Comments on: The Future of Journalism, Part I http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/ Chronicling the Decline of Newspapers and the Rebirth of Journalism Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:14:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Paul Gillin http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1923 Paul Gillin Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:31:50 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1923 Interesting idea to confine coverage to those areas. I think you hit on an important point, which is profitability. If you shift the focus from size to profits, an online-mostly model can deliver very nice margins. Listen to <a href="http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/05/14/top-print-publisher-finds-better-life-online/" rel="nofollow">our interview with IDG's Pat McGovern</a> for a glimpse of how nice a business that can be. Interesting idea to confine coverage to those areas. I think you hit on an important point, which is profitability. If you shift the focus from size to profits, an online-mostly model can deliver very nice margins. Listen to our interview with IDG’s Pat McGovern for a glimpse of how nice a business that can be.

]]> By: Rick Hancock http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1922 Rick Hancock Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:09:00 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1922 Bravo! Very well done. I have long argued with my print friends that as soon as the bean counters at their respective media companies figured out how to make money online their days as just news"paper" reporters would be numbered. I tried to tell them that the corporate publishers aren't as married to continuing a newspaper as they are. It's a business first and foremost. And, while the corporate folks haven't totally figured out how to turn as big a profit online as they have in print, they have learned print is expensive and online provides a cheeper alternative. However, I always quickly move the conversation beyond pure economics. I argue -- citing many of the same reasons you gave -- that journalism will only get better by moving the news product to the web. The Long Tail analogy was perfect for what's going on here in Connecticut. The Hartford Courant, owned by Tribune, announced it's laying off news staff and reducing the size of the actual newspaper. My suggestion for the Courant, if it insists on continuing to publish a printed product, is to focus on the three things people care about the most in these parts: State and Local Politics, University of Connecticut athletics and the weather. If that's all they covered and if they covered it well I might want to subscribe to the paper again. Bravo! Very well done. I have long argued with my print friends that as soon as the bean counters at their respective media companies figured out how to make money online their days as just news”paper” reporters would be numbered. I tried to tell them that the corporate publishers aren’t as married to continuing a newspaper as they are. It’s a business first and foremost. And, while the corporate folks haven’t totally figured out how to turn as big a profit online as they have in print, they have learned print is expensive and online provides a cheeper alternative. However, I always quickly move the conversation beyond pure economics. I argue — citing many of the same reasons you gave — that journalism will only get better by moving the news product to the web. The Long Tail analogy was perfect for what’s going on here in Connecticut. The Hartford Courant, owned by Tribune, announced it’s laying off news staff and reducing the size of the actual newspaper. My suggestion for the Courant, if it insists on continuing to publish a printed product, is to focus on the three things people care about the most in these parts: State and Local Politics, University of Connecticut athletics and the weather. If that’s all they covered and if they covered it well I might want to subscribe to the paper again.

]]> By: Newspaper industry: worst of times, or best? « WordCount/by Michelle Vranizan Rafter http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1908 Newspaper industry: worst of times, or best? « WordCount/by Michelle Vranizan Rafter Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:20:22 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1908 [...] The future of journalism, part I - Social media and online news expert Paul Gillin’s take on what newspapers need to do to transform themselves for 21st century. [...] [...] The future of journalism, part I - Social media and online news expert Paul Gillin’s take on what newspapers need to do to transform themselves for 21st century. [...]

]]> By: paulgillin http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1906 paulgillin Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:35:32 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1906 I mentioned that reinvention requires discarding assumptions, and I see your comments reflecting some assumptions that I think need to be questioned. Why do newspapers need to be comprehensive? Perhaps maintaining that database of community resources and embellishing it with citizen reviews is enough. Or maybe an operation with 10 employees that does an outstanding job of covering city government could be profitable. There are startups that are succeeding right now with just such a model. If newspapers continue to believe they need to be all things to all people, then they will fail for the reasons you note: it simply requires too many people to do that. The whole trend in publishing for the last five years has been toward small, focused markets, a concept Chris Anderson called the Long Tail. Small markets can be enormously profitable, but at a much smaller revenue level than papers have previously enjoyed. The mindset that says scale=success just doesn't work any more. I believe the most successful approach is to look at profitable niches and then go after those opportunities with a much lower cost structure. Shift the emphasis from revenues to profits. However, as you point out, most organizations are unwilling or unable to make these changes. Investors won't accept a strategy that calls for reducing revenue, even if it's a more profitable strategy. So most organizations will continue to trim and tighten the belt and hope things will get better, which they won't. It's not that these people are stupid. They just don't have permission from their executives and investors to really rethink the business. Unfortunately, I think the solution is what you said: scrap the product and start from scratch. A very small number of organizations are doing that, but the change is too traumatic for most publishers to accept. They'd rather see the whole business go down than try to save part of it. This has happened again and again in other industries and, sadly, I see no reason that it won't happen here. I mentioned that reinvention requires discarding assumptions, and I see your comments reflecting some assumptions that I think need to be questioned. Why do newspapers need to be comprehensive? Perhaps maintaining that database of community resources and embellishing it with citizen reviews is enough. Or maybe an operation with 10 employees that does an outstanding job of covering city government could be profitable. There are startups that are succeeding right now with just such a model. If newspapers continue to believe they need to be all things to all people, then they will fail for the reasons you note: it simply requires too many people to do that.

The whole trend in publishing for the last five years has been toward small, focused markets, a concept Chris Anderson called the Long Tail. Small markets can be enormously profitable, but at a much smaller revenue level than papers have previously enjoyed. The mindset that says scale=success just doesn’t work any more. I believe the most successful approach is to look at profitable niches and then go after those opportunities with a much lower cost structure. Shift the emphasis from revenues to profits.

However, as you point out, most organizations are unwilling or unable to make these changes. Investors won’t accept a strategy that calls for reducing revenue, even if it’s a more profitable strategy. So most organizations will continue to trim and tighten the belt and hope things will get better, which they won’t. It’s not that these people are stupid. They just don’t have permission from their executives and investors to really rethink the business.

Unfortunately, I think the solution is what you said: scrap the product and start from scratch. A very small number of organizations are doing that, but the change is too traumatic for most publishers to accept. They’d rather see the whole business go down than try to save part of it. This has happened again and again in other industries and, sadly, I see no reason that it won’t happen here.

]]> By: cowpesh http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1895 cowpesh Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:51:24 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/01/the-future-of-journalism-part-i/#comment-1895 Paul, I think you've hit on the essence of what needs to be done in newsrooms across the country right now. Clearly papers need to focus on their strengths over other media, which include the ability to compile mass amounts of information, compile databases and collect all the relevant information about a story in one place. It seems like newspapers need to become less like daily products and more like encyclopedias, as much a research tool as a place for news updates. Providing source documents, interviews, background information and all that are good steps in that direction. But newsrooms are hesitant to do this because all anyone is concerned about right now is figuring out a way to stay afloat financially. Doing the in-depth reporting (not to mention the web postings, archiving, and data compiling) takes a staff at least as large as most newsrooms would have in their heydays. Blogger sites are able to link, compile, crowd source and moderate and all that, but they don't deal with issues on the scale that newspapers do. For a small, 20,000-circ daily to embrace everything that's needed, they'd be better scrapping the product and starting from scratch. Obviously that's not going to happen. Unfortunately, it all comes down to cash --- so how do you think newspapers can switch to the new model and get some promise of a financial reward that will keep the Wall Street types happy and let us get back to doing journalism, in all its forms? Paul, I think you’ve hit on the essence of what needs to be done in newsrooms across the country right now. Clearly papers need to focus on their strengths over other media, which include the ability to compile mass amounts of information, compile databases and collect all the relevant information about a story in one place. It seems like newspapers need to become less like daily products and more like encyclopedias, as much a research tool as a place for news updates. Providing source documents, interviews, background information and all that are good steps in that direction.

But newsrooms are hesitant to do this because all anyone is concerned about right now is figuring out a way to stay afloat financially. Doing the in-depth reporting (not to mention the web postings, archiving, and data compiling) takes a staff at least as large as most newsrooms would have in their heydays. Blogger sites are able to link, compile, crowd source and moderate and all that, but they don’t deal with issues on the scale that newspapers do. For a small, 20,000-circ daily to embrace everything that’s needed, they’d be better scrapping the product and starting from scratch. Obviously that’s not going to happen.

Unfortunately, it all comes down to cash — so how do you think newspapers can switch to the new model and get some promise of a financial reward that will keep the Wall Street types happy and let us get back to doing journalism, in all its forms?

]]>