outlet you're speaking on has little or nothing to do with modern-day politics, consider moderating and more subtly presenting your points by leading with history. If you are unsure about the audience you'll be speaking to and with, ask your contact at the outlet.

Knowing your audience will enable you to speak to them, not at them. When you speak to your audience (which means you have considered who they are and what they think), you are more likely to find it receptive to the points you are making for and with them.

 

[1] In offering different viewpoints about the early American past, I interview, edit, and air the ideas of guests I disagree with. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with a guest's ideas, I try to edit each episode with a sense of detachment and with original context in mind so even historians I disagree with make their points as clearly and as accurately as possible for listeners.

Historian, Podcaster, Business Owner?

Wonka MemeSince January 2016, I have been traveling across the United States speaking about history, podcasting, and digital media at conferences, events, and interviews. The experience has revealed that people have 3 key questions for me:

1. What is the role of podcasts and other digital media in the future of historical scholarship?

2. What has the impact of Ben Franklin's World been on furthering historians' ideas about history?

3. How are you making a living/what are you doing with your career?

I answered the first two questions in a previous post, "Digital Media and the Future of the Historical Profession." In this post, I'll answer the third question(s): "How are you making a living/What are you doing with your career?"

 

Digital vs. Traditional Scholarship

I’m not making a living podcasting.

I'm still living on the "18th-century patron support plan" provided by my partner, Tim.

I am making some money podcasting. The Omohundro Institute pays me to produce the “Doing History” series (we share series editorial and production decisions) and I make about $140/month from crowdfunding pledges. These funds have and do pay for most of my monthly podcast expenses. They do not pay me for my time.

I’m in the process of figuring out how I will make money from podcasting to support my scholarship and work. The delay in figuring this out has been the fact that I’ve needed to undergo a HUGE mental shift in how I view myself as a historian.

Ben Franklin’s World started as an experimental side project. At most, I thought it would be a fun outlet for my public history and scholarly communications interests. I never intended for podcasting to turn into my full-time scholarship.

I’ve always thought of myself as a book and article historian. Books and articles have always been how most historians prove themselves and showcase their ideas and research. As such, making the mental shift to seeing myself as a digital media historian has been a long and hard one. I'm not even sure I've made the full mental shift yet. My decisions about how to spend my work time are still fraught with tension between digital and traditional media. (Old habits and thoughts really do die hard.)

Although I still feel a desire to produce scholarship in text-based, traditional media, I have decided to continue making digital media my primary scholarly output. I've experienced a lot of success with it and I tell myself that working as a digital media historian doesn't mean I can't write books and articles too. Books and articles will just have to become my side projects.

Now that I've made that decision, I need to find a way to support my scholarship.

 

Going Corporate & Starting a Network

In my dream scenario, a forward-thinking college or university would hire me in an editorial faculty role. I would continue to produce Ben Franklin's World and other podcasts I have in the works, while teaching undergraduate and graduate students how to do all aspects of this new, historical work along the way.

With that said, I’m a pragmatist. I've spoken with department heads and colleagues and I see that most of the historical profession is still 5-10 years away from recognizing what people in quicker-to-change professions see: that digital media is here to stay, that we shouldn’t be afraid of it, and that it’s highly effective at conveying and creating awareness about ideas, products, and services. Therefore, I’ve decided to create my dream job the old fashioned way: I've started a business.

I’m going to experiment with my new company and see if I can build it to the point where it pays for my scholarship and time and hopefully the scholarship and time of others.

The company is called Discover History Media Group, LLC. My first act as a business owner was to hire a media agent to seek sponsors for Ben Franklin’s World. The agent has several potential deals in the works, nothing has been finalized. I'm being mindful of the types of advertisers I want to sponsor my scholarship and I hope that by mid-to-late fall we will have found a good fit for the podcast.

Discover History Media Group LLC is also the legal entity under which I am starting the Explore History Network—a digital media network of reliable, high-quality history content created by historians. The Explore History Network will launch its second podcast by the end of this year and its third podcast by the end of 2017. The network will start with podcasts and will add blogs, video, and other digital media as it matures.

Over time, the network will (hopefully) fund itself from different revenue streams: sponsorships, member dues, custom content creation for groups and organizations, consulting fees, supporter pledges, and show merchandise.

Admittedly, I'm reluctant business owner. I know my strengths. Creating, researching, writing, launching, producing, and communicating historical content are strengths. Managing a business and creating a long-term, implementable plan for its success...I need to develop this skill set or partner with someone who has it.

 

Parting Thoughts

On a different note, all of the speaking I’ve done this year has combined with the success of Ben Franklin's World to bring forth a new revenue stream: paid speaking. I have three paid speaking engagements this fall with academic organizations and institutions and one that’s almost confirmed for next spring.

So no, I'm not making a living from podcasting, but I have a plan that will hopefully change that. I'm in the process of getting organized and I'm looking forward to seeing if the new scholarship I produce will be as successful and as well received as Ben Franklin's World.

 

Digital Media and the Future of the Historical Profession

Digital MediaIt’s August and I’ve somehow found myself with 7, straight weeks at home. It’s the first time I’ve been home for a full month this year. (Hence why this blog has been a bit of a ghost town.) Since January, I’ve been on a type of “history podcast tour.” Historians & history lovers have become fascinated with Ben Franklin’s World and its success, and they want to know more about the show, how I produce it, and the role podcasts and other digital media will play in the future of historical scholarship. As such, I’ve spoken at a lot of conferences and sat for interviews for podcasts, blogs, and radio.

I’ve participated in a lot of conversations about podcasting, historical scholarship, and the historical profession over the last 7 months. It’s been a lot of fun and these experiences have revealed several key questions people have about these topics:

1. What is the role of podcasts and other digital media in the future of historical scholarship?

2. What has the impact of Ben Franklin’s World been on furthering historians’ ideas about history?

3. How are you making a living podcasting/what are you doing with your career?

I’ve heard these questions enough that a couple of blog posts with answers seem like a good idea. In this post, I’ll answer the first two questions. In a second post, I’ll answer “how are you making a living/what are you doing with your career?”

 

What is the role of podcasts and other digital media in the future of historical scholarship?

When most historians ask this question, what they really want to know is: do podcasts and digital media compete with traditional books and articles?

My answer: No.

Digital media such as podcasts, blog posts, and digital videos complement traditional history books and articles. They also complement museum exhibits and historic sites.

The 21st-century is a mobile age. We live on our smartphones and time has become our most valuable resource because our ability to connect to the internet and with people anytime, anywhere has drastically multiplied the demands on our time. This doesn’t mean that people dislike reading books or visiting museums. It means they have less time (or feel like they have less time) to devote to those activities. As a result, they want to know that they are going to enjoy something and benefit from an experience before they invest time and money into having an experience.

This is where digital media complements traditional books, articles, and exhibits. High-quality, well-researched, and well-produced scholarship is still very important and the need for it is not diminishing. However, this scholarship suffers from a discoverability problem.

For example, Barnes & Noble doesn’t stock books from most academic publishers. They sell end cap and prime sales space to big, for-profit publishers with deep pockets. What books are those big publishers putting into those visible spaces? Usually those by “Fox News Historians” and journalists with large platforms. This means that many high-quality, fascinating history books by top-notch scholars go unstocked by bookstores and unnoticed by people who would be very interested in them, if they knew they existed.

Digital media such as blog posts, podcasts, and video create awareness. They allow potential readers to know that there are great history books and articles available and where they can find them. Digital media also provides easy and convenient ways for potential readers to get a feel for the author, the history they are conveying, and the quality and depth of the historian's research before they invest time and energy into finding a particular book, or article, and reading it.

I’ve found podcasts to be the best digital media for creating broad awareness because it’s presently the perfect digital media for our mobile age. You can listen to podcasts whenever and wherever you want to, which makes them appealing and fun fillers of commuting/exercise/dog walking/cooking/cleaning/waiting time. Plus the intimacy of the medium allows listeners to feel like they have a bond with their favorite hosts and guests.

This is why listeners repeatedly tell me that I’m costing them a fortune. They buy the history books and visit the historic sites they hear about on Ben Franklin's World because they get a great preview of what they will see, learn, and of the personalities and processes of the historians who authored the books or exhibits.

My prediction for the future: Colleges and universities will create and add digital media programs to both undergraduate and graduate curriculums in academic and public history specialties. Departments will find this profitable in the sense that faculty and student-produced media will create awareness about their programs and the work of their faculty and students and in the sense that these programs will teach students tangible, technical communications skills that companies (and corporatized colleges and universities) desire.

 

What has the impact of Ben Franklin’s World been on furthering historians’ ideas about history?

Statistical Measurement: Downloads have risen from 288 in October 2014 to an average of almost 69,000 per month in 2016. In a survey I conducted in late 2015, 41 percent of the Ben Franklin's World audience reported that they had purchased a book or visited a historic site as a result of the show.

Objective Measurement: I receive e-mails, tweets, and Facebook messages from listeners on a daily basis that contain questions about history, topics for future shows, and that both thank me for introducing them to a book or exhibit of great interest to them and curse me because they now spend too much money on history books. Similarly, listeners reach out to show guests too. Listeners ask guests further questions about their work and attend guest talks.

 

Parting Thoughts

Historians should embrace rather than fear digital media. Digital media is, and will, play a big role in keeping traditional historical scholarship alive and well and in reversing the downward trend in major and course enrollment numbers. Plus, digital media offers historians new ways to practice historical scholarship. More options breed creativity and innovation, which every profession needs if it wants to stay healthy and relevant.