Thoughts over beers on paid content

A friend and I were chewing over a favorite topic over pizza and beers the other night: the decline of quality and quantity of journalism at a time we need it most.

Acknowledging the hopelessness of the print model, we went on to complain about the deficiencies of online news consumption. The problem, of course, is that creditable, fair, balanced and researched news content online is almost entirely provided by print publications whose underlying business model is as dead as the trees on which they print. When we want to research coverage of a certain issue or event, the online aggregators, such as Google News, blend in blogs and other opinion outlets with the legitimate journalism, which damages the credibility of all online news. (Of course, there are a few journalistic blogs, but separating them out and branding their credibility is the issue.)

We agreed we would happily pay for reliable, quality journalism, but that it continued to amaze us that no one seemed to have come up with the viable, comprehensive solution. I said I liked the micropayment model, in which I set up an account with an outlet I have deemed to be reliable, and then each time I click a headline or blurb to read the full version of the article, my account gets charged a nominal amount, say a dime.

My friend noted that the problem with that is that many people would be averse to the open-ended cost structure and would hesitate to set up accounts when they didn’t know how much they would end up spending. He preferred the model of the Wall Street Journal, where you sign up for a year or so and get unlimited access.

One key difficulty with each is that we like to read multiple news outlets, and we will never have a finite universe of news producers we like and trust. We never know, for example, when an article from the Toledo Blade or the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal may provide just what we’re looking for.

Then it hit us. Why not have a central organization, international in nature, that becomes both the certifier of journalistic integrity and the accountant for news providers worldwide? This body could be an offshoot of an existing journalism organization or a federation of many around the world. News gatherers and producers could join this organization by certifying, and winning  the organization’s recognition, of their adherence to basic journalistic principles — independent research, concern for fairness and balance, accuracy and accountability, etc.

News organizations belonging to this body could carry the logo on their own sites. The organization itself could aggregate the content of its members on its site.

A news consumer could sign up once with a credit card and choose either a monthly fee, say $30 for unlimited use, or a pay-per-click fee — again, about 10 cents. The technology would have to be such that once logged in to the umbrella organization, the consumer would not  have to log in to individual news outlets or enter payment information for each click.

The hope would be that by first establishing credibility, consumers and advertisers would follow. It seemed like a great idea at the time. I’m sure there are a few wrinkles in this concept. Care to weigh in?

Detroit Free Press maligns its name

OK, times are tough, especially in Detroit. Newspapers are in a quandary trying to appeal to dwindling advertisers while their circulation plummets, and the lack of ad revenue impairs content, which further erodes circulation.

But the response of the Free Press may signal the final, swiftest circle around the drain.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Freep has been pursuing stories suggested by advertisers, placing stories adjacent to related ad content, and timing stories to meet advertisers’ needs.

… By taking a story idea from an advertiser and, in some cases, placing specific stories in news sections when and where an advertiser requests them, the Free Press is offering them a more direct line to its news pages than is generally seen in the industry, where relationships with advertisers tend to be more arm’s length than at TV shows and magazines.

Sadly, the actions of the Freep aren’t aberrations but are part of a year-old strategy, one that may be catching on among newspapers.

The Free Press became part of a seminal shift in the newspaper industry a year ago when the Detroit Media Partnership, the venture that publishes it and the Detroit New as part of a joint operating agreemen, decided to shrink the paper and halt home delivery most days of the week. But that was just part of a broader reinvention that also included a new approach to advertisers in which the paper saw itself more as a business partner. …

Some newspaper executives say it is about time to change newspapers’ famously staunch ways and at least consider that ideas that come from advertisers aren’t inherently bad ones. “One of the things I think newsrooms have to realize,” [Paul Anger, editor and publisher of the Free Press] says, “is we’re here to cover the news in an unvarnished way, but we’re also here to facilitate commerce.”

Bully for Mr. Anger’s overt approach to selling out. But if that’s the direction he wants to take, and as long as he’s being honest about it, he might as well change the name of the paper to The Detroit Advertiser.

Nicholas Lemann on the Journalism Crisis

“Journalism isn’t going away,” says Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, in an interesting interview with Spiegel Online. “But it is reconstituting itself in a pretty fundamental way.”

You would expect some optimism from someone in Lemann’s position, and he doesn’t disappoint. Confronted with plunging circulation figures among major dailies, he says, “Newspapers may have found the bottom.”

“Metro newspapers in the United States are probably not going to disappear entirely. But they’ve almost all shrunk. That doesn’t mean they’ll go away or won’t continue to be the dominant news provider in their communities.”

Spiegel frequently alludes to the recent report by Columbia Professor Michael Schudsonand Leonard Downie Jr., the former executive editor of the Washington Post, “The Reconstruction of American Journalism.” But it returns, naturally enough, to questions about the Balloon Boy coverage and its implications for the future of journalism.

“This is something I found a little frustrating. If you have a pure market-based journalism system, then stories like Balloon Boy will inevitably rise to the top. [!] The reason is that there are pure market forces at work, and this is what people apparently want. So if you say on the one hand that public support for journalism is unthinkable and that journalism must live entirely in the market system, but then on the other hand you reject the results as worthless, that puts us in a bind.”

Counterpoint to death watch for newspapers

Jonathan Knee of the Media Program at Columbia Business School opines in Barron’s that newspapers are doing just fine.

Until recently, many newspapers had profit margins exceeding 30%. By 2008, the industry’s average margin had fallen to the mid-teens. The speed and magnitude of this decline have resulted in wrenching changes in the way these historically stable businesses must operate.The continuing drama shouldn’t distract from real earnings power. Many newspapers still have almost double the profitability of other media sectors, such as movies, music and books — which have long struggled to achieve margins of even 10%.

Knee concedes that the Internet has hurt newspapers and that Web media deliver value that newspapers can’t match. But he notes that the downside to the Internet is information overload and says newspapers may or may not play a key role in guiding customers through the cacaphony. It depends on whether they join the race for solutions to finding and identifying credible, balanced, and researched content on the Web.

THE NEWSPAPER OF TOMORROW will indeed be very different in terms of how it is produced and delivered, what is in it, and how profitable it is. It will be part of a much more crowded and complex news and information ecosystem.

Operators must aggressively focus on cost and cooperation, designing truly distinctive offerings that leverage their advantages in this newly competitive landscape.

Policymakers currently have plenty of legitimate targets of their attention without worrying about the fate of newspapers or trying to keep change from happening. If they keep out of the way, news junkies in particular should anticipate an era of unprecedented plenty. And investors will be well-rewarded by backing managers who appreciate the continuing, if diminished, profit potential of this new environment.

 

CJR Report: The Reconstruction of American Journalism

“Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future, despite frequent predictions of their imminent extinction. But they will play diminished roles in an emerging and still rapidly changing world of digital journalism, in which the means of news reporting are being re-invented, the character of news is being reconstructed, and reporting is being distributed across a greater number and variety of news organizations, new and old.”

That is according to a report published today in the Columbia Journalism Review, authored by Leonard Downie Jr., the former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, professor at Columbia’s graduate school of journalism.

The must-read report concludes with specific recommendations, including:

• Tax breaks for news organizations “substantially devoted to reporting on public affairs.
• “Increased foundation support.
• Increased local focus by public radio and television.
• News accountability oversight by universities.
• FCC funding for local news coverage.Increased accessibility to information compiled and held by government agencies.

What is bound to be a chaotic reconstruction of American journalism is full of both perils and opportunities for news reporting, especially in local communities. The perils are obvious. The restructuring of newspapers, which remain central to the future of local news reporting, is an uphill battle. Emerging local news organizations are still small and fragile, requiring considerable assistance—as we have recommended—to survive to compete and collaborate with newspapers. And much of public media must drastically change its culture to become a significant source of local news reporting.

Yet we believe we have seen abundant opportunity in the future of journalism. At many of the news organizations we visited, new and old, we have seen the beginnings of a genuine reconstruction of what journalism can and should be.

Enforcing good manners in reader comments

I still believe in the concept and value of interactivity on news Web sites, but some time ago I developed the habit of instinctively avoiding the comments section.

For one thing, I don’t need the downer. It is easy to despair humanity when you get involved — even as a lurker — in the comment wars that so frequently follow stories. It’s all too easy to get hooked on these exchanges, and I am usually angry or disgusted before I pull myself away. I’m not a masochist, and I don’t need the negative energy.

I’ll bet most reporters and editors who produce those stories eventually have the same reaction. Who has time for that stuff? Why give yourself a headache?

Now the Cleveland Plain Dealer is trying to address that. Good for them! The newspaper appointed its director of training and digital development, John Kroll, to work on better enforcement of the community rules. He says the essence of the rules is “We won’t tolerate jerks.”

Better than that, the PD is encouraging reporters and editors to join the conversation. The thesis of the experiment is that people become more civil when it’s a real dialogue rather than a graffiti board. Many corporations have found that blogs and message boards become much more rational in comments about their services or products when the corporation engages these Internet users directly. When readers perceive the newspaper reporter or corporation as distant and removed, their hostility grows and they feel free, and safe, in taking pot shots.

Another course would be to no longer permit aliases. Apply the same standards you apply to letters to the editor: a real name and location. This would discourage cowardly behavior and raise the level of discourse.

Yeah, I know Internet privacy is a big concern. But I also know the jerks are ruining the Internet’s promise of interactivity and turning it into the domain of anonymous social misfits. If you want to share your opinion, have the same amount of guts as the person whose byline tops the article. Without your real name, your opinion carries no weight anyway.

AJC stops endorsing candidates

I can’t follow the rationale of the editorial page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in its announcement that it will no longer endorse political candidates.

The policy starts with the current mayor race, at a time the city is facing problems as critical as adequate drinking water and the worst traffic congestion in the nation.

It places the change in the context of the changing world of journalism, after “thinking deeply about the modern role of a newspaper in elections.”

We have heard from readers — and we agree — that you don’t need us to tell you how to vote. What readers tell us they need is information on who the candidates are, what they have done and what they want to do in the new job. …

That world has changed, steadily and more rapidly in recent years. We see our role now as providing you with information to help you make decisions — and not trying to make them for you. This is consistent with our move earlier this year to make the editorial pages more balanced — offering a wide array of opinions.

Spare me.

I wish that I could see this as a bold move, as courageous leadership by the newspaper that I grew up with. Unfortunately, I think it’s the opposite.

The AJC and its courageous editorial voice long alienated its conservative southern readers while at the same time playing a critical role in transforming the city to one of the nation’s most progressive in racial inclusion and not coincidentally, one of the most powerful economically. Readers complained about those “lying Atlanta newspapers” but didn’t stop reading them, and they followed the newspapers’ lead toward a more progressive city despite themselves.

What has changed most in the AJC’s world is the economics of newspapers, and I believe that it has caused the newspaper to lose its backbone.

Of course, there is no tension or contradiction between a newspaper fairly and thoroughly informing the electorate about all the candidates, their backgrounds and positions on important issues, and its later editorial guidance about which candidate is best for the region or the nation.

The tension is between a newspaper’s responsibilities and its economic survival. In this case, the AJC has decided to avoid alienating readers because it cannot face the possibility of losing more revenue. The irony is that it will lose readers and revenue because it has lost its voice.

Digital news paradigm shift?

Here’s an interesting thought: Online news providers working not through their own Web sites but through news applications on social media.

The concept may work best initially for news about well defined geographic areas or niche topics, such as a university or sports team. But the use of social site news aps could rapidly broaden once news consumers grow accustomed to the idea. The advantage is to catch readers where they already go, rather than forcing them to seek out your news site.

As Steve Rubel sees it:

Conceivably the next great media company will be all spokes and no hub. It will exist as a constellation of connected apps and widgets that live inside other sites and offer a full experience plus access to your social graph and robust community features. Each of these may interconnect too so that a media company’s community on Facebook can talk to the same on Twitter.

Facebook might be the first venue where this starts. It could become a mini news reader for millions who don’t care about RSS or Twitter. Over time this may obviate the need to create large news sites. It’s easier to create a rich interactive experience there than start a new news site and hope that people come to you. They won’t have time to find or visit.

The end of advertising as we know it?

The IBM Institute for Business Value has a new study out suggesting that the traditional intrusive, one-to-many advertising model is dying, to be replaced by interactive, one-to-one ad formats. Executive summary here.

The next 5 years will hold more change for the advertising industry than
the previous 50 did. Increasingly empowered consumers, more self-reliant
advertisers and ever-evolving technologies are redefining how advertising is
sold, created, consumed and tracked. Our research points to four evolving
future scenarios – and the catalysts that will be driving them. Traditional
advertising players – broadcasters, distributors and advertising agencies
– may get squeezed unless they can successfully implement consumer,
business model and business design innovation.

As the pithy Lisa Hickey says, “Today, brands are judged by the quality of their conversation. Brands are people, and people are brands.”

Rocky Mountain News publisher’s post mortem

John Temple, former publisher of the former Rocky Mountain News, reflects on its demise in his keynote address at the UC Berkeley Media Technology Summit this week. It is a remarkably insightful and self-critical examination. The shorthand version:

Know what business you’re in.
Know your customers.
Know your competition.
Know your goal.
Have a strategy and be committed to pursuing it.
Measure, measure, measure.
Keep new ventures free from the rules of the old.
Let the people running a new venture do what’s best for their business, regardless of the potential impact on the old.
To compete in a new medium, you have to understand it.
Invest in R&D.

Temple’s prediction for the industry is grim:

There’s still too much of a sense of entitlement in the industry. The Associated Press spends too much time making the case that copyright violation is the problem bringing the industry down when the industry should be focused on building new and better products and services. Are companies making the same mistake in this decade that the Rocky made in the ‘90s, not understanding the competition? I think so.

However, his prescriptions for newspapers could improve the prognosis:

Newspapers should think bigger at the same time as they think smaller. They should look for opportunities to scale. They’re still too focused on unique, market by market solutions. …

Newspapers could end the criticism of an ever-shrinking amount of content if they would partner more with others and invite more people to participate on their sites. (When people say what you often hear, that newspapers seem thinner and thinner, we can’t forget that it also creates a negative impression of what’s happening to their Web sites.) …

Newspapers have traditionally served a small percentage of the businesses in their communities. … Newspapers should find more ways for more local businesses to reach potential customers.

Newspapers should give consumers more control. They’re still thinking too much about themselves and not enough about what the consumer wants.

Newspapers should stop looking longingly in the rear view mirror at 30% margins. …

And, of course, finally, the most difficult recommendation of all, newspapers should stop making decisions about new business opportunities based on how they’ll affect their legacy business. The main newspaper cannot dictate the shape of the future.