A former colleague, John Rung, publisher of the Northwest Herald/Northwest Media News Group, recently had an interesting commentary published in Editor & Publisher under the header: "What Newspapers Need to Do – To Survive"
Read it here:
Editor & Publisher
In it, John questions whether newspapers in the Internet age can survive and prosper as they did when they faced competition from new media like radio and TV in the 20th century.
"After thorough consideration and contemplation," he writes, "I believe the obvious answer is, 'Yes."
But if an answer is obvious, it shouldn’t require much "consideration and contemplation." Therein lies the rub. Nothing is truly obvious these days. To state that one needs to do serious thinking to arrive at "obvious" just underscores that point.
As we survey the evolving digital media horizon, there are some things that do seem more obvious than others. Here’s one: To compare these days, where we’ve seen a quantum shift in both information delivery and audience expectations, with the old days of radio and TV is to misunderstand the landscape entirely. This is a recurrent problem among those pre-occupied with saving the so-called "newspaper industry."
In the past, the masters of printing mechanisms DID find a way to evolve when faced with a potential disruptive innovation. Create the telephone to communicate? Voila –The phone book! Create a television to capture waves in the air? Voila – A TV listings book! Discover the world is not in black and white? Voila – The USA Today!
Today there’s a difference, and it’s a big one: You can't print an Internet book.
And here’s a bigger problem: You can't just put your daily newspaper online.
You can, of course. Daily newspaper publishers do it every day. It's just not a model that will be profitable. Ever. Here's why (and if you keep reading you are obligated to buy my book): Giving away more information for free on the Internet than people already buy in print is a problem. Giving customers less in print than they are used to is the other. And when neither product is intuitive, all you have created is a business-killing machine that serves neither newspaper loyalists nor the Internet-inclined.
Daily newspapers have devolved in recent decades. They have gone from zoned, multiply-published sequential information providers to mere mass-market vehicles distributed in a singular format. Worse, daily newspapers have become boring. They all look alike, talk alike. At times, they even walk alike. You could lose your mind. Or your interest.
More recent efforts to zone – whether to change stories on the front page for greater local emphasis or to give advertisers greater flexibility through address-specific product delivery – have been shelved at most newspapers. Critics dismissed these efforts as expensive experiments and not integral to the core mission.
Not exactly prescient, as it turns out. Other customer augmentations have also been eliminated universally in recent years including "porched" newspapers, special advertiser savings programs for the most loyal readers and guaranteed delivery times. Today, it is not possible to deliver what I want, where I want it and when I want it? Really? Hence, many daily newspapers have been dumbed down for the sake of managing decline while the emerging media world has gotten smarter and better connected to its audience.
Back in 2000, when John was ad director at the Northwest Herald, the newspaper was geographically microzoned on the cover. That same year, www.my.yahoo.com was one of the first Web sites I ever visited that was intuitive: I got to choose content that was most relevant to me – and it remembered! In ensuing years, after he became publisher, John took the path as so many others and ended zoning. And, in terms of intuitive, www.my.yahoo.com is now considered old school.
While newspapers recoiled from becoming more intuitive, that very concept proliferated among other Web sites. Today, my favorite surf destinations – from a customized Google.com homepage to Blockbuster.com to iTunes – have embraced interactivity. These sites know who I am, what I want, and they all conspire to "wow" me on my next visit. Now, John has done much to invest time and effort into www.nwherald.com. It's a good Web site for a newspaper. It's better than most, especially at that circulation size.
And, it's as intuitive as my Lazy-Boy.
Why? Maybe because, like other publishers, John has bought into the myth that everything has to be "free" on the Internet.
From an intuitive perspective, that depends on your definition of "free."
Essentially, www.nwherald.com forces you to work through it pretty much as you would the newspaper. Top stories up here, regardless of community or interests. Some vaguely written links that force you to open them to see what they are and whom they impact ("Judge denies bond" or "Red-light cameras expected by summer" ). Limited photo space (presumably chosen by someone who picked the "best" pic of the day). As a bonus, there is more sports, some slide shows, even video featuring a daily Web newscast that I can view if I happen to be able to schedule myself to be in front of my computer at roughly the same time every day – and have time to watch.
The site doesn't require a user to do anything other than bookmark it. No personal information for a database. No fee. No forced commercials.
Keep in mind, this is a good example of a newspaper Web site. There are many, many worse examples. Too many daily newspaper publishers these days appear frothing at the prospect of a bottom-line bonanza inherent if only he/she could publish each day without those pesky newsprint and carrier costs. However, publishers must avoid the temptation to miss the forest for the, er, uhm, "deadwood" and run the Internet business like they run their newspapers. In equal measure, they must also avoid the twin temptation of abandoning their current, profitable print model for the next-big-thing which hasn't-quite-happened-yet and may not be the Web-site-they-imagined-a-year-ago.
Running – with scissors – toward a concept without a basic understanding of intended and unintended consequences is ostensibly wrongheaded. And doomed. Better a publisher torch his or her building for the insurance. However, there are ways for masters of printing mechanisms – and daily newspaper publishers – to survive and even thrive.
First, stop believing your Web site is the formula for success just because it is better than other newspaper sites. Newspaper Web sites are, by and large, horrible and unprofitable. They are on a tier below other information/media sites. And, everyone who plays Monopoly knows finishing second in a beauty contest will only win you $10. You are not competing with newspapers in far-off lands; you are seeking deeper relationships with an audience that is already familiar with you. Your readers are predisposed to your brand but they are also being sought by new competitors. Talk to people in your market. Find out what THEY like. Tailor the publishing experience to THEM before, during and after the design phase.
In that vein, quit calling what you do a "newspaper" and quit worrying about the "newspaper" industry. Quit posting ads about an "industry leading" Web site. And quit going to newspaper conferences where newspaper execs either scratch their newspaper heads in utter confusion or misuse words like "net" or backslap each other over this month's round of clever cost reductions that their readers will never notice. Wink, wink..
You no longer work at a daily newspaper. You live in an information age. Hence, seek and hire Web producers from fields other than journalism. Last week David Evans at www.forbes.com suggested Steven Jobs be retained for the digital transformation. Not a bad idea...
Now, think about Web sites you go to and consider the navigation. Mull your experiences. Note the ones that remember you. Note the ones that prioritize your information preferences. Note the ones that surprise you. Anticipate you. Call you back, even. Now visit your Web site and note the differences.
Don't panic. This is workable.
Here's the plan: The print experience and Internet experience should be different. When I grab the paper out of the driveway, I should pretty much get what I expect from a paper, although all dailies need to be more intuitive. Ads and news from my immediate world should capture my attention first (I refuse to believe you can't zone out section cover ads, as well). I should see much less wire and more devotion to reader-submitted news. Quit smothering me with "trend pieces" that may have no impact on my world. Content is king. Be topical. Gutsy. Provoke a response. Involve me. Quit talking AT me utilizing some stale concept about news I need. Quit believing that you have the power to publish a newspaper that makes me smarter; embrace that readers have the power to make the newspaper smarter.
Get a clue from your current online efforts and note that the "Today's Most Discussed Stories" are often readers' letters.
And, online, you need to add tiers.
The first Internet tier is pretty much what many daily newspapers have right now, with maybe a little less news and more forced ad positions and even pop-ups/unders/overs. If I’m not a subscriber, I should pay the freight somehow. Make me give you demographics. Make me watch a 30-second commercial from the biggest auto dealer. Make me provide news. Involve me. Give me a reason to claim some ownership.
But if I am a print subscriber (or even green enough to pay you to STOP delivering the newspaper to me), give me the platinum deal online. Allow me to choose the news that I think is most important so that it greets me, first. Let me download a zoned pod cast. Give me a blog that allows me to network with my local friends, neighbors and relatives. Allow me to post pictures of what I think is news. Partner so that when big news happens, I get more than feeds from AP stuck on the Web. E-mail me alerts about news that I desire most. Allow me to micro-connect to my neighbors and still follow my college team and double-check my portfolio and make lunch plans.
I might read the paper. I might choose the 'Net. I might watch a pod cast (I have to take a train into the city today, so my commute is extra long). I might update my blog. I might post pictures of my kid’s school play from last night. I might take the sports section into the bathroom. I might print a coupon. I might tear one out of the paper. I might want the news delivered to my phone.
The deal is – and this is the important part – that I decide. Me. Time Magazine's "Person of the Year." Give me the power to choose and to do so in a seamless way that makes it all seem like it was my idea in the first place.
You wanna stay in business AND make friends? Embrace intuitive.
Yes, deepen advertisement factors. Create innovative revenue models to track three primary tiers: Branding impressions, click-throughs and actual purchases. Embrace search marketing and create a virtual directory tailored for your market with partner links to beyond. Level the playing field and bring the Mom & Pop's along with their "own" website at www(insertnewspapername).com/edspizza in a virtual community. And partner with business (in a transparent way). Why those big fields of soccer kids are not inspiration for the "Biggest Local Realtor's Home of Endless Soccer Kids Pictures and Videos" I'll never know. How about a "Daily Lunch Special" voted on by readers with real-time click-through ordering or coupon downloading so the client will have specific knowledge of your Web site readers' impact?
Information-ladened. Functional. Intuitive. Print will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird, my friend. The question, is whether you'll evolve and lead the charge or follow the "newspaper industry" lemmings and charge off the cliff like a, uhm, dodo.
John also maintains the real threat to newspapers isn't that audience erosion is leading to revenue declines; it is that revenue declines are leading to audience erosion.
Chicken. Egg. I go with the former (check the latest FAS-FAX numbers), but even if one were to concede John his point, the problem is, as the Wall Street Journal reported this past week, that advertisers are quickly turning away from traditional daily newspaper Web sites in big numbers. The full story is here:
Papers Web Hopes Dim A Bit
It's an eye-opener, for sure. The article makes two key points:
* "Media buyers also indicate marketers are beginning to look beyond traditional journalism sites, realizing many news junkies go elsewhere, too. 'Advertisers are getting less scared of blogs and newsgroups and now are beginning to take money away from the traditional newspapers' sites,' says Greg Smith, chief operating officer of Neo@Ogilvy, an interactive ad agency owned by WPP Group's Ogilvy & Mather, New York."
* "Underlining this pressure is a shift under way within Internet advertising. The ad formats that have so far proved strongest for newspapers -- banner ads, pop-ups and listings -- are losing ground to formats such as search marketing. Ad buyers say automotive, entertainment, financial-services and travel companies -- all major newspaper advertisers in print and online – are aggressively shifting dollars into search marketing."
A show of hands: Now, who still wants to look like an ordinary online newspaper? Who would rather look like something entirely different? Is there any doubt that newspaper Web advertising revenue models and news/information sites have to evolve – maybe into something that has not precisely been invented yet?
Quit believing in the myth that the daily newspaper industry can cure itself. Boldly strike out on your own. It is possible to make a great newspaper for today and an outstanding Web site that can play an integral role in a traditional newspaper community now and in the even-more digital future. But the process is time consuming, costly and requires innovation and copious amounts of audience involvement, as well as the honest self-appraisal skills to admit that what was built last week may already be too out-dated to compete in the marketplace tomorrow.
These are not known traits of the daily newspaper industry.
The masters of printing mechanisms face quantum shifts in reality ranging from shelf-life to innovation; from information delivery to audience expectations. John's tome may have created a bit of a stir five years ago for asserting it is time to invest and not cut-and-run. Today it is just one more quasi-optimistic opine about managing decline.
Boldness today is personified by action. "Only the strong will survive"? Nah. The bold shall inherit the future.
More later,
Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment