If your newspaper is still relevant, why would it close?
Author: Annie Flanzraich | 04.06.2009The “future of journalism” discussion usually gets framed in the context of editorial content.
We ask questions like: “how can we better connect with readers?” “how can we use technology to build communities?” “how do we ingrain ourselves into the conversation of existing communities?” or “how do we become a vital part of readers’ lives?”
Some of these questions work under the assumption that the Internet killed long-standing media companies not only because of a bad business model but because the companies were out of touch, out of date and elitist (an assumption that is true in some instances). There’s an idea that bad journalism is the culprit. If we would only adapt quicker and reach out more we would somehow save ourselves. It’s the idea that good content can rescue a failing business model.
Journalists hear that idea every time they are told to social network, live blog and update quickly. I’m not saying these aren’t valuable tools to spread information and connect with more people than ever. I’m saying they’re not valuable yet when it comes to directly providing a revenue stream for traditional media companies.
What if your paper is still relevant? What if that doesn’t matter? What if good content can’t save professional, paid journalists?
I can’t speak for every paper out there, I can only speak from my own experience. I speak from the experience of working for a small community paper that genuinely connects with its community. We hold community meetings each week. We hold town forums about large issues. As individual journalists we get involved in our community. Our readers take pride and ownership of the paper. They demand “their” paper (and we’re free locally, for delivery too).
Yes, we’ve been behind the curve on technology in the sense that we were late to start Tweeting, Facebooking, Digging, Technorating, geo-coding and whatever “ing” you want to add on. But I don’t believe that’s what’s hurting my paper. A lack of good journalism isn’t driving down revenue.
The recession is.
When big-ticket advertising revenue from major sources like real estate, retail, cars and classifieds dries up, what happens? Some of that money may never come back. Once businesses do without the color inserts and the full page ads and begin to explore free or inexpensive technologies to promote themselves, will they ever come back to print? Once they develop an online presence, how do news sources become an integral part of that model?
How do we address the fundamental shift in how businesses are willing to spend to promote themselves?
Until we address those questions head-on, I believe no amount of technology or tools to produce better content will “save newspapers” unless it’s tied to a revenue source.
And it takes more than the vague answer of “well more technology drives more traffic and more traffic equals higher ad rates.” I’m looking for specific strategies of how we can use innovative technologies to create innovative revenue solutions.
How do we develop advertising into content? How do we make that content valuable to readers and businesses? How do we leverage our reputation and our connection with our communities? Can space online be as valuable as space in print was?
I guess my question is if a newspaper is still relevant to its readers, why would it close?
It may not be because it hasn’t served its readers, it may be because it hasn’t served businesses. It may not be that it hasn’t connected with its community — it may be it hasn’t connected the community and businesses.
Publications, online, mobile or print serve two audiences — users and advertisers, readers and businesses. Journalists on the editorial side have long considered readers and have been discouraged from thinking about the businesses. And advertising representatives have long been barred from the newsroom.
How many newsrooms divide the advertising and editorial departments by attitudes, snide remarks, an entitled sense of righteousness, walls, staircases or even entire buildings? I am not advocating advertising influencing coverage. I am advocating pairing the two smartly. I am advocating thinking of advertising as valuable content — just like the words reporters write and the pictures photographers take. I am advocating the sharing of ideas, tools and understanding the community.
Why should Web and print advertising be one-way messages that are usually irradically spaced throughout a product? We’ve learned that special sections and niche products can provide a targeted audience with both editorial and advertising content. What stops us from trying to apply that lesson to individual pages of a newspaper or websites?
Instead of making ads that scream, make ads that invite. Instead of ads that pop up randomly, let’s make them tie in with an article, or the user’s demographic.
Other groups, journalists, think tanks and business-minded people have begun pondering these questions: Revenue 2.0, Alan Mutter, the Krugman Paradox,
It’s time to start thinking as vigorously about innovations in advertising as we have for editorial content.
How do we begin to reimagine the business model and advertising? When will advertising catch up to editorial innovations? Better yet, when will we stop thinking of advertising as the step-father that pays the bills and instead show it some love and cooperation?
Recent Comments
but what you can do for SND