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'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.

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