????報紙的衰落與社交媒體的崛起同時發(fā)生，這或許只是個巧合。但也許不是。

????這兩個行業(yè)當然有很大的不同：一個聚焦于改變這個世界的公共事件；另一個則主要關(guān)心發(fā)生在鏡頭背后的個人經(jīng)歷。但在表象之下，社交媒體和報紙有許多相同之處。

????兩者的生或死都取決于能否為讀者提供及時、耐看和相關(guān)的內(nèi)容。兩者都靠賣廣告、而不是訂閱獲取收入。在一個消遣方式不斷增加的數(shù)字宇宙中，兩者都在奮力爭奪讀者的注意力。

????那么，為什么Facebook公司在2012年首次公開募股時獲得了高達1,040億美元的估值，而剛剛被甩賣的《華盛頓郵報》(The Washington Post)的價值還不到這個數(shù)額的四百分之一？最初籍籍無名的Twitter為什么在過去7年獲得了2億用戶，而《華盛頓郵報》的發(fā)行量則呈現(xiàn)自由落體之勢？

????我與許多舊媒體客戶合作過，在最前沿目睹了新興社交媒體的崛起和傳統(tǒng)新聞媒體的衰落。在我看來，舊媒體顯然需要向社交媒體學習許多東西，尤其是在五個關(guān)鍵領(lǐng)域：相關(guān)性、分銷、速度、貨幣化和用戶體驗等方面。

????亞馬遜(Amazon)創(chuàng)始人、數(shù)字世界的“老江湖”杰夫?貝佐斯接掌步履維艱的《華盛頓郵報》之后，他或許會考慮這些經(jīng)驗教訓。

1）相關(guān)性——以人為本：

????報紙目前面臨的最大批評或許是，它們已經(jīng)與自己的讀者完全脫節(jié)。撰文評述《華盛頓郵報》的衰落時，《紐約時報》( New York Times )媒體專欄作家大衛(wèi)?卡爾曾經(jīng)指出：“憶往昔，人們迫不及待地打開當天報紙尋找他們應(yīng)該關(guān)心的事情，但這樣的日子早已成為過去?！币恍┐髨蟮谋憩F(xiàn)尤其令人震驚：它們似乎根本無法向服務(wù)的對象提供及時且相關(guān)的新聞。于是，讀者就自然而然地轉(zhuǎn)移到了其他地方，即數(shù)不勝數(shù)、可以更好地迎合自己興趣的在線資源。

????盡管社交媒體存在這樣那樣的局限性，但它很少提供無關(guān)緊要的新聞。比如，經(jīng)算法設(shè)計，顯示于用戶Facebook主頁的實時內(nèi)容更新幾乎是不可抗拒的。內(nèi)容是根據(jù)用戶的興趣定制的，同時還精心考慮了人們過去的交往歷史和朋友網(wǎng)絡(luò)，以及哪些更新像病毒般擴散，哪些更新石沉大海等因素。問題的關(guān)鍵是，不同于大一統(tǒng)的印刷內(nèi)容（這種方式向所有訂戶提供幾乎不變的訊息），社交媒體提供的是個性化和敏捷的新聞。為報紙引入這些創(chuàng)新無疑是一個巨大的挑戰(zhàn)，但讓我們感到幸運的是，貝佐斯長期以來一直在亞馬遜打造極具個性化的用戶體驗。

????It may be coincidence that the decline of newspapers has corresponded with the rise of social media. Or maybe not.

????The two industries are very different, of course: One focuses its lens on the public events that change our world; the other is concerned largely with the personal stuff that happens behind the scenes. But under the hood, social media and newspapers have more than a little in common.

????Both live or die on delivering timely, engaging, and relevant content to readers. Both monetize primarily by selling ads, not subscriptions. Both compete for readers' attention in a digital universe with an ever-expanding number of distractions.

????So why is it that Facebook (FB) was valued at $104 billion in its 2012 IPO, while the Washington Post (WPO) was just offloaded in a fire sale for less than 1/400th of that amount? Why has Twitter grown from obscurity to 200 million users in the last seven years, while the Post has seen its paid circulation free fall?

????Working with lots of old media clients, I've had a front-row seat on the ascension of new social players and the decline of traditional news outlets. And it's clear to me that old media has an awful lot to learn from social media, in particular in five key areas: relevance, distribution, velocity, monetization, and user experience.

????As Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos, no stranger to the digital arena, assumes the helm of the embattled Post, he might consider a few of these lessons:

1) Relevance -- Put people first:

????Perhaps the greatest criticism of newspapers today is that they have lost relevance to their own readers. Writing on the decline of the Post, New York Times media columnist David Carr points out that "[the] days when people snapped open the daily paper to find out the things they should care about were long past ..." Big newspapers, in particular, have proven startlingly inept at delivering timely, relevant news to the people they serve. So, naturally, readers have gone elsewhere, to myriad online sources that better cater to their interests.

????Social media, for all of its limitations, is rarely irrelevant. The stream of updates on your Facebook page, for instance, is algorithmically engineered to be darn-near irresistible. Content is customized and interest-based, factoring in an elaborate history of your past interactions and network of friends, as well as of which updates have gone viral and which have flopped. The point is that instead of a monolithic brick of printed content -- delivered more or less unchanged to all subscribers -- social media offers news that is personalized and nimble. Bringing these innovations to newspapers will no doubt be a challenge, but lucky for us Bezos has a long history at Amazon of personalizing and customizing user experiences.