|
Random, incomplete thoughts on doom and gloom
Monday, Feb 23, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * I honestly don’t know if I was invited to attend the Chicago Journalism Townhall meeting yesterday, but I doubt I would’ve gone if they had requested my attendance. Here’s a big reason why…
What a silly idea. Jesse Greenberg sums up my problem with this concept quite well…
* Newspaper content is beginning to evolve. The Tribune, for instance, is starting to aggregate content from other newspapers on its breaking news page. The Trib, the Sun-Times and several other papers have been breaking stories throughout the day for quite some time now, rather than waiting until they can publish scoops in their paper editions. The city’s newspapers and several Chicago TV stations are offering up far more live video and audio feeds of events, particularly since the Rod Blagojevich disaster began. Both Chicago papers and most of the TV stations are on Twitter. The good journalists have taken as much advantage as possible of this new technology and have pushed their editors hard to modernize. The lazy ones still complain about the extra work, whine about blogs “stealing” their stories, and try to lay blame where it doesn’t belong, but that’s expected. * The problem isn’t so much with the newspaper websites, it’s the advertising. Classified ads, which once accounted for something like 40 percent of a newspaper’s profits, have all but disappeared. There may not be a solution to that problem, unless they go to micro-targeting. But after a very promising start, InsiderzExchange is now struggling with that issue as well. So I know whereof I speak when I say this idea may not work. The other impediment to turning a profit online is the structure of display advertising revenues. Big ads in the print edition pay the highest commissions, and online ads are at best a red-headed stepchild. The papers just aren’t charging enough for their online ads, despite ever-rising traffic and far more creative presentations. That’s gonna kill them if they don’t change soon. Kiyoshi Martinez adds…
First, innovate, then raise the darned rates. Look, I know we’re in a deep recession, but online newspaper rates are so low that they’ve become toxic to the industry’s very survival. Worry far less about giving online content away and worry a whole lot more about ridiculously cheap and poorly executed online advertising. * And don’t forget this…
Who’s gonna advertise on your website if you allow racists, homophobes and tinfoil hat crazoids of all stripes to flood your comment sections with hateful, stupid rants? * All the rigamaroll about whether newspapers should give away their content online for free is ridiculous, and the debate at yesterday’s event shows that too many people just don’t understand the realities of the newspaper business, nor the new reality of online. The price you pay for a newspaper only rarely covers the actual cost of printing and delivering. They’re already essentially giving it away. In fact, they’re taking a loss on the transaction. Ads are supposed to make up the difference and provide the profit. That ain’t happening online. Plus it’s extremely difficult to get consumers to pay for anything online, unless it’s highly specialized content like Capitol Fax or Crain’s Chicago Business. Yes, changes in newsroom groupthink are essential. But it’s the people at the very top of the food chain who are going to have to change the ad sales culture and their own view of what a newspaper really is. * Far too many of those top tiered executives believe that cutting reporters is the way to go rather than restructuring their 19th Century business model. This will lead to one end: Oblivion. Take a look at most small market TV news websites and you’ll see what I mean. After years of hiring cute kids right out of college to stand in front of the camera and smile pretty, those stations are now ill equipped to produce any sort of halfway literate online content. And since everything’s going online, they’re in no position to compete. This is a huge advantage for newspapers, as long as their newsrooms stay smart. Seize it. As the title suggests, this is incomplete. Your thoughts would be appreciated. * A couple more links, stolen from Kiyoshi…
|
- Legaleagle - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:11 am:
Let’s see: today’s Tribune’s front page is all about the Oscars; page 2 is about robots possibly taking over; page 3 is about the Obamas selecting a dog; pages 4-5 are ads and index; and pages 6-7 are about baseball scouts pilfering bonuses! What a dumbing down. After 50 years of faithfully reading the Trib, I’m ready to quit it altogether. That’s what’s wrong with newspapers (and TV news): little substance.
- Leroy - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:12 am:
This reminds me of how all the amateurs running around with camcorders ruined the porn industry in the 1970s.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:13 am:
Maybe, but it’s easy to skip over that online. Let’s focus here on the online product, not the (all but dead) dead trees edition.
- Greg B. - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:13 am:
Marc Andreesen has said as much. The printed newspaper is dead. Newspapers online and in devices such as kindle, the iphone, etc. are the future in his opinion.
My take is that newspapers are just going to have to figure out what the new model is. It will be trial and error. It used to be in the early television days, we didn’t know how to advertise. TV ads were the same as radio ads. Didn’t work. Same goes with Internet newspapers. Someone is going to have to discover the model and that takes a little time.
I’d note that the WSJ, and John Fund will tell you, has recognized that the print version of that paper is nearing the end. They make more out of the online edition than the print edition. But the challenge here is that they are a national paper. A local paper probably as of yet can’t do a lot of the video and other things they do.
Like a lot of things in the economy, newspapers will have to muddle through. Everyone else does it. No reason why they shouldn’t. When they identify their model…we’ll know.
Adapting to a new environment isn’t “dead as we know it.” It’s evolution and change. Schumpeter called it creative destruction and in the end we’ll be better off.
- Autismmom - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:14 am:
I use to get the Daily Herald but because of the internet I can get the news so much quicker. Plus I get to be the family more because I am not flipping through all the ads in the Sunday addition. Finally I am saving money not because the cost of the newspaper but because flipping through the ads encourage me to buy things I really don’t need.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:24 am:
The comments allowed on the big newspaper and network sites are astounding. Given some of the disturbing and threatening remarks in the last election cycle aimed at Bush, McCain and Obama, you wonder what resources the Secret Service invests in monitoring and tracking these whack jobs.
- Steve - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:27 am:
This was a very good entry on newspapers.Maybe,no one has figured out the new business model.But,these small specialized sites must be doing something right like Capitol Fax and Crain’s to provide value for consumers.Maybe we are moving towards a specialized world in the news business.
- Secret Square - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:30 am:
If all newspapers go totally online and abolish dead tree editions, what happens when people lose their internet service due to power outages, not being able to pay their bill, the collapse of civilization as we know it, etc.? Do we really want to be unable to read ANYTHING without an electrical or internet connection at hand?
What about the fact that some people, at least, like having actual clippings to put in their scrapbooks or save for posterity? Didn’t a whole bunch of newspapers sell out their Obama election night/inauguration editions for that reason?
And how do we keep archiving materials that exist only digitally when the technology keeps changing constantly? This is already becoming a problem with regard to some computerized documents from 15-20 years ago… no current computer can read them.
I’m not saying newspapers HAVE to continue running massive printing presses and having dead tree editions every day — just pointing out some other concerns.
- Greg B. - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:31 am:
excellent point, Steve.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:34 am:
Guess the speaker:
“There is nothing blogging has touched that it hasn’t utterly ruined.”
- Captain Flume - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:36 am:
People pay for very little on the internet unless they have to pay for it. I have actually been quite surprised how much “free” news there is. Maybe newspapers need to morph more into news organizations, combining their reporting talents and keeping the substantive stuff on a pay-to-peek basis only.
If Rich had to pay to see the stories he quotes from to begin many of his blog topics, for expample, would he be as willing to share the quotes for free? I don’t know the answer to that.
The problem is the perspective of authoritative content. The internet is a boon and bane to the dissemintation of information. If newspapers and other news-gathering organizations did not publish web editions or offer so much of it for no fee, where then would we get authoritative news? Perhaps copyright laws need to be adjusted to severely fine those who would copy and paste news stories or excerpts without paying a fee to the orgaanization that generated the original, much like what happened Napster and other “free” peer-to-peer sites.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:39 am:
Capt. Flume, everyone’s tried pay to peek. Very few still do it.
- Anon - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:14 am:
I’ll bet nothing increases online revenue like adding this line to an active blog…
Protected: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - This just in…
- up2now - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:14 am:
The business of writing and disseminating news isn’t dead, but the ink-on-paper model certainly is, and EVEN THE CORPORATE ONLINE MODEL is going to be displaced. In the old days, the printing press was the point of constriction. They were expensive and it took money to own one. Now, anyone can be a publisher. The future is in the hands of individual writers, not the chains. The future does not lie with a few corporations but the thousands upon thousands of bloggers, posters, commentors, and those using technologies not yet developed. This will be a painful transition, with lots of false steps. When everyone has a blog or contributes to an aggregation site, we won’t need a Tribune investigative team to ferret out sources; the sources will tell their own stories. Everyone will be both reader and reporter. Whoever comes up with a model to herd all these cats will be very successful.
- Pat collins - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:20 am:
One thing wrong with the paper’s websites is that the “user experience” is one level above a website that sucks.
I just checked Trib.com. I tried to search for “2005 CRV” to see what the prices were.
“no results found”. And that was AFTER I clicked on the “cars” “used car deals” subtab.
Now, if I do it the way the trib wants me to, instead of using that big “search” bar, I must choose model and make. Then I see all the ones that car dealers have for sale, NOT the ones people bought print ads for.
So, I click on the “print +” banner ad.
Then I need to know the honda symbol, then click on it.
Then I get the dealer’s print ads. Still no classified results.
At this point I give up. Not the best user experience.
The jobs ads are worse. They OUGHT to have some sort of “salary range” so that when I search for a “manager job” I don’t get things ranging from manager of a Claire’s store to manager of pharma user trial safety!
How to get ads? Make it easy for the people who want to BUY stuff to FIND it! Is the concept really that hard?
- Ken in Aurora - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:27 am:
“Maybe, but it’s easy to skip over that online. Let’s focus here on the online product, not the (all but dead) dead trees edition.”
Hokay. Speaking as a former (very) PJ in the suburban market and only in reference to the Trib’s website, my random thoughts:
1. Topix is a cesspool. There has to be a way of having substantive discussion open to the readers, but Topix ain’t it.
2. If you’re going to cover an area, cover it well. I’ve seen the same regional local stories on the site for up to a week at a time.
3. Current online advertising at the Trib is a joke - no context and intrusive. Stick to informative, well designed sidebars and do away with any kind of gimmickry. Don’t do roll-over crap - provide a link that I can click for more info if desired.
4. Give me depth of coverage. The Trib’s site feels like a proof of concept sampler, not a complete, mature product.
5. Fix whatever it is about the site that makes it so slow! It’s this way on multiple machines at different places, so it’s not me.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:29 am:
===Fix whatever it is about the site that makes it so slow! ===
Try registering. Also, don’t use Internet Explorer with that site.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:38 am:
Thoughtful analysis, Rich
- fedup dem - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:46 am:
What was Mr. Greenberg talking about when he commented about fine Chicago j-schools? Surely not Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism. When I mistakenly graduated from there in the mid-1970s, their faculty and administration was led by clowns who thought, “Broadcast journalism is just a fad - a few more years and it will go away!”
Since the 1970s, I have been of the opinion that any high school student who wishes to go to Medill should seek out intense psychotherapy ASAP! I wouldn’t shed a tear if the school fell into Lake Michigan!
As for our wretched newspapers here in Chicago, the fact that many of the top personnel have graduated from Medill and/or moonlight on its faculty tells you all that you need to know about how the media has slid into the muck of mediocrity.
- Marianne North - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:47 am:
I read the NYT, LAT, Chicago Trib and Washington Post online. My fave newspaper websites are those that develop a relationship between the reader and reporter/columnist thru online interviews, newsletters, RSS feeds, video and slide shows. I prefer reading the newspaper via paper, I really do, but if you’re going to go online, go all the way, develop content and relationships and use all the bells and whistles the web has to offer. The Trib has been really slow to do this.
- Concerned Observer - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 11:50 am:
Rich said:
>>Also, don’t use Internet Explorer with that site.
But you can’t take that attitude. Like it or not, Internet Explorer is what the vast majority of PC users, at least, use to access the internet. It’s not the best thing out there, of course, but it’s the most available. And there are a lot of people who don’t understand computers, who are still unfamiliar, who don’t know about upgrading, etc. They use what came with their machine.
So I say step 1 is making sure sites WORK, WELL, with IE. Otherwise, you’re just losing eyes and subsequently advertisers.
I’d rather check the Trib’s site on my mobile phone than a real computer precisely because it takes long to load.
- Ken in Aurora - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:24 pm:
“Try registering. Also, don’t use Internet Explorer with that site.”
I am registered; what CO said about IE. It’s the standard, and there’s no room for browser fanboyism in the commercial market.
- One of the 35 - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
Secret Square makes some excellent points in his 10:30 post. In the past newspapers have been an integral part of the “public norification” process for legal notices. If electronic storage systems should fail, how would documentation be provided to the courts to prove a required process was followed?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:42 pm:
===If electronic storage systems should fail, how would documentation be provided to the courts to prove a required process was followed?===
So, just change the law and require off-site backups. You could say the same thing for newsprint and the potential for fires.
Red herring.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:44 pm:
=== no room for browser fanboyism in the commercial market.===
No fanboy here. I’m a Mac guy. I don’t even use IE. Just making a personal suggestion.
- Brian McDaniel - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:46 pm:
Rich, I responded to your comment on my site.
If subscriptions are so irrelevant to a company’s success, as you suggest, then why do you protect copies of the CapitolFax for your subscribers online?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Also, if there’s no electricity to power the Intertubewebs, there’s probably no electricity to print the newspapers.
Another red herring.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:52 pm:
Brian, I have a completely different business model than newspapers. The Capitol Fax does not sell advertising of any kind. The Capitol Fax blog does.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:57 pm:
And I tried responding on your site, but your Captcha is so screwed up I abandoned hope.
You still don’t understand, however. Newspapers have lost money for decades on the price per copy. They make that up on advertising. Try re-reading what I wrote. You missed the whole point.
- zatoichi - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:57 pm:
The benefit of paper editions is you regularly stumble across stories because your eye catches a phrase at the middle of the page. On line you see a headline and move on. Paper can be read anywhere and reused. Online - great if you have the right equipment, connection, subscription, and software. Paper - easy to use. Online - Pat and Ken give fine examples. Newspapers are changing, probably very drastically, but so is the online world. I think both will be around in some form.
- Brian McDaniel - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:58 pm:
The fact that you don’t sell ads in the print/fax version of CapFax is irrelevant, Rich. What you are doing it protecting your content in one medium by not giving it away in another.
Newspapers are not doing that, regardless of how you want to view the business model.
If you published CapFax online freely, your subscription base would suffer, as would your revenue. It’s the same idea with newspapers.
I appreciate the debate. Have a great day.
- Brian McDaniel - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 12:59 pm:
Sorry about the Captcha. I’ll look into it.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:03 pm:
===The fact that you don’t sell ads in the print/fax version of CapFax is irrelevant, Rich.===
No, it’s not. You don’t seem to understand that I have a completely different business plan than newspapers. They sell ads to make a profit. I don’t in my subscription newsletter.
The cover price on a newspaper only partially pays for printing/delivery. Those costs aren’t present online. My cover price for the Capitol Fax pays for everything. Huge difference.
- Brian McDaniel - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:17 pm:
Rich, if the online version of CapFax is “value added” in your business model, that is great. You have a method to pay for the service, something papers do not. Bravo!
I believe newspapers are hurting themselves by publishing their entire content (and sometimes more) online at the expense of their main revenue stream. The WSJ, PRWeek and Crain’s don’t do that; and they are not in the financial trouble of the Tribune or STNG.
I don’t know of any academic research on the subject, but I’d be willing to bet you a steak at Morton’s that a larger group of people read a paper online because it is free than choose to subscribe to the same paper.
If that is the case, then it goes a long way in explaining why paper revenues are in decline, in addition to classified advertising (on which we both agree).
- MikeintheSuburbs - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:21 pm:
My wife and daughter are both journalists, and my wife was recently laid off from a job she had had for 23 years so I am acutely aware of the problem. Meanwhile, our local newspaper is cutting staff and with it coverage of local news. They still haven’t even printed a list of the candidates in the primary election which is tomorrow, let alone covered any of them. Reporters rarely show up for local meetings of government bodies.
In a day when I can get all of my international, national, state and regional news directly from the sources that cover that, I don’t need to read stories about the Academy Awards and Afganistan in my local paper. What I do need is coverage of what the city council did to us last night or the positions of the candidates in this Spring’s elections. I am not getting any of that.
The problem here is that the papers are trying to do two incompatible things at the same time. So long as you are trying to sell any sort of dead tree product, you have to incur all of the overhead expenses that go with that, and therefore you need a lot of circulation and advertising to cover your nut. On the other hand, if you are only doing an online product, your expenses are minimal and you don’t need a lot of advertising to support it. It’s what you net, not what you gross.
I don’t think that newspapers can continue to cover their high costs so long as the information is available elsewhere for free or cheaply and they will ultimately fold. Then there will be no one to cover the news in the first place for the aggragators. This will lead to a re-structuring of the online environment to enable them to pay people to go out and get the news.
I hope this happens soon so my wife can get back to work.
- Judgment Day Is On The Way - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:35 pm:
Methodology that the newspapers might want to consider:
Local governments have a massive amount of information. Have the newspapers statewide take up the role of getting direct access (at no charge through FOIA) to all the Recording information (legally recorded documents) and creating a “portal” for said information. Right now, Counties generally contract out with different software vendors to provide access to the information on a per charge/monthly fee basis, with the County getting a small royalty, if anything. Vendor makes serious money, because normally they also require the County to cover the associated (extra) hardware/software costs.
Make the information free (registration required), with the goal being that it will attract eyeballs, and eventually local advertisers.
If somebody wants to see a digital (scanned) image of specific documents, they can be displayed with a big “U N O F F I C I A L” going across the digital image. They want an official copy, talk to the County (which just happens to have a link to the County, where PayPal, etc. work).
In other words, obtain and use government records to build your “brand”, and transition into a digital environment. And provide one more reason for your local advertisers to tie to your web portal.
Idea requires refinement, but it’s a start. But it will require the newspapers to push legislation to expand FOIA to these recorded documents. But it will also make government records far more transparent, and easier to access (not to mention less expensive).
- Concerned Observer - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:43 pm:
There’s a primary election tomorrow?
- Ghost - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:44 pm:
I used to pay for the SJ-R, because the paper subscription gave me access to all of the papers content online. I was happy to pay for full access. Then the SJ-R got rid of the full papers content online and went compeltly for a free online edition. So I cancelled my print subscription.
I would pay a reasonable fee for online only editions of papers. On the classifieds, its hard to compete with e-bay and craigs list.
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 1:56 pm:
I am starting a dead tree newspaper in my town of about 5,000 people. We are close enough to media that have ignored it except for the occasional big story—people want local news, not some local news mixed in with local news from the next town over. It’s all about defining your audience and giving them what they want. In this case, they want to see photos of the local 8th grade teams, scout troops, births/deaths, who is running for school board and whatnot. The town used to be covered by a free, thrown-out newspaper owned by a conglomerate (Lee). Last year they reversed their business model and started charging subscription fees–which about 25 people did in the entire town. Meanwhile, you can still go to their website and see all the stories for free…although they laid off the reporter who covered the town. This is also the same company who reprimanded me because I took too many of my own photos…I was saving them $40 for not paying a stringer and I got in trouble for it, so I have no sympathy for them.
My model is more similar to CapFax than a newspaper—we are looking to be supported by subscribers more than advertisers. People will pay for news they care about if they can’t get it anywhere else. And that is what CapFax delivers!
- Ken in Aurora - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 2:59 pm:
“This is also the same company who reprimanded me because I took too many of my own photos…I was saving them $40 for not paying a stringer and I got in trouble for it, so I have no sympathy for them.”
Boo! Hiss!
- a former stringer
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 3:09 pm:
LOL Ken…it is nothing personal, and the quality of the photos wasn’t the issue…just standard mugshots was about as far as I went. If it was a larger story or action-oriented, I always brought in the pros
I thought saving the company some $ would be appreciated, but there I go thinking in the current newspaper world…
- Irish - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 3:37 pm:
I think that there are other variables that also lead to more interest in online information than what is mentioned above.
One is accessability. Say I heard of a story that is of particular interest to me. To get it in the dead tree version I have to subscribe to that paper and take all the non interest stuff with the item of interest. Or I have to go to a vendor who sells that particular paper and buy it. Whereas in the online scenerio I can go to the online page and read the article. I have more access to more papers online than through the dead tree version. Also who isn’t sitting in front of a computer at some time in their day. This site is great in that it offers it’s reporting of the news plus it has links to the major online papers’ sites for their coverage.
I would think that maybe the dead tree version papers might offer more in depth coverage of the important news items of the day and leave the reporting breaking news to their online version. If you notice the TV news is doing this with their online sites. They will report on the highlights of a particular story and then mention if you want to read more about it go to their website. Newspapers could do the same thing they could break the news on their website and then go in depth in the dead tree version. And by in depth I mean provide all the available information about a certain news item, really go in depth with good investigative reporting. Even make a series of articles spread over several editions.
I find that I look to the online news for breaking news but if I am sitting having a cup of coffee in the morning or evening and want to wind down I find reading, really reading, a newspaper from front to back can be very informative. Not as much as it used to be but informative. I do wish that they would take the sensationalizing out of the article and just do good thorough reporting of all the facts. I think there is a niche in the news world for dead tree papers but it isn’t in competing with online news.
- Reddbyrd - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 3:41 pm:
When will newspaper start telling us about stuff that will be happening rather than what happened yesterday?
Become forward looking.
Then they will have turned the corner.
Today every paper had big images of the Oscars…if I wanted Oscar pictures I would watch TV or check my ISP.
Some papers will make it because they have excellent websites and great archives.
Capt. Fax will be a zillionaire because he writes the newsletter for the company city/state.
Everything else scores, movie times, school lunches are out there for free once the ISP is paid.
The big question will be who supplies some content once the papers go down? Some sharp reporters (yeah there are a few left) with a manager whould be able to cash in.
- MikeintheSuburbs - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 5:31 pm:
Yes, there is a primary for any partisan township and non partisan municipal elections where there are more candidates running than positions to be filled.
- IlValleyGal - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 5:33 pm:
Quimby brings up a good point — smaller towns are not getting the coverage they feel they deserve. Sure, they get the nod when a big story happens, but the actual day-in, day-out of someone’s kid, grandkid, nephew or neighbor scoring the basket is not really covered.
Newspapers do need to catch-up as far as the internet and most are still hawking dead-tree rates without really tracking the number of internet views.
Sports, cops, obits are king in my small town. Newspapers have a few years to really get with the program because there is an entire generation still out there that still wants to browse the pages over a cup of coffee rather than fire up the browser (a good website should be tested in multiple browsers) and read about Australian wildfires.
People I know are more proud of who won the Cub Scout Pinewood Derby. Yes, newspapers need to move forward and look at new ways to keep the presses running but my dad isn’t going to download a photo of his grandaughter making a kill at a volleyball match. He’s going to clip it from the newspaper and tack it to the wall.
It is not going to be easy but my youngest gets the national/international stuff from Yahoo. He doesn’t get to see photos of his classmates doing something. Maybe the big guys are in more trouble than the little guys in this business since the littler papers still cover that shot, that sectional championship and who got pinched on a Friday night.
- MikeintheSuburbs - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 5:35 pm:
I haven’t picked up a copy of a physical newspaper since 2001. There is no need.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 5:36 pm:
===smaller towns are not getting the coverage they feel they deserve===
One reason for that is businesses are closing and therefore not advertising. I’m not sure you’d want to pay the price for a weekly newspaper if you had to foot the bill for everything, including staff, printing, delivery, profit, taxes, etc.
Pingback Kiyoshi Martinez - nerdlusus blog – Chicago Journalism Town Hall: Ideas to help news organizations bring in revenue - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 6:58 pm:
[…] Rich Miller gives his take at The Capitol Fax Blog […]
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 6:59 pm:
================
I haven’t picked up a copy of a physical newspaper since 2001. There is no need.
=================
Bingo! Haven’t figured it out yet completely, but the solution is in taking the real papers “underground”, if you will: “retro” and highly-specialized print with limited distribution so that the web sites are quoting print reporters again a day or a week later. Exclusive is the key.
You want the free tabloid pictures, the same garbage everyone else is reporting, tin-foil hat comments, and never-ending, pop-up NetFlix ads? Go to the internet.
You want to be a walking, talking head, spewing popular opinion and quoting the best sale price on replacement windows and the latest in home exercise equipment? Watch cable and TV news.
You want exclusive investigative reporting, thought-provoking columns, the real inside scoop, ads for products with a price tag of a few 100 or 1,000 bucks or more, exclusive real estate across the country, etc.? Buy the expensive print copy distributed only for only a few hours each day or week via the newspaper boy/stand at key locations across the city/state/country.
The results will soon be evident in every major law firm kitchen, corporate cafeteria, and fundraiser.
You want to talk about what Michelle is wearing, what dog the Obamas want, and how to save a few bucks a week by brown bagging it? Keep going on-line and turning on your TV when you get home.
Want to keep up with an intelligent conversation regarding the real issues in the city, state, country, and across the globe? Pay for, and READ, the real news.
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 7:47 pm:
And, I’ll add, if our government officials are REALLY serious about getting back to work and avoiding the horrendous media circuses of the last few weeks, be a little more selective in your choice of reporters v. walking up to any microphone or camera you see.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 9:19 pm:
From the dawn of the mass media, when chiseled symbols on mud tablets replaced charcoal drawings on cave walls, journalists have decried the awful impact of new technology on their profession.
I define journalism as balanced reporting delivered with compelling writing. My bet is there will always be value in it, and a market for it. But more importantly, democratic society depends on it.
Unfortunately, that value doesn’t show up on a balance sheet. My guess is that the current corporate business model no longer accommodates journalism, and entreprenuers like Rich and others are well ahead of the game. I don’t mean to suggest that there is no profit to be had, simply that journalism needs to serve a purpose beyond profit or it cannot succeed. And if it serves that higher purpose, consumers will be plentiful.
What we’re seeing today may be the end of the media companies as we know them, but it is not the end of journalism.
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:04 pm:
Well said, 47th!
- MikeintheSuburbs - Monday, Feb 23, 09 @ 10:25 pm:
This is an extremely important topic and one that I hope we can return to and explore in more depth as time goes on.
- Ken in Aurora - Tuesday, Feb 24, 09 @ 7:52 am:
Upon reflection, I have to say VQ’s new venture is very appealing.
I do agree there is a need today for truly local news just as there was twenty, fifty, a hundred and more years ago. I came out of this type of J background and feel it is community reportage at its finest.
I wish him luck, and am putting a similar project on my list of things to do after I win the lottery!
- IlValleyGal - Tuesday, Feb 24, 09 @ 5:56 pm:
Rich wrote: One reason for that is businesses are closing and therefore not advertising. ===
Not all businesses are closing. Downstate Illinois and my little burg still has a handful of manufacturing plants, hardware stores, a hospital, small clothing stores, banks, several strong ag-related businesses and other decent small businesses. People like my dad run a business and buy newspapers and would advertise. Nobody’s rolling up the sidewalks here. Those decision makers are the ones who want to read about their kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews. Times are tough and newspapers are run by people who still think the internet is suspicious but I don’t think we’re done yet.
I know who pays my wages and it’s not subscribers. You are right that this business needs to change but that doesn’t mean we’re dead yet.