Over at PC Magazine, Kyle Monson and Corinne Iozzio have identitifed 13 Web sites that they say represent "a better online alternative to every newspaper section, from the front page to the funnies to the obituaries."
Really? What are these sites?
"Some of them come from newspapers themselves (like the Houston Chronicle's near-perfect online comics page), and some aggregate newspaper content (like Google News and Topix). But all the sites we chose make fish wrap of their print counterparts by adding excellent features, broader scope, and more user interaction," they write.
Well, I find this concept highly dubious, but I understand the direction they have taken. Check it out for yourself here:
The Newspaper Killers
More later,
Mark
4 comments:
What makes it so dubious? You find it hard to believe that an interactive web with almost unlimited funding and resources can trounce a printed newspage that hasn't evolved much in 50 years?
Please don't misconstrue my dubious nature. I am NOT an apologist for the "newspaper industry." Since you might be new here - and Welcome to Mark's World! - for a good primer on my views on the Masters of Printing Mechanisms, start here:
Survive or Thrive? A 'Newspaper Industry' Primer
Here's why I am dubious about the
"Newspaper Killers" concept: First, Internet users seek intuitive relationships for their media relationships. No one is going to "read" a newspaper on the Internet like they read a newspaper and navigate 13 different "sections."
Next, sites like www.topix.com are just not developed to the point that they can compete as a news reference source in most markets. In two markets I am most familiar with, McHenry County, Illinois and Brevard County, Florida, Topix was completely inferior to the news offerings by the local daily newspaper Web sites. The same goes for the Craig's List classifieds in either market. While I am at it, may I point out the same held true for the local sports news vs. ESPN?
In addition, MeeVee is vastly inferior to the functionality of the cable guide built into most digital cable and dish systems.
I could go on, but this is all a moot point. To replicate a newspaper on the Internet is an incredibly silly waste of time.
If the point of "The Newspaper Killers" was to point out that some long-time newspaper functions can also be found online, well, then, "Point made! Aloha!" But that is kind of like doing a study on a sparrow and an elephant to determine why one can fly and the other cannot and deciding the answer is because one has wings.
There are many, many reasons that newspapers are getting killed and very little of that comes down to the TV listings or Topix. It has much more to do with crappy Web sites, stupid assumptions, the refusal to listen to readers/Internet users,
the "Gutenberg Syndrome," poor leadership, a paucity of investment, treating all markets the same, etc. I could go on. But it will all be in the book.
The larger point, it seems to me, is that newspapers have yet to figure out how to parlay some incredible local news and advertising connections and a decent-sized audience into more relevent, intuitive connections in a digital sense.
Thanks for writing and for allowing me to clear up my original thought...
Mark
It's not that "long-time newspaper functions can be found online," it's that the online options really are better and more capable. Sites like Topix haven't really come into their own yet, but from advertising to news coverage, the online capabilities are almost endless. It's the difference between a two-dimensional page and a three-dimensional world. The online capabilities are still being fleshed out, but give it a little more time.
Take online advertising: it has not yet taken hold on a local level, but it will, and sooner rather than later. My father, for instance, runs a small accounting firm that advertises in the local yellow pages, but has no web presence at all, and he's having trouble attracting new, young clientele because of it. Small businesses will eventually realize they can get geo-specific, trackable results from advertising online, which will move local ad dollars away from newspapers and phonebooks.
And both readers and web developers will someday soon realize that the news can be presented much better online. Like you, I'm a fan of the printed word, and I think long-form journalism will always be better on a newspage or in a magazine. But your local newspaper doesn't do long-form journalism anymore. News snippets, wire copy, editorials and columns (which are really just gussied-up blog posts, right?), and news coverage like that is much better online. Hyperlinks are a wonderful addition to news reporting that a printed newspaper has no answer to. Up-to-the-minute blog posts are another. Stream your city council meeting live and have a reporter (or even an active citizen) provide running, live commentary on the paper's city council blog. Instead of a lame, static "letters to the editor" section, each online story has its own comments board where readers can respond to the story and to each other. Graphs, stats, charts, surveys, maps—all these are better, prettier, and more interactive online.
As to ESPN, I have no idea why they haven't drilled down to local sports coverage yet. That's a wide open market for them that they're not taking advantage of. Even their college sports coverage is nowhere near as deep as I think it should be.
Yesterday a reporter from Austin, TX called me to talk about my Newspaper Killer story and specifically Craigslist. Here's the journalist's question and my response:
6) What is your reaction to the Austin American-Statesman's claim that Craiglist has not affected its classifieds sales?
"So far today, there are about 550 "For rent" postings and 1,300 "items for sale" postings on Aus-tin's Craiglist, and it's only 9:45 am. How many of those posters decided not to post in a newspa-per, who would have five years ago? For real estate listings, The American-Statesman charges $99 for a print/online ad combo (a potential $55,000 in lost revenue). Merchandise listings start at $10 (potentially $13,000 in lost revenue). It's not even 10 am, and the paper is already down a po-tential $70,000 for the day. Figure a good chunk of those either double-posted to both CL and the newspaper, or wouldn't have paid to post in the paper, and that dollar amount drops significantly, but it still is a huge chunk of change. If the American-Statesman say those 1,850 posts on Craiglist aren't affecting their bottom line, they're lying to cover their losses. There's no way they can be so clueless about what's happening to their business model."
Kyle:
Thanks so much for your thoughtful post today. I wish those many Masters of Printing Mechanisms who are in key decision-making roles had your insight and your passion.
You are on-target when you write that many of the Web sites that you cite "haven't really come into their own yet, but from advertising to news coverage, the online capabilities are almost endless."
To me that also suggests a window that those with access to content and relationships with advertisers could well be using to their advantage. Unfortuntately, newspaper Web sites continue to be the worst Web sites out there. And those with no content and few relationships seem more eager to be inventive and creative and intuitive.
Your Austin American-Statesman story puts me to mind of a presentation I did in the mid/early-1990s for a group of publishers. I mapped the CEO's route to a pizza joint and pointed out that Yahoo.com had already targeted his local advertisers. That was some 12-13 years ago.
So, I'll add a hearty "AMEN! to "There's no way they can be so clueless about what's happening to their business model." The warnings have been in place for more than a decade to anyone who was paying attention.
Feel free to drop by and add your views any time, Kyle. You have a lot to share and regular Mark's World visitors certainly would enjoy more of your insights.
Mark.
Post a Comment