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