I'm always amazed at how bloggers can actually keep up with writing once or even twice a day... It's been a month since I last posted.
Let's get right to the topic du jour in the fledgling newspaper business lately - that the monetizing of online news content. Is this the white knight struggling media conglomerates are looking for? If it is, a lot of thinking needs to be done in how content it going to be developed moving forward.
Monetizing content can be a gold mine for the right media sites, but they need to keep a few things in mind before going this route:
1. Unique content - The bottom line here is that Internet users will NOT pay for information they can get elsewhere. If you can type a search string in on a news topic and 2 million sites come up with the same wire feed, you can bet the average user will go to the site that can offer it for free.
The challenge? Providing unique content within the dwindling editorial budgets of major news organizations. Editorial budgets have been slashed (including freelance budgets), increasing the reliance on wire services to provide the same copy to every one of the thousands of newspapers in North America.
No longer can you finance two or three staffers to create news analysis pieces or to chase leads that can lead to breaking stories. You have your beat reporters... a flex reporter or two if you are lucky... and that's it.
In my opinion, until newspaper publishers realize that strong newsrooms filled with quality people pay huge dividends in readership (which translates to advertising), and in brand loyalty, and who can create the unique content needed in order to monetize web content - they will get nowhere.
It's a major paradigm shift, however.
2. Development of content protection - What's the sense of having unique content on the web, if people can scrape it and put it up on their website? It's a problem - regardless of the web gadflies' plea that they are helping your brand by posting your content on their site. Nonsense. Complete nonsense.
If web users find my newspapers content on another site, you know what that means? They aren't on my site (advertisers say FAIL), and they aren't paying for the unique content through subscription (if that's possible).
This could be a contentious issue in the future and it will likely always be. See: DVDs and see: the Music Industry. 'Netters and coders will gather together to find ways to crack the latest content protection software used by newspapers and other media, just so they can get what they feel is rightfully theirs: free web content.
Still - if newspapers want to charge for content, they'd better protect it.
3. License content - This could be one way to assist in controlling the proliferation of illegally scraped material. It could also be a revenue generator for some newspapers.
I think it's going to be a challenge to launch this model successfully - especially for mainstream news publications who rely a great deal on wire feeds to provide regular web updates. Really, there is nothing wrong with having the wire stories - as long as they don't make up the majority of content on your news site.
Further, your web content must go beyond the treatment given to local topics by your competitors. Again, unique is the key. If you aren't producing material that Internet users find unique and engaging, they won't be enticed to pay for it.
Editors need to resist the urge to play a news story the same tired old way they have been doing for years. They need to challenge themselves and their news teams to think beyond the story and into the minds of readers to provide the type of content that entices them to put their hands in their pockets to pay you to create it for them.
FdS
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
5 reasons why newspapers WILL survive
Talk of the death of newspapers today, in my mind, is very much akin to doing the post-mortem on a patient that is still alive and kicking. Ouch!
I've read a lot of interesting material lately that would suggest that, yes, newspapers even today will be very different two, three or five years from now - but they would always be around.
I am a firm believer in this (I have to be - otherwise I could be out of a job!) - but not just because I am in newspapers and I have a vested interest in their survival. I think so because of a number of reasons - each of which demonstrates newspaper survivability.
1. Internet is a tool - not a medium
I love the Internet as much as the next person; I Facebook, I Twitter, I surf for vacation deals and yes, I even check the headlines on major newspapers around the Globe. What I NEVER do, is sit on the computer to read long copy of stories. I get headlines (Kind of goes against the idea of you reading this garble) and I get a quick hit, then I move on.
The second thing I NEVER do, is click on advertisements. Since the dawn of the Internet, I may have clicked on a handful of ads in that time - most of the time because the mouse click accidentally clicked on the ad when I wanted to go somewhere else. It's not really a viable advertising medium.
Advertisers can never guarantee an audience like they can with newspapers. Therefore it is a MEDIUM by which people gather information, and that by which people will see ads. You don't see people carrying their desktop or laptop around to show you an article at a dinner party, or to show you an advertisement for a new sale or a course they could take a the local college. It's easy to do that with a newspaper. And what do you get? More eyes on the paper (If you've read any of my past posts, I talk about eyes on the paper.)
The Internet is a tool - a powerful tool - that allows the quick access and dissemination of information. It's very nature doesn't really allow for long looks and careful thought - it's quick and easy information for people to get to. It's not a vehicle for nuanced articulation, either by word or by graphic (advertising).
2. Onerous costs of Internet, with little financial gain
Google is considering the possibility of unloading ultra-popular YouTube, simply because it costs far too much to run. There's a link to an interesting article below:
YouTube losing money article
OK, if today's Internet cult video icon is losing $400 million per year - when it gets hundreds of millions, if not BILLIONS of hits per year - what makes people think Internet is a viable option for newspapers?
Popular site Digg.com is also reported to have lost $4 million in 2008, on even with revenues of over $6 million.
The model doesn't work for advertising - and advertisers know it.
3. Advertisers still see newspapers as viable and cost-effective to get their message across to the masses
This flies in the face of the fact that newspaper revenues have dropped off considerably in recent years. Couple that with bloated newsrooms, marketing departments and administration - and "Houston, we have a problem."
Still, several sources have indicated newspapers will survive because they are still one of the most cost-effective methods to guarantee an audience. See the link below:
Newspapers death is exaggerated
4. Who says print newspaper is dying? People who rely on the Internet
I loved reading the article linked below:
The Fallacy that print is dead
After reading it, I realized that more often than not, it's those who utilize the Internet for pretty much everything from making their morning coffee to regulating their bathroom times, who diss the print news biz.
It's all over blog sites, social media - sure. But look at who is making the comments. I would say you could whittle it down to what amounts to a handful of vocal people who truly do believe that the Internet is THE way and THE ONLY way to do news in the future.
Still - in cities like Toronto - of the 5 or 7 million people who live in, or come in and out of the city daily - nearly 2 million of them read a newspaper on a daily basis. And Toronto is considered quite cosmopolitan.
Recent NADbank (Newspaper Audience Data) statistics in Canada show that less than 4 per cent of Canadians get their news solely from Internet sources. That means only 1.2 million people (of course not everyone has or uses the Internet, or has access to or is able to read a newspaper) out of the entire country rely solely on Internet for news.
Small number, if you are trying to reach a large audience with a message (advertisers, are you listening?)
5. Death or life - which do you choose?
I have the utmost faith that once the old guard is ushered out of the newspaper publishing business that new ideas and new blood will take hold and pioneer the delivery of print news in North America.
Media execs will soon realize that newspapers must be run vastly different if they are to survive and flourish well into the future. They must realize that the Internet is a tool to help further their print product - not a medium that should compete with it.
It can be done - and it will be done - if not for the reasons I have outlined above, then for the sheer purpose of saving an industry that still does the best job at delivering to people the information they need to know everyday.
FdS
I've read a lot of interesting material lately that would suggest that, yes, newspapers even today will be very different two, three or five years from now - but they would always be around.
I am a firm believer in this (I have to be - otherwise I could be out of a job!) - but not just because I am in newspapers and I have a vested interest in their survival. I think so because of a number of reasons - each of which demonstrates newspaper survivability.
1. Internet is a tool - not a medium
I love the Internet as much as the next person; I Facebook, I Twitter, I surf for vacation deals and yes, I even check the headlines on major newspapers around the Globe. What I NEVER do, is sit on the computer to read long copy of stories. I get headlines (Kind of goes against the idea of you reading this garble) and I get a quick hit, then I move on.
The second thing I NEVER do, is click on advertisements. Since the dawn of the Internet, I may have clicked on a handful of ads in that time - most of the time because the mouse click accidentally clicked on the ad when I wanted to go somewhere else. It's not really a viable advertising medium.
Advertisers can never guarantee an audience like they can with newspapers. Therefore it is a MEDIUM by which people gather information, and that by which people will see ads. You don't see people carrying their desktop or laptop around to show you an article at a dinner party, or to show you an advertisement for a new sale or a course they could take a the local college. It's easy to do that with a newspaper. And what do you get? More eyes on the paper (If you've read any of my past posts, I talk about eyes on the paper.)
The Internet is a tool - a powerful tool - that allows the quick access and dissemination of information. It's very nature doesn't really allow for long looks and careful thought - it's quick and easy information for people to get to. It's not a vehicle for nuanced articulation, either by word or by graphic (advertising).
2. Onerous costs of Internet, with little financial gain
Google is considering the possibility of unloading ultra-popular YouTube, simply because it costs far too much to run. There's a link to an interesting article below:
YouTube losing money article
OK, if today's Internet cult video icon is losing $400 million per year - when it gets hundreds of millions, if not BILLIONS of hits per year - what makes people think Internet is a viable option for newspapers?
Popular site Digg.com is also reported to have lost $4 million in 2008, on even with revenues of over $6 million.
The model doesn't work for advertising - and advertisers know it.
3. Advertisers still see newspapers as viable and cost-effective to get their message across to the masses
This flies in the face of the fact that newspaper revenues have dropped off considerably in recent years. Couple that with bloated newsrooms, marketing departments and administration - and "Houston, we have a problem."
Still, several sources have indicated newspapers will survive because they are still one of the most cost-effective methods to guarantee an audience. See the link below:
Newspapers death is exaggerated
4. Who says print newspaper is dying? People who rely on the Internet
I loved reading the article linked below:
The Fallacy that print is dead
After reading it, I realized that more often than not, it's those who utilize the Internet for pretty much everything from making their morning coffee to regulating their bathroom times, who diss the print news biz.
It's all over blog sites, social media - sure. But look at who is making the comments. I would say you could whittle it down to what amounts to a handful of vocal people who truly do believe that the Internet is THE way and THE ONLY way to do news in the future.
Still - in cities like Toronto - of the 5 or 7 million people who live in, or come in and out of the city daily - nearly 2 million of them read a newspaper on a daily basis. And Toronto is considered quite cosmopolitan.
Recent NADbank (Newspaper Audience Data) statistics in Canada show that less than 4 per cent of Canadians get their news solely from Internet sources. That means only 1.2 million people (of course not everyone has or uses the Internet, or has access to or is able to read a newspaper) out of the entire country rely solely on Internet for news.
Small number, if you are trying to reach a large audience with a message (advertisers, are you listening?)
5. Death or life - which do you choose?
I have the utmost faith that once the old guard is ushered out of the newspaper publishing business that new ideas and new blood will take hold and pioneer the delivery of print news in North America.
Media execs will soon realize that newspapers must be run vastly different if they are to survive and flourish well into the future. They must realize that the Internet is a tool to help further their print product - not a medium that should compete with it.
It can be done - and it will be done - if not for the reasons I have outlined above, then for the sheer purpose of saving an industry that still does the best job at delivering to people the information they need to know everyday.
FdS
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Journalists bear share of blame in newspaper failure
Yes, when you lay all the pieces of paper in front of you to decide who is at fault for the demise of the newspaper, you have your usual suspects: Senior management, economy (nonsense), the Internet (more nonsense) - but rarely do you ever see journalists in that mix.
Sure, if you put out a poor product, people won't read it and therefore ad revenue typically dips with that as well. But telling journalists they are indeed a major part of failing newspapers is for the most part, unheard of.
Lazy, lazy, lazy...
North America has some of the finest journalists in the world. And, each newsroom has its go-to guy or girl for breaking the big stories. If a newsroom is lucky, they have a couple of these people to count on. The one common denominator in these successful journalists is they don't know what a clock is, they exhaust themselves digging up the best stories they can, they have a competitive fire that needs no stoking - but most of all, they have a passion to discover and deliver the truth to readers.
If you have a handful of these people on your staff and you have a newsroom staff of 20 or 30 - that represents a too small a percentage.
I would assert that the typical journalist is lazy. Not only that, but the typical journalist is often intelligent enough to try to appear busy and productive - but at the end of the day produces drivel. And little drivel at that.
The typical journalist believes the assignment editor should hand-deliver in secured manila envelopes a hot story they can sink their teeth into and turn into a lined story. Why aren't they out where people are, or better yet, where their sources are, to try and build rapport and dig something up?
The typical journalist (especially those out of school in the past 5 years) believes news gathering is done by surfing the web (usually competitors news sites, or the radio sites, or even television) so they can inform the editor of something they might be able to turn into a story that day. As if to say: hey, I found something out there. They refuse to believe they can dig up stories by being on their beat and getting to know the people and places around them.
The typical journalist scoffs at making extra phone calls when only one or two will do.
The typical journalist whines about edits made or requests for additional information (because God forbid the editor knows what they are doing).
The typical journalist only thinks they should be working on one or two stories per day. Even if they are re-tapping press releases.
If you are an editor and you are reading this, you know who these people on your staff are. Yet, we choose to pay them... 30, 35, 40, $45,000 per year. If they produce two 6-inch stories per day, you are paying them a little more than $10 per inch.
Why aren't we getting 20 inches a day out of them, and we could reduce the staff by one or two and save the company some money?
Nope. We'd rather bloat our newsrooms with underachievers, so we can make sure journalists have jobs. We'd rather pay ne'er-do-wells than crack the whip on the average and over-achieving journalists we have on staff.
We'd hear complaints, we'd hear objections - we'd hear the cranky business reporter whimpering about the fact he's got so much to do (when he only produces one decent story a day - usually from a wire report).
The bottom line (no pun intended) is we need to get more out of our journalists. We need to teach them to manage time, to juggle assignments and how to write on demand - and still cultivate their beats.
If we have more journalists than we legitimately need to do the job - then costs rise, people are not productive, they get even lazier - and the first place management always looks to cut is the area where they aren't generating income - which is editorial.
We need to do vastly more with fewer journalists on staff. We need to hire journalists who don't know the clock, who want to exhaust themselves digging up leads, who are competitive and who have that passion for the truth.
Journalists themselves are a major problem for news organizations. Newspapers have enormously bloated newsroom staffs with people producing far less than they should. They need to cut newsrooms down and expect MORE.
They need to set a precedent with incoming journalists and demand a certain level of excellence from them from the beginning and the senior reporters must embrace that and show their leadership in the same regard.
When running a business, you need to make sure costs are below revenue in order to make a profit. But in doing so, you need to make sure your department is operating at maximum efficiency. Today's journalist rarely allows that to happen. They are, typically, by nature, a lazy, procrastinating, self-involved, 'somebody owes me' sort.
Journalists need to be wary of being this person and also be wary of becoming it after too long.
Journalists need to understand that a newspaper encompasses all aspects from sales to distribution to editorial - and all parts must be working effectively and efficiently for a newspaper to survive.
Even them.
FdS
Sure, if you put out a poor product, people won't read it and therefore ad revenue typically dips with that as well. But telling journalists they are indeed a major part of failing newspapers is for the most part, unheard of.
Lazy, lazy, lazy...
North America has some of the finest journalists in the world. And, each newsroom has its go-to guy or girl for breaking the big stories. If a newsroom is lucky, they have a couple of these people to count on. The one common denominator in these successful journalists is they don't know what a clock is, they exhaust themselves digging up the best stories they can, they have a competitive fire that needs no stoking - but most of all, they have a passion to discover and deliver the truth to readers.
If you have a handful of these people on your staff and you have a newsroom staff of 20 or 30 - that represents a too small a percentage.
I would assert that the typical journalist is lazy. Not only that, but the typical journalist is often intelligent enough to try to appear busy and productive - but at the end of the day produces drivel. And little drivel at that.
The typical journalist believes the assignment editor should hand-deliver in secured manila envelopes a hot story they can sink their teeth into and turn into a lined story. Why aren't they out where people are, or better yet, where their sources are, to try and build rapport and dig something up?
The typical journalist (especially those out of school in the past 5 years) believes news gathering is done by surfing the web (usually competitors news sites, or the radio sites, or even television) so they can inform the editor of something they might be able to turn into a story that day. As if to say: hey, I found something out there. They refuse to believe they can dig up stories by being on their beat and getting to know the people and places around them.
The typical journalist scoffs at making extra phone calls when only one or two will do.
The typical journalist whines about edits made or requests for additional information (because God forbid the editor knows what they are doing).
The typical journalist only thinks they should be working on one or two stories per day. Even if they are re-tapping press releases.
If you are an editor and you are reading this, you know who these people on your staff are. Yet, we choose to pay them... 30, 35, 40, $45,000 per year. If they produce two 6-inch stories per day, you are paying them a little more than $10 per inch.
Why aren't we getting 20 inches a day out of them, and we could reduce the staff by one or two and save the company some money?
Nope. We'd rather bloat our newsrooms with underachievers, so we can make sure journalists have jobs. We'd rather pay ne'er-do-wells than crack the whip on the average and over-achieving journalists we have on staff.
We'd hear complaints, we'd hear objections - we'd hear the cranky business reporter whimpering about the fact he's got so much to do (when he only produces one decent story a day - usually from a wire report).
The bottom line (no pun intended) is we need to get more out of our journalists. We need to teach them to manage time, to juggle assignments and how to write on demand - and still cultivate their beats.
If we have more journalists than we legitimately need to do the job - then costs rise, people are not productive, they get even lazier - and the first place management always looks to cut is the area where they aren't generating income - which is editorial.
We need to do vastly more with fewer journalists on staff. We need to hire journalists who don't know the clock, who want to exhaust themselves digging up leads, who are competitive and who have that passion for the truth.
Journalists themselves are a major problem for news organizations. Newspapers have enormously bloated newsroom staffs with people producing far less than they should. They need to cut newsrooms down and expect MORE.
They need to set a precedent with incoming journalists and demand a certain level of excellence from them from the beginning and the senior reporters must embrace that and show their leadership in the same regard.
When running a business, you need to make sure costs are below revenue in order to make a profit. But in doing so, you need to make sure your department is operating at maximum efficiency. Today's journalist rarely allows that to happen. They are, typically, by nature, a lazy, procrastinating, self-involved, 'somebody owes me' sort.
Journalists need to be wary of being this person and also be wary of becoming it after too long.
Journalists need to understand that a newspaper encompasses all aspects from sales to distribution to editorial - and all parts must be working effectively and efficiently for a newspaper to survive.
Even them.
FdS
Friday, April 24, 2009
Trouble with online news
You may have been hearing a lot lately about some of the failed models for online newspaper offspring after print editions have been shut down.
It's actually quite humorous to me that some journalists don't understand why the print model failed in the first place. You can take the InDenver Times - who recently failed to gather enough support from investors - with one of the reasons being they had a staff size that was far too big.
One of the biggest mistakes any new online operation could make, is to try and run it the same way print newspapers have been run for the past 50 years. The main problem there: bloated newsrooms. I don't care if you have a city of 1 million or a city of 8 million - you don't need 30 people in an online newsroom, unless you plan on trying to cover the entire state or province and possibly even the surrounding ones.
If you want to survive in the online world, you need to be lean and mean. You need one reporter per beat: Crime, City Hall (or state or provincial governments), Education, Health, Entertainment and then maybe two editors to assign and edit. That's seven newsies.
Let's hire two photographers - but they need their own equipment and they MUST carry video cameras as well.
On the technical side, you could easily have two or three people working on the web; two to post material instantly (or teach the reporters to do it, once the piece has been vetted by an editor), and one to work on developing the content on the site (optimization, feeds, photo players, twitter blasts, YouTube links, unique content, etc.).
Now we're at 11 or 12 people.
Whether we like it or not, we should probably have some people there to generate whatever income they can scrounge up - but do it solely on a commission basis. Let's say 4 people.
Add in an accountant (which can be outsourced, along with legal) and an office administrator.
I can do it with 16 people. And - I can probably do it better than the team with 30. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
I can see why the InDenver Times was rejected by investors. You can't try to run a newsroom today like you did 10 years ago. You have to demand more and better from reporters. For too long, far too many reporters got fat on the spoils of an easy beat, only producing a story a day, maybe every two days. Those days are over.
You need reporters who can think past their competition, pound out two or three quality stories a day, and still have time to cultivate sources and relationships.
If you want online newsrooms to work any better than their print counterpart, you need people who are going to work harder, longer, and have more of a vested interest in the overall success rather than their own. They need to forget about 'days gone by' and think about 'the days ahead' and being better journalists.
Online may very well be the way to save journalism (I don't think it is), but you can't do it by running newsrooms the same way print news has been done.
We've seen how that works out - and it isn't pretty.
FdS
It's actually quite humorous to me that some journalists don't understand why the print model failed in the first place. You can take the InDenver Times - who recently failed to gather enough support from investors - with one of the reasons being they had a staff size that was far too big.
One of the biggest mistakes any new online operation could make, is to try and run it the same way print newspapers have been run for the past 50 years. The main problem there: bloated newsrooms. I don't care if you have a city of 1 million or a city of 8 million - you don't need 30 people in an online newsroom, unless you plan on trying to cover the entire state or province and possibly even the surrounding ones.
If you want to survive in the online world, you need to be lean and mean. You need one reporter per beat: Crime, City Hall (or state or provincial governments), Education, Health, Entertainment and then maybe two editors to assign and edit. That's seven newsies.
Let's hire two photographers - but they need their own equipment and they MUST carry video cameras as well.
On the technical side, you could easily have two or three people working on the web; two to post material instantly (or teach the reporters to do it, once the piece has been vetted by an editor), and one to work on developing the content on the site (optimization, feeds, photo players, twitter blasts, YouTube links, unique content, etc.).
Now we're at 11 or 12 people.
Whether we like it or not, we should probably have some people there to generate whatever income they can scrounge up - but do it solely on a commission basis. Let's say 4 people.
Add in an accountant (which can be outsourced, along with legal) and an office administrator.
I can do it with 16 people. And - I can probably do it better than the team with 30. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
I can see why the InDenver Times was rejected by investors. You can't try to run a newsroom today like you did 10 years ago. You have to demand more and better from reporters. For too long, far too many reporters got fat on the spoils of an easy beat, only producing a story a day, maybe every two days. Those days are over.
You need reporters who can think past their competition, pound out two or three quality stories a day, and still have time to cultivate sources and relationships.
If you want online newsrooms to work any better than their print counterpart, you need people who are going to work harder, longer, and have more of a vested interest in the overall success rather than their own. They need to forget about 'days gone by' and think about 'the days ahead' and being better journalists.
Online may very well be the way to save journalism (I don't think it is), but you can't do it by running newsrooms the same way print news has been done.
We've seen how that works out - and it isn't pretty.
FdS
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Newspaper bailouts = S-T-U-P-I-D
This world has some great writers. This world has some great thinkers - visionaries, in fact. This world even has some who are great writers and thinkers - and still visionaries.
Luckily, some newspapers have great writers. And, some have the great thinkers. The best papers have great writers and thinkers - and visionaries.
In her last column with the LA Times, Rosa Brooks showed why she was an easy choice to usher out as a columnist for one of the US's largest newspapers.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,0,7379164.column
Government bailouts? Are you cracked? Obviously Ms. Brooks is not a great thinker and certainly not a visionary. Jury's out on the writing. She jumped ship to be flak.
Having the government bailout newspapers is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard since someone told me to go out and by a Beta machine... or more recently HD-DVD.
You can look at this so many different ways. Here are a couple simple examples for understanding this very complex conundrum:
1. Parents versus child - Parents A and B receive a call from the city police to come and bailout little Jimmy or sweet little Sally. A and B fork over the $500 to get Jimmy or Sally out, give them a stern scolding and shake their finger at them and tell them, "Things need to change."
Fast forward 6 months and Parents A and B receive a call from the city police to come and bailout little Jimmy or sweet little Sally. A and B, a little more miffed this time, still fork over the $750 this time - give a stern lecture about how this is never going to happen again and they're on their own now.
Little Jimmy is now Big Jimmy and sweet little Sally is, well still sweet little Sally, who has grown up. They've moved out, they're on their own, they try to keep jobs... but they sure know how to party. Jimmy or Sally parties so much, being irresponsible, paying for friends and friends of friends and acquaintances of friends of friends and then... ... ... rent is due. Shit!
Jimmy or Sally calls A and B because they're going to get thrown out of their apartment - and God forbid that happen! A and B fork over the $1,200 because they don't want to see their kids on the streets.
You know the lesson - better yet, the lack thereof.
Bailouts don't teach bad businesspeople how to do their jobs better. It merely shows them when they get greedy, bloated, high-on-the-hog - someone will be there to cushion their fall from grace. It doesn't teach anyone to be prudent. It doesn't teach anyone to do more, rather than less. It teaches bad businesspeople that someone will always be there to bail you out.
2. Parent and child - version 2 - This one is easier and shorter. Parents A and B (such a lovely couple) are prepared to pay for little Jimmy to play sports. But, A and B are huge soccer fans - and they tell little Jimmy that if he wants to play sports and they are to pay for it, he will play soccer.
Later on in life, Jimmy (who now wants to be referred to as 'James') scores 975 on his SATs and is ready for college. A and B (who are showing their age) tell James they'll pay for his college studies - but they want him to become a teacher. No teaching degree - no money.
He (or she) who has the all the gold, makes all the rules. You cannot call it journalism, or expect it to be objective, credible and untainted journalism (look, we all have our leanings - I get that), when that millstone is hung around the necks of newspapers. One call from a politician who needs good press - and you answer that call, or you'll be at the back of the line the next time the gravy train comes calling. And it will - because of point #1 (above).
Bailouts are the wrong answer
While Ms. Brooks' intentions are clearly posited to help the thousands of journos out there who, along with their newspapers are clinging to life, her stop-gap, ad-hoc solution will NOT save their jobs. Nor will it help the newspapers. It merely prolongs their seeming imminent demise (unless I can save them).
I can throw you so many examples - in life, in business, in love, even - where giving people or businesses a lifeline time and time again, only serves to propel the vicious circle they are in even faster.
* Welfare recipients rarely break out of the pattern; and in fact, often pass on that government handout mentality to their children - when so many can break the cycle, if they are told 'NO' and find a way to make things work. Yes, it's harsh and yes, it's Darwinist - but it needs to be done.
* Airlines have been the recipients (either financially or legislatively) of bailouts - yet they still struggle to maintain annual profitability. Many have shut down completely. They simply need to do business more effectively.
* The lover who keeps giving the cheater (or beater) another chance. Guess what, they usually get cheated on or beaten again.
The bottom line of this entry is to shred Ms. Brooks' theory that government bailouts will work for newspapers. They won't. Bailouts aren't going to work for the auto industry - and they sure won't work for newspapers.
Here's what newspapers should do to stay profitable (in no particular order... well, OK, maybe)
1. Break the unions - these life sucking parasites had their place in the birth of the industrial age - but have no place in the technology age - and they are sinking their respective organizations. They need to look in the mirror and understand and accept their irrelevance. (Funny thing is, they would rather fight for their 'rights' as workers and let the ship sink, than get off the boat and give themselves a fighting chance to survive with a life preserver).
2. Stop taking on debt - I sincerely hope that at least one megalomanical media CEO ends up reading this and realizes the 10 variety TV stations they picked up cost them $400 million in debt - and with ad rates and participation dwindling, they can't pay it off.
Unfortunately, their ego gets the better of them as they all envision an 'empire' (hullo, PKP) and their place in the annals of media history.
But, that's why we're in this position with newspapers (and television soon, too).
3. Know your reader - The days of being all things to all people are over. Be the BEST for the people you know you appeal to.
4. MATTER - Matter always exists. A metaphorical way to look at this would be: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed - it always exists. It's merely redistributed. Newspapers need to MATTER - and when they matter, the information they package for the reader will always exist.
5. It's not about you - I steal this from the Four Agreements: From publisher to editor to reporter to sales associate to accounting - this is a fundamental. We are not in newspapers or journalism for it to be about us - it's about the readers. Unfortunately, media is an ego-driven business - and that is one of its tragic undoings.
When we get back to the reason we are journalists - to provide the truth to our readers... OUR READERS - then the truth shall set you free.
This game is about readers. Give them a package they can cling to; give them a piece of the day that they can get nowhere else; give them a newspaper that is authentic, dynamic, compelling and make it about them... ...
And you will survive.
FdS
Luckily, some newspapers have great writers. And, some have the great thinkers. The best papers have great writers and thinkers - and visionaries.
In her last column with the LA Times, Rosa Brooks showed why she was an easy choice to usher out as a columnist for one of the US's largest newspapers.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,0,7379164.column
Government bailouts? Are you cracked? Obviously Ms. Brooks is not a great thinker and certainly not a visionary. Jury's out on the writing. She jumped ship to be flak.
Having the government bailout newspapers is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard since someone told me to go out and by a Beta machine... or more recently HD-DVD.
You can look at this so many different ways. Here are a couple simple examples for understanding this very complex conundrum:
1. Parents versus child - Parents A and B receive a call from the city police to come and bailout little Jimmy or sweet little Sally. A and B fork over the $500 to get Jimmy or Sally out, give them a stern scolding and shake their finger at them and tell them, "Things need to change."
Fast forward 6 months and Parents A and B receive a call from the city police to come and bailout little Jimmy or sweet little Sally. A and B, a little more miffed this time, still fork over the $750 this time - give a stern lecture about how this is never going to happen again and they're on their own now.
Little Jimmy is now Big Jimmy and sweet little Sally is, well still sweet little Sally, who has grown up. They've moved out, they're on their own, they try to keep jobs... but they sure know how to party. Jimmy or Sally parties so much, being irresponsible, paying for friends and friends of friends and acquaintances of friends of friends and then... ... ... rent is due. Shit!
Jimmy or Sally calls A and B because they're going to get thrown out of their apartment - and God forbid that happen! A and B fork over the $1,200 because they don't want to see their kids on the streets.
You know the lesson - better yet, the lack thereof.
Bailouts don't teach bad businesspeople how to do their jobs better. It merely shows them when they get greedy, bloated, high-on-the-hog - someone will be there to cushion their fall from grace. It doesn't teach anyone to be prudent. It doesn't teach anyone to do more, rather than less. It teaches bad businesspeople that someone will always be there to bail you out.
2. Parent and child - version 2 - This one is easier and shorter. Parents A and B (such a lovely couple) are prepared to pay for little Jimmy to play sports. But, A and B are huge soccer fans - and they tell little Jimmy that if he wants to play sports and they are to pay for it, he will play soccer.
Later on in life, Jimmy (who now wants to be referred to as 'James') scores 975 on his SATs and is ready for college. A and B (who are showing their age) tell James they'll pay for his college studies - but they want him to become a teacher. No teaching degree - no money.
He (or she) who has the all the gold, makes all the rules. You cannot call it journalism, or expect it to be objective, credible and untainted journalism (look, we all have our leanings - I get that), when that millstone is hung around the necks of newspapers. One call from a politician who needs good press - and you answer that call, or you'll be at the back of the line the next time the gravy train comes calling. And it will - because of point #1 (above).
Bailouts are the wrong answer
While Ms. Brooks' intentions are clearly posited to help the thousands of journos out there who, along with their newspapers are clinging to life, her stop-gap, ad-hoc solution will NOT save their jobs. Nor will it help the newspapers. It merely prolongs their seeming imminent demise (unless I can save them).
I can throw you so many examples - in life, in business, in love, even - where giving people or businesses a lifeline time and time again, only serves to propel the vicious circle they are in even faster.
* Welfare recipients rarely break out of the pattern; and in fact, often pass on that government handout mentality to their children - when so many can break the cycle, if they are told 'NO' and find a way to make things work. Yes, it's harsh and yes, it's Darwinist - but it needs to be done.
* Airlines have been the recipients (either financially or legislatively) of bailouts - yet they still struggle to maintain annual profitability. Many have shut down completely. They simply need to do business more effectively.
* The lover who keeps giving the cheater (or beater) another chance. Guess what, they usually get cheated on or beaten again.
The bottom line of this entry is to shred Ms. Brooks' theory that government bailouts will work for newspapers. They won't. Bailouts aren't going to work for the auto industry - and they sure won't work for newspapers.
Here's what newspapers should do to stay profitable (in no particular order... well, OK, maybe)
1. Break the unions - these life sucking parasites had their place in the birth of the industrial age - but have no place in the technology age - and they are sinking their respective organizations. They need to look in the mirror and understand and accept their irrelevance. (Funny thing is, they would rather fight for their 'rights' as workers and let the ship sink, than get off the boat and give themselves a fighting chance to survive with a life preserver).
2. Stop taking on debt - I sincerely hope that at least one megalomanical media CEO ends up reading this and realizes the 10 variety TV stations they picked up cost them $400 million in debt - and with ad rates and participation dwindling, they can't pay it off.
Unfortunately, their ego gets the better of them as they all envision an 'empire' (hullo, PKP) and their place in the annals of media history.
But, that's why we're in this position with newspapers (and television soon, too).
3. Know your reader - The days of being all things to all people are over. Be the BEST for the people you know you appeal to.
4. MATTER - Matter always exists. A metaphorical way to look at this would be: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed - it always exists. It's merely redistributed. Newspapers need to MATTER - and when they matter, the information they package for the reader will always exist.
5. It's not about you - I steal this from the Four Agreements: From publisher to editor to reporter to sales associate to accounting - this is a fundamental. We are not in newspapers or journalism for it to be about us - it's about the readers. Unfortunately, media is an ego-driven business - and that is one of its tragic undoings.
When we get back to the reason we are journalists - to provide the truth to our readers... OUR READERS - then the truth shall set you free.
This game is about readers. Give them a package they can cling to; give them a piece of the day that they can get nowhere else; give them a newspaper that is authentic, dynamic, compelling and make it about them... ...
And you will survive.
FdS
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The eternal struggle: editorial versus advertising
Some of you reading this will automatically think, "Oh, he's an editorial guy, of course he thinks that you need more editorial than ads...", but really, I'll prove to you that more editorial will actually save newspapers rather than kill them.
What Readers Want
I almost choked on my lunch when my publisher and I had the discussion about editorial and advertising and he had the nerve to tell me that readers actually WANT to see the advertising on the page, because it's a change of pace. I may have snorted, realized my salad was going down the wrong hole and then just smiled and nodded, making sure not to die with a piece of lettuce lodged in my throat - but I digress.
Preface: I get that we need strong advertising support to do a few things:
1. Pay the bills - and ultimately pay for the pages we print
2. Provide variety and a change of pace
3. Add extra value for readers
But is it what they really want to see? Let's approach it this way:
* Why do we have PVR (and VCRs of the past)? To record our shows, and? That's right - to fast forward past the commercials.
* What do we do when we're listening to the radio and our station goes through its three or four minute run of 'paying the bills'? Thank God for auto-presets on the radio dial, because we often change the station to avoid the commercials.
* What's the advantage of listening to music on an iPod? No commercials between songs.
* Why has satellite radio taken off? Fewer commercials!
I think you get the point. While advertising has its place as a fundraising tool, and as a medium for companies to get their message out to the public, it should not be the primary reason for printing a newspaper - or for that matter running a television or radio station.
NOTE: One of the competitor papers in our city has substantially diminishing revenues because the biggest knock on it that it has become an 'advertising rag' with little content to appeal to readers.
Perfect seg into the next section.
What Advertisers Want
I could really sum this up in one word: EYES.
But, I'll expand slightly - though, I don't think it needs much explanation.
Advertisers make their 'buy' with the express intent that they are reaching the most number of readers - often within their target demographic. Some advertisers don't care as much about demographic as they care about sheer numbers. EYES, EYES, EYES.
The more people who read the newspaper or watch the television program the BETTER the advertiser response. The laws guiding response advertising act in correspondence with the volume of people who actually see the ad. So numbers are everything.
That's it.
What Newspapers Want
Profit. But, that's not a bad thing. I'm as capitalist as many - and certainly don't believe in state-owned media (yeesh, conjures up bad images of TASS).
The funny thing is, newspapers want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want profit. How do they get profit? Advertisers. What do advertisers want? EYES? What do readers want? LESS ADVERTISING? But, what's a newspapers solution for profit? Cut pages and make them tighter - so each page more than pays for itself.
What does that do?
It alienates readers, because they are bombarded with MORE ads and LESS of the editorial package they enjoy readers. The result is double-pronged. First - fewer readers. When you have fewers readers - You end up with less advertising. Therefore, newspapers are forced to make more cuts - at the expense of editorial.
The Problem
Readership has been sacrificed by those in control of newspapers, at the expense of editorial, in order to make profits. Advertisers have been given ultimate control of a newspaper's size and in some cases content - because it's about appeasing those who give you money.
But, in the end, if money isn't being made, those who create the package that attract the EYES always seem to get the cut.
I'm not for a moment suggesting all half-baked, sit-on-their-ass journalists deserve a job (in fact, MOST newspapers are bloated with staff who aren't worth the newsprint they write on) - but I am suggesting that the last place you want to cut is editorial space.
YES, editorial can do with fewer journalists on staff and they can work harder. We can knock most of them off their prima-donna ivory towers and back to the reality of working a long hard day to get a story.
But - don't sacrifice the space. The space - complete with compelling copy, fantastic layout and images that draw the reader in - needs to be preserved. Trust me - it's for the sake of advertisers and for the sake of the readers.
By increasing the amount of editorial space you provide, you will be paid back 10-fold in reader loyalty. And we've already established what that means for advertising revenue.
The Solution
I believe it's simple. Be judicious about it - but more space needs to be opened up to aid in the creation of a more dynamic product that draws readers.
The collars of our publishers are getting tighter and sweat is starting to bead on their respective brows. And they hack up the question: "But what about the bottom line?"
The answer seems to make sense to a non-business person like me. Charge more for the valuable EYES you are attracting to the newspaper. There is a reason why National Geographic can charge low to mid 5-figures for a full-page advertisement. They are seen by millions.
Be seen by hundreds of thousands in your respective market and advertisers will want to be a part of your newspaper. Increase the line rate a little more so you can make up for the extra pages that you are opening up for editorial.
I know it seems like a stretch - but the model that's being used right now isn't working. Newspapers are being threatened with extinction (and it's not because of the Internet - though if you read my previous blogs, you'll read my thoughts on that).
We aren't creating an attractive reader package. So why would anyone pick it up? If no one is picking it up, then you have no advertisers. If you have no advertisers, than you certainly can't be making a profit.
And, if you aren't making a profit, why are you in business?
FdS
What Readers Want
I almost choked on my lunch when my publisher and I had the discussion about editorial and advertising and he had the nerve to tell me that readers actually WANT to see the advertising on the page, because it's a change of pace. I may have snorted, realized my salad was going down the wrong hole and then just smiled and nodded, making sure not to die with a piece of lettuce lodged in my throat - but I digress.
Preface: I get that we need strong advertising support to do a few things:
1. Pay the bills - and ultimately pay for the pages we print
2. Provide variety and a change of pace
3. Add extra value for readers
But is it what they really want to see? Let's approach it this way:
* Why do we have PVR (and VCRs of the past)? To record our shows, and? That's right - to fast forward past the commercials.
* What do we do when we're listening to the radio and our station goes through its three or four minute run of 'paying the bills'? Thank God for auto-presets on the radio dial, because we often change the station to avoid the commercials.
* What's the advantage of listening to music on an iPod? No commercials between songs.
* Why has satellite radio taken off? Fewer commercials!
I think you get the point. While advertising has its place as a fundraising tool, and as a medium for companies to get their message out to the public, it should not be the primary reason for printing a newspaper - or for that matter running a television or radio station.
NOTE: One of the competitor papers in our city has substantially diminishing revenues because the biggest knock on it that it has become an 'advertising rag' with little content to appeal to readers.
Perfect seg into the next section.
What Advertisers Want
I could really sum this up in one word: EYES.
But, I'll expand slightly - though, I don't think it needs much explanation.
Advertisers make their 'buy' with the express intent that they are reaching the most number of readers - often within their target demographic. Some advertisers don't care as much about demographic as they care about sheer numbers. EYES, EYES, EYES.
The more people who read the newspaper or watch the television program the BETTER the advertiser response. The laws guiding response advertising act in correspondence with the volume of people who actually see the ad. So numbers are everything.
That's it.
What Newspapers Want
Profit. But, that's not a bad thing. I'm as capitalist as many - and certainly don't believe in state-owned media (yeesh, conjures up bad images of TASS).
The funny thing is, newspapers want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want profit. How do they get profit? Advertisers. What do advertisers want? EYES? What do readers want? LESS ADVERTISING? But, what's a newspapers solution for profit? Cut pages and make them tighter - so each page more than pays for itself.
What does that do?
It alienates readers, because they are bombarded with MORE ads and LESS of the editorial package they enjoy readers. The result is double-pronged. First - fewer readers. When you have fewers readers - You end up with less advertising. Therefore, newspapers are forced to make more cuts - at the expense of editorial.
The Problem
Readership has been sacrificed by those in control of newspapers, at the expense of editorial, in order to make profits. Advertisers have been given ultimate control of a newspaper's size and in some cases content - because it's about appeasing those who give you money.
But, in the end, if money isn't being made, those who create the package that attract the EYES always seem to get the cut.
I'm not for a moment suggesting all half-baked, sit-on-their-ass journalists deserve a job (in fact, MOST newspapers are bloated with staff who aren't worth the newsprint they write on) - but I am suggesting that the last place you want to cut is editorial space.
YES, editorial can do with fewer journalists on staff and they can work harder. We can knock most of them off their prima-donna ivory towers and back to the reality of working a long hard day to get a story.
But - don't sacrifice the space. The space - complete with compelling copy, fantastic layout and images that draw the reader in - needs to be preserved. Trust me - it's for the sake of advertisers and for the sake of the readers.
By increasing the amount of editorial space you provide, you will be paid back 10-fold in reader loyalty. And we've already established what that means for advertising revenue.
The Solution
I believe it's simple. Be judicious about it - but more space needs to be opened up to aid in the creation of a more dynamic product that draws readers.
The collars of our publishers are getting tighter and sweat is starting to bead on their respective brows. And they hack up the question: "But what about the bottom line?"
The answer seems to make sense to a non-business person like me. Charge more for the valuable EYES you are attracting to the newspaper. There is a reason why National Geographic can charge low to mid 5-figures for a full-page advertisement. They are seen by millions.
Be seen by hundreds of thousands in your respective market and advertisers will want to be a part of your newspaper. Increase the line rate a little more so you can make up for the extra pages that you are opening up for editorial.
I know it seems like a stretch - but the model that's being used right now isn't working. Newspapers are being threatened with extinction (and it's not because of the Internet - though if you read my previous blogs, you'll read my thoughts on that).
We aren't creating an attractive reader package. So why would anyone pick it up? If no one is picking it up, then you have no advertisers. If you have no advertisers, than you certainly can't be making a profit.
And, if you aren't making a profit, why are you in business?
FdS
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The fall of print media: Reason one, part two
Newspapers have long been accused of being dinosaurs in a rapidly changing media world. It's true to some extent - but only those naive enough to believe that's the reason for the downfall ever utter those words.
I will say this until my last breath: Internet did not kill newspapers. Newspapers killed newspapers because they did the Internet without actually thinking through how it could help themselves rather than hinder their print product. It was a stereotypical "shoot first, ask questions later," only the questions being asked are, "How the f--k are we going to save this sinking ship?"
It is never easy to stop that flywheel from moving in one direction - especially when the wheel is already spinning at 3,000 rpm. But, that flywheel needs to be slowed, changed and then relaunched so it doesn't cannibalize daily newspapers, but instead, enhances it.
I cannot underscore this point enough. We need to change the relationship between newspapers and their Internet counterpart - QUICKLY.
The relationship it has now, even among the different media from the same company, is competitive as opposed to symbiotic. I shake my head. Neither side gets it. And unless they realize what they are doing, they will capitulate and neither Internet or print news at any particular outlet will exist. (Can you say Rocky Mountain News).
Here's the dichotomy: Newspaper gets how to do newspaper, and they get how to do news online (really, it's just the same stuff, with a fancy html code behind it). Web knows how to do web: YouTube vidz, online polls, comments, Twitter feeds, RSS feeds - and it knows how to post the news given it by the print editorial teams.
What NEITHER knows how to do, is make the relationship completely beneficial for the other. Web force people back to print; Print throw to web features, more photos, video (yes, despite Harry Potter, we don't have this feature yet) and the interesting things only the Web can do.
BUT - and this is a big but: Stop it there and only deliver the headlines and a graph or two on the story. That's all anyone who hits the web wants to read. If they want more, they have to pick up the newspaper in the morning - to see what it actually means to them. You get the tidbit on the Internet news site, so you can talk about it at the water cooler - but if you want to get educated, or see your favorite columnist put a spin on it, then you need to go to print.
Who's dumb ass idea was it any way to put all of the material online? It wastes resources, time (I've seen the numbers and most people don't read 1/4 of what's posted on an Internet news site. They just don't stay long enough to do it). People want quick hits, things that pique their interest, and games, contests and a two minute video blast.
Let me ask you this? Does YouTube post 2 hour videos online? Which ones are the most popular? Probably those in the two to three minute range. Then the surfer is on to the next one. We Facebook, we Twitter - because it's instant and it's short.
That's how we need to do news on the Internet. Then force them to find out what it means by going back to the newspaper.
Why are we posting today's news instantly on the web - and giving potential newspaper readers the insight TODAY, when all they really want is the scoop. Then when they have 10 minutes to read the paper in the morning over breakfast, or perhaps they pick up a copy for their 30 60 minute train commute. Thus driving readership.
To capture this all quickly: Change how print newspapers and their Internet counterparts operate. They aren't out to get each other. They aren't out to scoop each other.
The consumer is bang on here - why on earth would they pay for a newspaper in the morning, with news that's 24 hours old, that they saw first on the Internet 20 hours ago. The problem is, they won't.
Hence, the current decline in readership.
AND, perhaps most importantly - newspaper execs believe the downfall of newspapers has to do with a down economy and therefore advertisers aren't spending money. That's bullshit. It has to do with dropping readership and the advertiser dollar isn't going as far as it used to. Advertisers want faces reading their ads.
Problem is, newspapers have chased all of those daily print news subscribing faces to the Internet by cannibalizing itself and posting their goods for free via Internet. Only the advertisers haven't followed, because you can't guarantee the face time you can in a newspaper. Bravo! Bravo! Brilliant marketing and sales scheme.
I believe we need to make newspapers, Internet, mobile news delivery and even television and radio work as a multi-platform approach. Find what each does best and deliver the news the best way with that approach, without trying to do what the other one tries to do.
Now, if only we can get that dinosaur to move a little quicker on this one.
FdS
I will say this until my last breath: Internet did not kill newspapers. Newspapers killed newspapers because they did the Internet without actually thinking through how it could help themselves rather than hinder their print product. It was a stereotypical "shoot first, ask questions later," only the questions being asked are, "How the f--k are we going to save this sinking ship?"
It is never easy to stop that flywheel from moving in one direction - especially when the wheel is already spinning at 3,000 rpm. But, that flywheel needs to be slowed, changed and then relaunched so it doesn't cannibalize daily newspapers, but instead, enhances it.
I cannot underscore this point enough. We need to change the relationship between newspapers and their Internet counterpart - QUICKLY.
The relationship it has now, even among the different media from the same company, is competitive as opposed to symbiotic. I shake my head. Neither side gets it. And unless they realize what they are doing, they will capitulate and neither Internet or print news at any particular outlet will exist. (Can you say Rocky Mountain News).
Here's the dichotomy: Newspaper gets how to do newspaper, and they get how to do news online (really, it's just the same stuff, with a fancy html code behind it). Web knows how to do web: YouTube vidz, online polls, comments, Twitter feeds, RSS feeds - and it knows how to post the news given it by the print editorial teams.
What NEITHER knows how to do, is make the relationship completely beneficial for the other. Web force people back to print; Print throw to web features, more photos, video (yes, despite Harry Potter, we don't have this feature yet) and the interesting things only the Web can do.
BUT - and this is a big but: Stop it there and only deliver the headlines and a graph or two on the story. That's all anyone who hits the web wants to read. If they want more, they have to pick up the newspaper in the morning - to see what it actually means to them. You get the tidbit on the Internet news site, so you can talk about it at the water cooler - but if you want to get educated, or see your favorite columnist put a spin on it, then you need to go to print.
Who's dumb ass idea was it any way to put all of the material online? It wastes resources, time (I've seen the numbers and most people don't read 1/4 of what's posted on an Internet news site. They just don't stay long enough to do it). People want quick hits, things that pique their interest, and games, contests and a two minute video blast.
Let me ask you this? Does YouTube post 2 hour videos online? Which ones are the most popular? Probably those in the two to three minute range. Then the surfer is on to the next one. We Facebook, we Twitter - because it's instant and it's short.
That's how we need to do news on the Internet. Then force them to find out what it means by going back to the newspaper.
Why are we posting today's news instantly on the web - and giving potential newspaper readers the insight TODAY, when all they really want is the scoop. Then when they have 10 minutes to read the paper in the morning over breakfast, or perhaps they pick up a copy for their 30 60 minute train commute. Thus driving readership.
To capture this all quickly: Change how print newspapers and their Internet counterparts operate. They aren't out to get each other. They aren't out to scoop each other.
The consumer is bang on here - why on earth would they pay for a newspaper in the morning, with news that's 24 hours old, that they saw first on the Internet 20 hours ago. The problem is, they won't.
Hence, the current decline in readership.
AND, perhaps most importantly - newspaper execs believe the downfall of newspapers has to do with a down economy and therefore advertisers aren't spending money. That's bullshit. It has to do with dropping readership and the advertiser dollar isn't going as far as it used to. Advertisers want faces reading their ads.
Problem is, newspapers have chased all of those daily print news subscribing faces to the Internet by cannibalizing itself and posting their goods for free via Internet. Only the advertisers haven't followed, because you can't guarantee the face time you can in a newspaper. Bravo! Bravo! Brilliant marketing and sales scheme.
I believe we need to make newspapers, Internet, mobile news delivery and even television and radio work as a multi-platform approach. Find what each does best and deliver the news the best way with that approach, without trying to do what the other one tries to do.
Now, if only we can get that dinosaur to move a little quicker on this one.
FdS
Saturday, March 14, 2009
I'm not a historian: the fall of print media - Reason 1, part one
This subject could have reams and reams written on it: but we don't publish it because we'd have to shrink the pages, find a way to get it up on the web before everyone else, do it with a writer who has no passion and no desire to deliver the truth, use editors who edit out of vanity - and must do so with an advertiser looming over shoulder; because after all, God forbid we could put a quality product that readers would pick up without the help of advertisers.
OK, maybe the state of newspapers would only take a graph from a blogger to capture.
Maybe not.
Like I said, I'm not a print media historian; I can only go on what I see, hear and know. Of course, my own cynic's filter is placed over it, along with that idealist nature, with a gentle stroke of passion for the topic.
I'll start by saying the 2009 situation has nothing to do with the 'economic meltdown' so the term has been coined. Has it helped? No. But it also isn't the catalyst for paper closures, either. Newspapers themselves are the problem. It's a big and broad topic, and I'll likely not do it the justice it deserves. But here goes:
(Let me preface this by saying this is only the first area I have identified, and by NO MEANS the only reason)
1.) Stop cannibalizing yourselves: Good God, folks. It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to figure out that you can't post the same material to the Internet that you put in the paper the next day. You immediately cut out that segment of readership from your print product. Duh.
Yes, people want their quick hits of news, breaking news hits and interesting tidbits - but they want the 'Twitter" version of it. They don't need all 500 words - they want 140 characters.
Why do you think text messaging and Twitter and Facebook IM have taken over as the communication method of choice? Because it's quick.
Newspapers don't GET quick. But they should. Is the Internet important? YES! But, it is only a portion of your audience, and it is a portion of the audience that is looking for specific things. They want their headlines, they want instant updates, they want games, contests and access to letters to the editor - but what the web reader doesn't want, nor need, is in-depth analysis.
I get regular updates from my own newspapers web statistics and we get tens of thousands of hits per month, but they only stay for two pages and their web stamina is very limited - down to only one or two minutes. Yet, our web teams spend countless creative hours trying to come up with ingenious ways to keep the readers on the page. (Of course, this is for advertising reasons. Leave it to the corporate head honchos to want to monetize EVERYTHING - which, I guess they should, because I do want to get paid. But, wait for my piece on the Myth about Advertising).
Here's the truth: Newspaper organizations across North America have dumped hundreds of millions into developing the best and latest in web and mobile platforms - yet they don't get the mileage out of it - because they cater to an 'instant-minded' readership, but are trying to apply old-school newspaper tactics to keep them engaged.
I have to laugh, because the very people (web development) who are designing the sites, are the very people that they are catering to - YES! Other web savvy people. They know what these people want, yet they are told to deliver something that old school management wants - face time with the computer.
Not going to happen.
That's enough for now. Part two on this topic will come later. Just remember: Web people don't want print news on their laptops, desktops or Macs. They want quick, they want to be in the know and they want it to be short.
Why doesn't newspaper management get that.
In the next blog, I'll show you why we HAVE to change the relationship between web and print immediately, if we are to save newspapers.
OK, maybe the state of newspapers would only take a graph from a blogger to capture.
Maybe not.
Like I said, I'm not a print media historian; I can only go on what I see, hear and know. Of course, my own cynic's filter is placed over it, along with that idealist nature, with a gentle stroke of passion for the topic.
I'll start by saying the 2009 situation has nothing to do with the 'economic meltdown' so the term has been coined. Has it helped? No. But it also isn't the catalyst for paper closures, either. Newspapers themselves are the problem. It's a big and broad topic, and I'll likely not do it the justice it deserves. But here goes:
(Let me preface this by saying this is only the first area I have identified, and by NO MEANS the only reason)
1.) Stop cannibalizing yourselves: Good God, folks. It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to figure out that you can't post the same material to the Internet that you put in the paper the next day. You immediately cut out that segment of readership from your print product. Duh.
Yes, people want their quick hits of news, breaking news hits and interesting tidbits - but they want the 'Twitter" version of it. They don't need all 500 words - they want 140 characters.
Why do you think text messaging and Twitter and Facebook IM have taken over as the communication method of choice? Because it's quick.
Newspapers don't GET quick. But they should. Is the Internet important? YES! But, it is only a portion of your audience, and it is a portion of the audience that is looking for specific things. They want their headlines, they want instant updates, they want games, contests and access to letters to the editor - but what the web reader doesn't want, nor need, is in-depth analysis.
I get regular updates from my own newspapers web statistics and we get tens of thousands of hits per month, but they only stay for two pages and their web stamina is very limited - down to only one or two minutes. Yet, our web teams spend countless creative hours trying to come up with ingenious ways to keep the readers on the page. (Of course, this is for advertising reasons. Leave it to the corporate head honchos to want to monetize EVERYTHING - which, I guess they should, because I do want to get paid. But, wait for my piece on the Myth about Advertising).
Here's the truth: Newspaper organizations across North America have dumped hundreds of millions into developing the best and latest in web and mobile platforms - yet they don't get the mileage out of it - because they cater to an 'instant-minded' readership, but are trying to apply old-school newspaper tactics to keep them engaged.
I have to laugh, because the very people (web development) who are designing the sites, are the very people that they are catering to - YES! Other web savvy people. They know what these people want, yet they are told to deliver something that old school management wants - face time with the computer.
Not going to happen.
That's enough for now. Part two on this topic will come later. Just remember: Web people don't want print news on their laptops, desktops or Macs. They want quick, they want to be in the know and they want it to be short.
Why doesn't newspaper management get that.
In the next blog, I'll show you why we HAVE to change the relationship between web and print immediately, if we are to save newspapers.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Birth of Journo 2.0
The year 2009, and for that matter, 2008, have been unkind to the newspaper industry. But, as my dad used to tell me: you made the bed, now you have to sleep in it.
Watching a steady stream of wire reports, twitter posts and print headlines extolling the doom of newspapers, and seeing a steadier flow of colleagues' job losses - wondering if I am next - prompted me to start blogging about it.
Call it stress management. Call it catharsis. Call it an axe to grind.
Hopefully, in the end - with the contribution of others - we can call it a solution.
Print newspapers have a place in today's 'instant-society'. And yes, I do believe a daily morning newspaper can survive in this world of instant news, split second headlines, e-mail, twitter, the Web, television and radio.
You probably think I'm one of the dinosaurs who helped get print media in this place to begin with - especially with my belief we can compete with other media. Or, you may think I am some greenhorn just out of J-school, hoping, begging, pleading to get a career out of a field many say is all but dead.
Actually - I am neither. I will admit to being an opportunist, an idealist, and a believer in doing things better and smarter than the other guys. I am a journalist, a writer, a media professional with a profound passion for what I do; and I am a person who believes that there is no better medium than newspaper to explore life in our respective communities.
Over the next several weeks, months, and maybe even years - I will explore journalism and print media as it undergoes a metamorphosis of sorts.
In the end, I believe you too will believe newspapers can survive - though I will pull no punches and I will show the reality of the other side, and why it doesn't work.
Look forward to having you join my journey - and if you like it, pass it along to other journalists and writers. Together, we can change journalism and we can alter the devastating path of newspapers across North America.
Are you up for it?
FdS
Watching a steady stream of wire reports, twitter posts and print headlines extolling the doom of newspapers, and seeing a steadier flow of colleagues' job losses - wondering if I am next - prompted me to start blogging about it.
Call it stress management. Call it catharsis. Call it an axe to grind.
Hopefully, in the end - with the contribution of others - we can call it a solution.
Print newspapers have a place in today's 'instant-society'. And yes, I do believe a daily morning newspaper can survive in this world of instant news, split second headlines, e-mail, twitter, the Web, television and radio.
You probably think I'm one of the dinosaurs who helped get print media in this place to begin with - especially with my belief we can compete with other media. Or, you may think I am some greenhorn just out of J-school, hoping, begging, pleading to get a career out of a field many say is all but dead.
Actually - I am neither. I will admit to being an opportunist, an idealist, and a believer in doing things better and smarter than the other guys. I am a journalist, a writer, a media professional with a profound passion for what I do; and I am a person who believes that there is no better medium than newspaper to explore life in our respective communities.
Over the next several weeks, months, and maybe even years - I will explore journalism and print media as it undergoes a metamorphosis of sorts.
In the end, I believe you too will believe newspapers can survive - though I will pull no punches and I will show the reality of the other side, and why it doesn't work.
Look forward to having you join my journey - and if you like it, pass it along to other journalists and writers. Together, we can change journalism and we can alter the devastating path of newspapers across North America.
Are you up for it?
FdS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)