Misplaced values

Imagine General Motors bringing out an ad campaign that essentially says “remember those days you and your family would drive to the countryside in your Hummer? The fun?  The feeling of security as you drove in your steel-clad, gas-guzzling behemoth? Sure there are other, more efficient, green and safe vehicles out there today, but you can still get those feelings with a Hummer, so get rid of your Prius and buy one today.”

I get a similar impression as I read a series of editorials from my local newspaper touting “the value of newspapers.” (Here’s the most recent editorial which, ironically, you can find online). Give them credit for trying to sell the “value” of newspapers. Unfortunately, the value isn’t necessarily in the yellowed ink-on-paper example cited in the editorial, but the words or image that is captured on that medium.

In this particular example, it mentions finding a newspaper clipping in a scrapbook. I’d bet if we look at that same scrapbook, we’d find an old film photo (or, for some of us, an old Polaroid photo), also yellowed with age. The old photos bring back wonderful memories, but it’s the image, not the format, that we value.

Today, scrapbooks are more likely to be found in the form of albums posted on Facebook or numerous sharing sites like Flickr or Picasa. Likewise, Facebook and blogs are becoming the new refrigerator door as links, photos and passages of one’s personal and family history are held up to the world (or the world that the originator allows to enter).

And, if we need hard copies of that history, we can choose to run it out on our own printers.

These editorials, while noble, continue to show that some newspapers still don’t get it. The core product — the value — is in the content a newspaper (or any news organization) generates, not the ink-and-paper part. Instead of waxing nostalgic and hoping to shame a nation back into reading patterns of a half-century ago, newspapers should be redefining themselves to develop and sell content that is of value to the individual reader, not the mass audience.

Why, for example, aren’t more newspaper looking at modifying Amazon’s system of tracking customer patterns and making recommendations that might be of interest to them? Why not take that another step and develop a product that uses that model to deliver a personalized news product to a reader, on the platform he prefers, at a time that best suits his schedule? And, why not charge a subscription for that?

Why not use that information to develop laser-like audience targeting for advertisers? Why not help advertisers get their messages out through social networking as well as in print and online?  Why not provide advertisers with data that can help them support or modify their campaigns online and in print?

Or, why aren’t more newspapers adopting the “If you can’t beat Google, steal their thunder” model, going to news aggregation? Why aren’t more offering readers content that is both original and from other sources? And why not charge a subscription fee form that? (An aside: while writing this post, the Poynter Institute’s Al Tompkins posted a story about a former TV newsman who has done just that, and at a profit. Read it here.)

Why isn’t a national organization like NAA looking to create content sharing pacts among newspapers, allowing for a ”kickback” for sharing content from one organization to another to provide added value for readers?  Why aren’t newspapers offering products that allow transplanted readers to get information from their hometown, as well as from the community they now live in?

It’s past the time that newspapers break the bonds to paper. Paper is not where the value is.

Content is the golden egg. Focus on it and create new ways for readers to embrace it. Then sell that to your audience.

Now that’s something of value.

Miami Herald tries an online ‘tip jar’

I read with a bit of bemusement about the Miami Herald’s push to ask online readers for donations as their read stories on the website. The plea is subtle, with a button at the bottom of each story asking to  ”support ongoing news coverage on miamiherald.com” The link takes you to a more detailed page where, with a credit card, you can give as much as you wish.

At first, my colleagues and I reflected on how the industry has come to a point where we’re doing virtual panhandling (“Here’s a great story, buddy. Can you spare some change?”). Or, better yet, we’re adopting the Salvation Army business model to save the industry.

But,  after a few moments, I thought, “Well, why not?”

Certainly give the Herald credit for trying such an out-of-the-box idea to raise some revenues. With the sympathy/guilt factor beginning  to build for the newspaper industry, it could gain some momentum among newspaper web sites. It’s simple to set up and maintain, and is totally voluntary among the readership.

It is, in effect, an online tip jar. If a reader values what he’s just read — in the same way he values that perfect double-shot mocha the Starbucks barista just drew — he’s likely to drop some extra change into the jar.

But the key remains ‘value.’ Any waiter can tell you that the best tips come from outstanding service. If a newspaper expects to turn over revenue through this method, it must continue to look at what it is offering readers and assure that the content is unique and relevant. It must be of value to the reader in order for the reader to pay for it. There are still a lot of publishers out there that haven’t figured that part out.

I hope the Miami Herald find some success in this.  It won’t be the savior of the industry, but this has a lot of potential to provide a revenue stream.

And if it earn enough to keep at least one more journalist employed, then it’s definitely worth it.

E&P to close up shop. What’s next?

News item: Editor & Publisher to fold after 108 years of covering the newspaper industry.

Question of the day: When the industry harbinger closes, does that become a harbinger of the industry?

Some light in the vacuum of innovation

Two news items this week shine some light in the vacuum that has been innovation in the news industry:

* The announcement this week that Time Inc., Conde Nast, the Hearst Corporation, Meredith and the News Corporation are developing an industry standard electronic platform to display their wares. The interesting thing about this is not that they’ve developed something new that may be workable, but the fact that these five companies had the mettle to work together to come up with a platform that has the potential to bring give the industry a means to attract and maintain new readers, based on the readers’ demands.

Judging from the video, the new platform also recognizes the future of news means being able to tell a story in a number of formats: Words, videos, audio, interactive graphics and apps, etc:

* In San Francisco, a novelist and publisher is launching a broadsheet newspaper that takes the spirit of the Sunday paper — big, splashy, with expanded features including a book review section. It’s not cheap at $16 a copy, but the publisher hopes it will remind people of the potential of print.

Granted, the San Francisco venture is the trickier of the two — I believe you’ll need a lot to convince new readers of the potential of print — but again you have to give credit to anyone trying something new and different.

After viewing the demo of Time Inc and partners’ platform venture, it is quite splashy and cool. But I can also hear a cacophony of publishers, after  looking at both ventures,  say “that’s nice for magazines, but it won’t work for us.”

To which I say, ‘Why not?”

In today’s cable news/online/Twitter/Facebook world, newspapers have become irrelevant in being the source of breaking and up-to-date news. Most stories in the morning paper are 6 to 24 hours old,  which is well past its freshness date in the online world. To adapt to readers, print needs to redefine its content to what it can do best: Analysis, human interest features, trend pieces, watchdog journalism.

Sounds like a magazine, huh? Or, at least a Sunday paper?

I’ll wager that the electronic platform — if rolled out and marketed well — will be a winner with readers. We’re already seeing some interest among readers who are using Kindles-type readers. An open standard that could be shared by all — publishers and device makers — will save us from the ’standard wars’ that have plagued other technologies, such as high-def DVDs and videocassettes.

I also expect that, when said and done, the hardware and software costs will be far less what most publishers pay for their presses and supporting facilities.

It’s a good and smart gamble that could be the bridge to the next generation of news.

It’s nice to see someone finally stepping forward to lead the pack.

In the battle of the Titans, Google flinches

Is Internet juggernaut Google no match for Media Baron Von Murdoch? A day after the news mogul blasted Google and its ilk  for ’stealing stories’ and in turn taking away revenue from media organizations, the search engine released a statement that they would allow publishers to set a limit to the number of ‘free’ articles readers can access from news sites.

Murdoch has been the vocal leader in the move to put news content on lockdown. You want to read a story online? Put a dime in the jukebox, pal. No more freebies. The newspaper industry is on life support, and Murdoch’s response is to get the freeloading online customers to pay their fair share.

Google, on the other hand, has made a fortune in the ability to gather and supply customers with content harvested from the free range of  the Internet. By providing a service which has become ingrained in daily ritual for millions around the world,  Google is attractive to advertisers it its ability to identify customers and target with laser-sharp accuracy.

So why would Google give up some of its free range? Actually, it’s looks like a good business move. Considering Murdoch holds the reins of some of the biggest names in the news industry — and with clout to coerce others to follow — the concession to allow publishers to limit free time on their site still gives the search engine the ability to adapt and cultivate what is out there and free. Hey, if a paper throws up a fence around its content, it’s not Google’s fault. They’ll  find some other place for readers to graze.

What’s more baffling, however, is why Murdoch and company haven’t looked at Google and taken a  “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality.  Why haven’t newspapers realized that the draw is content — unique and verifiable — but the money is made the packaging and delivery to customers? Delivering content an individual wants, when and how he wants it, is far more efficient and doable than it was a decade ago.  And, as any business will tell you, customers are willing to pay a premium for something that is convenient and/or time-saving.

But until that revelation occurs, online content remains in this Cold War, and the industry continues to suffer as a result.

The Grim Reaper takes another step

The slide in ad revenues in the newspaper industry continued in the third quarter of this year, as the NAA numbers show a 28 percent decrease in the third quarter of 2009.  It’s the 13th consecutive quarter of declines and prospects for the worst year for ad revenues in more than 20 years.

While the reality looks bleak, NAA officials saw a silver lining. “”There may not be great visibility into 2010 and beyond, but the broad consensus is that the worst has passed,”  NAA president John Sturm said. “Throughout the downturn, newspaper companies have made extraordinary progress in transforming their business models, positioning themselves as leading players in a multiplatform media universe where their superior audience engagement, content generation, and value for advertisers will ensure a successful future.”

Newspapers have been throwing people and products overboard over the past several years to lighten the load to stay afloat. But now they are selling their slimmed down products as a “multiplatform media universe?”

Looks more like lipstick on a pig.

Through the recession, publisher still haven’t address building readership and community that adapt and conform to new readers’ styles. Publishers are still focusing on building mass audiences for single products, when readers are turning their backs to “mass” packages. I look at my iPhone and see missed opportunities to build revenue through a specialized product (most newspapers are giving away their iPhone apps, which is a shame. It could have been a great revenue opportunity.)

Instead of making one “universal” product,  publishers should be instead be focusing on smaller products and delivery methods targeted for microcommunities. Build enough focused products and readers, and you can have a larger cumulative audience than you had with your ‘mass’ product … plus each one has potential for growth.

Build readers, and advertisers will follow. Target audiences, and you’ll get advertisers you may not have attracted before.

But, in the meantime, Rome continues to burn.

UPDATE, NOV. 28:  Alan Mutter, in his Reflections of a Newsosaur blog, shares the sentiment that the numbers continue to spiral down, and offers some interesting stats to back it up. Click here to read.

The ‘you go first’ dilemma

Media blogger Alan Mutter hit the nail on the head in his latest posting, noting that the death of newspapers won’t be on the hands of disenchanted readers or reluctant advertisers, but at the feet of the press owners.

Mutter calls out the elephant in the room: The lack of innovation from publishers – few, if any, who are willing to try something new. The vast majority are waiting for someone else to find the golden egg, that new revenue model that will bring them back into prosperity. Once it’s found, then you’ll see the industry follow like lemmings to adopt it.

Problem is, how many will still be alive when that is found?

It’s ironic that an industry that has been a champion for change in the public good is so adverse to change for itself.

In the midst of a storm, Gannett builds a rudder

One of the things that worries me most about the newspaper industry is that, once the recession is over and the profits return revenue losses cease, many companies will be scratching their heads saying “OK, now where do we go?”

Gannett Co. seems to have recognized that with the recent creation of its list of  ’content priorities’  to focus its editorial mission in the wake of numerous reductions of editorial resources and personnel. Gannett officials describe it as a way to “get our swagger back,” but, more importantly, it gives the chain a road map to follow to keep it viable and potentially successful in maintaining current readers as well as in building new ones.

The priorities range from improving watchdog journalism to repositioning its print and web operations to building Sunday audiences and being community leaders. I particularly love the revelation that newspapers are no longer a breaking news medium, therefore focus should be on developing and building content that differentiates them from other media. This is something every print organization needs to recognize, but I’d bet very few are willing to admit it.

Gannett’s statements are no means a guarantee to success. There are a few shortcomings, such as developing new products and methods to deliver content to niche audiences (thats readers, not advertisers. Build readers, and advertisers will follow). But in an industry where there is no clear-cut model for reversing decades of customer decline, too many are sitting and waiting for someone else to come up with the answer.

At least the Gannett Co. has built itself a rudder to weather the storm and find safe port in calmer waters.

Are your readers this loyal? Are you sure?

This was something that could soften an ink-stained wretch’s heart. In light of the announcement yesterday that the New York Times plans to lay off another 100 newsroom employees, an unusual thing occurred. A few readers commenting on the story said they would be willing to pay for online content if it meant keeping reporters and editor working.

Read it here: http://www.observer.com/2009/media/comments-nyt-readers-beg-pay-online

While it is uplifting that there is reader support for paid content, the question remains just how deep does that loyalty go? And while certainly there is loyalty for the New York Times, will that same loyalty transfer down to the Daily Bugle?

My gut feeling is that, yes, there is loyalty for small, local newspapers that tend to be the main source of information in a community, and that loyalty may actually be enough to support it. But I don’t believe that loyalty grows proportionately with a newspaper’s size. The Times and  other larger metropolitan and regional papers will generate some revenue, but it won’t be enough to offset lost revenues in decreased circulations and ad revenues.

Yes, this wretch is warmed by the reader comments in the Times, but my heart is still cold enough to realize that new readers will still put free before brand. Unless you make your  brand valuable and convenient, the majority won’t be willing to pay.

Why the Sun-Times could become the big man in Chicago

Until last week’s purchase of the Chicago Sun-Times by local financier James Tyree and a group of investors, the future of the city’s Number 2 newspaper had been in doubt.

Indeed, the paper had been on life support for many years now, after being raped and left for dead by former owner Conrad Black and his cronies a decade ago. If not for the incredible dedication and spirit of the newspaper’s staff, the Sun-Times surely would have joined the list of great nameplates that have left the face of the earth.

But Tyree’s group has come through to let the Sun-Times live another day … and it couldn’t have come at a better time for them. With a new infusion of cash and new hope, the Sun-Times could well be positioned to become the Number 1 news organization in the Chicago metro area.

It’s a bold statement, given the competition by the established Tribune Co. and with a number of suburban dailies and weeklies looking  to make inroads. But the Sun-Times Media Group has something that nobody… even the almighty Tribune … has in the Chicago market: a deep, vast and credible font of branded content.

And in the new world of news, content is golden.

In spite of all the bad things Conrad Black did to the company, he made at least one well-orchestrated move: acquiring a significant number of local newspapers in the Chicago metropolitan market. As a result, the Sun-Times media group’s holdings include the metro S-T,  two solid second-tier southern suburban dailies in the SouthtownStar and Joliet Herald-News,  three smaller suburban dailies from the former Copley chain and more than 50 suburban local weeklies in the Pioneer and Sun chains, which have recognition in the north and western suburbs.

As a result, The Sun-Times group has control of branded, local content for a majority of the Chicago metropolitan area. The Tribune Company could argue its Triblocal community products cover as much ground, one thing Triblocal  doesn’t have is the brand recognition that the S-T owned nameplates do.

I don’t think Black had the foresight to realize just what a gold mine he was putting together, but the result puts the S-T in a prime position for developing new products that could create new revenue streams from readers.

As publishers are starting to find out, paid online content is attractive to readers only if  you either are the only player in your market, or you provide a true, unique value in your market. CNN can provide paid content, as can WSJ because of what they offer for their money. The Newport, R.I., newspaper can provide paid content because readers there can’t get their local news anywhere else.

Consumers like free, but they are willing to pay a premium for convenience.  And in the world of news and information, consumers are coming back to recognized brands for credible, verified information.

The Sun-Times can capitalize on this by taking its cumulative database of news and information and slice and dice it to pare out to readers in a convenient, personal product.  The key is to take the information that its readers rely on as credible and verified, and parse it into a personalized package that can be distributed to a consumer in a  format and time schedule he demands.

Save consumers from the effort of searching out the information they need, and they may be willing to pay a modest subscription fee. Create enough products that cater to a number of  microcommunities, and you just might have enough to make up for the losses from your flagship.  

It’s not a slam dunk. It’s going to take the realization by the owners and workers that the group is no longer a number of independent publications operating on their own. It’ll take a major shift in philosophy, a lot of wall-busting, and a good amount of luck to make it happen.

But the stars are out there waiting to be aligned. And what an incredible success story it would be if it happens.