AdAge writes today that many are misinterpreting the plight of the newspaper. The operations themselves are financially quite viable and profitable --- their books are pretty strong --- but it's the corporate balance sheet that offers the largest challenge.
A good explanatory piece on the U.S. conditions.
L. Gordon Crovitz takes a different turn today in the Wall Street Journal on the can-news-sites-charge-for-content debate. He believes newspapers need to regain the courage to ask readers what they'd pay for.
Crovitz argues that there are forms of information clearly commodified and well beyond the pay model, but certain types of content could derive some financial support.
"The right information in today's complex economy and society can make a huge difference in our professional and personal lives. Not having this information can also make a big difference, especially if someone else does have it. And for valuable information, online is a great new way for it to be valued."
Newsrooms are preoccupied with online search engine optimization. In our case, roughly half of our traffic arrives through personal searches, essentially a new form of journalism that shops for content on topics, names, places and things.
What everyone notices, though, is that the existing search engines are only so great. They don't find everything and they don't really think beyond a few simple concepts.
The New York Times has a look at the advent of engines for the so-called deep Web, services like Kosmix and DeepPeep. Our business needs to understand them, in part because they'll be drawing eyes to our content, but also because we will need to channel our content most effectively to them.
Paul Starr's valuable, extensive piece for The New Republic (disclosure: owned by our parent company) is one of the most literate, well-argued laments for the loss of stature for the American newspaper.
It is a long essay --- nine screens, plus comments --- so a summary of it is hardly justice-rendering. But the Princeton scholar touches on what is lost as the newspaper diminishes as a central media force in communities, as a form of providing accountability upon institutions, and as a vehicle of responsibility. That responsibility remains, he argues.
John A. Byrne, the editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com, has sent along a wonderful 1990 speech by John Gardner. A friend of his re-reads the speech each year.
As many of us contend with our craft's challenges, foremost among them is the need for self-examination and renewal. I was struck by the timelessness of the observations and guidance in the Gardner talk.
It is highly recommended reading.
I've put two pieces of code into place below, one with the people I'm following on Twitter (friends, 450) and another on the number following me (followers, about 1,200). The snippets are limited because a number of people use images instead of pictures.
Trust me, there is no reason for me to be following fewer than are following me. I'm simply trying to keep the number manageable, but at every turn I'm finding interesting people to follow and I'm adding to the total, which I'm sure will be more than 500, then 600, and on. (I've resisted using Tweetdeck and other services to organize them; I'd rather read what they're saying in real time and spend the time doing so.)
I view these two mosaics as a new community I've found, or been included in, during the last year.
Jon Fine's latest Business Week column sustains the prevalent theme of the moment: Should users be charged for online content?
In essence, he says yes. He builds the argument through Associated Press chief Tom Curley, who notes that advertising will be in decline for some time. It'll be necessary to find revenue and locking down some content is one way to derive subscription fees.
It won't be elegant or easy, and there are doubters.
"Whether it's workable is a whole 'nother story. But then the status quo isn't looking so workable, either," FIne writes.
Robert Niles puts a personal stamp on a post in Online Journalism Review in discussing the new needs of journalism. For him, and for his wife, their Web sites are sources of income that could easily be as susceptible to economic downturns as other media.
But Niles notes that their sites' survival clearly ties to the communities they've built. The challenge is to nurture the community and let it build itself.
"We're not in the publishing business. We're in the community business. And to so successfully, we must build our businesses from within our own communities."
Nikki Usher writes in the Online Journalism Review of the frustration in training newsrooms and finding they still don't get it.
It's a fair assessment of the transition under way: Lots of training, lots of learning, but by no means an ability to put our feet up and commend ourselves on nailing it. It's a long journey.
Usher says journalists need to see how the new landscape will work for them --- if not them, then someone else in the organization needs to visualize the success.
There has to be an acceptance that content isn't controlled any longer once it's published online, but that the content is part of a conversation. Set aside the silos and work, Usher says.
Morten Rand-Hendricksen, in his Design Is Philosophy blog, has created a sound, 10-point list to save the newspaper.
There are few surprises in his list, but it's a thorough entry point for anyone trying to get a good understanding of the industry challenges.
The summarized points:
1. Put it all online.
2. Be more visual.
3. Offer readers a way to connect.
4. Add value with online-only or print-only features.
5. Produce a weekend magazine.
6. Create innovative services outside of the box.
7. Connect with experts.
8. Start a poetry contest.
9. Let everyone be a critic.
10. Become a broadcaster.
There is a slight contradiction in points one and four in suggesting print-only added-value. But most newsrooms I know are doing most of these things --- except poetry, and I guess we should all be reflecting on that idea.
RSS Feed