Taking the “paper” out of “newspaper”
A few weeks back I answered a question in the Answers section of LinkedIn. The question was “In your opinion, what should newspapers do to keep pace with the internet?” Clearly, this question has been on the minds of many for quite awhile; some respondents simply stated that it’s too late for newspapers (like my favorite cynical response, “What can the horse do to keep up with the automobile?”).
My response was off-the-cuff, but apparently well-received, as it was chosen as the Best Answer (I got a gold star!). Here it is:
Step 1: Stop thinking of (and referring to) themselves as newsPAPERS
Step 2: Embrace the conversation (not one-way, not top-down) that social web encourages; don’t just remain flexible to change—be proactive and lead the way
Step 3: Produce great content (don’t sacrifice standards), differentiate from peers, and monetize
That’s it. I quickly added a clarification that “in Step 1, I don’t mean that there’s no place for a paper version of news, just that it’s important to think bigger.” I was surprised that the answer was chosen because the first point seems obvious (although when I mentioned it to a friend, she said she’d never thought of it that way), the second point is quickly becoming trite, and the third is easier said than done.
But, as I should know from my own recommendations to clients, brevity often increases your chances of resonating with readers. So it’s a good thing I didn’t expand too much on each of my “steps.” If I had, I would have included some support and embellishment:
- The first step is taken directly from my thoughts and recent posts (2) about category definition. Just because The New York Times is usually thought of as a physical, paper product, that does not mean that the company is tied to that one medium. The strength of their identity (i.e., their reputation) in the minds of their readers will allow them to stand for premium news content in any media. Their readers know it, but it’s not clear that they’ve really internalized that fact yet. (And I’m picking on NYT here; I’m really thinking of the industry as a whole.)
- Speaking of NYT, I noticed today that they’re launching version 2.0 of the TimesReader. The demo video is pretty cool but I’m not sure I see huge benefits of TimesReader over simply reading the Times online. Looks like the interface is improved and you can download the entire paper so that you have access to it without internet access. Is that really a big deal? Still, I’m happy to see the attempt at innovation, as I recommended in my “Step 2.”
- The third step, as I’ve said, is easier said than done. I don’t have any great ideas here but noticed that another LinkedIn respondent referenced Mark Cuban’s post on the topic. He’s had more business success than I have, so I’ll take the easy way out and defer to him for now. Regardless, someone with a lot more motivation to solve this problem (news organizations) should be open to any crazy idea, even if it comes from Mark Cuban.
I’m sure these steps won’t singlehandedly solve the crisis these companies are facing, but hopefully this advice—while all pretty obvious—can serve as a high-level framework to guide decisions and actions. One thing I know for sure, when the written news industry does change, for better or worse, I won’t be reading about it on a piece of paper (unless I’m staying in a hotel).
Rob Meyerson works with clients to find creative solutions that inform brand strategy, positioning, identity, and communications.
Daily News About New York Times : A few links about New York Times - Tuesday, 19 May 2009 18:18 | May 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pm #
[...] Taking the “paper” out of “newspaper” [...]
Paul van Winkle | May 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am #
It’s a very important time for every industry (and the companies within them) to re-evaluate:
1) what they do and make
2) how they can now successfully monetize and sell what they do and make
3) in which new ways can they distribute and provide what they do and make — for customers who have either all or unique /different access to the many splintered and expanding media
4) what the new landscapes and their industries demand – and provide opportunities for
“News” as we’ve come to know it through the various brands, is really reporting, coverage and a unique point of view on the/a world and associated events. I agree – the ‘paper’ is merely a delivery point. A means and way to exchange it, for money.
There are many totally new ways to make all that happen, fund it, monetize the valued products and services, and deliver them to markets — locally, nationally and/or globally. Ownership (brains+brawn+money) has a lot to do with news’paper’ success, and brand/legacy, too. Without applying these three things, industries are experiencing collapse or crash.
The Financial Times ( http://www.ft.com ) has remained arguably one of the most important points of view on global and national events and finances. And (part of Penguin Publishing) they remain profitable as a result of successfully defining and answering the questions above, and continuing with a sober and sophisticated style, cost structure and quality consistent with their brand/legacy ‘paper’ (which is pink, and is known as The Pinky).
They have also ‘dimensionalized’ their paper — by adding online video programs and interviews, surveys, new commentaries, a clear user interface, discussions with their editors and writers, courses and programs. Their success, methinks, is a result of a blend of intelligent ‘focus’ (on what makes their brand offer compelling) and intelligent expansion (delivering what they do well in many new and accessible ways).
In another business, a good friend of mine is an experienced older director/DP and has directed and shot thousands of well-known commercial spots and videos. He’s struggling like hell right now. I think it’s in part due to the name that he insists on keeping: “Barefoot Films”.
But: no one shoots film anymore. And he doesn’t either, and he doesn’t make “films”. I’ve suggested he change the name, but he’s stuck on it for various reasons. And I think personally he’s stuck in a past that doesn’t exist anymore. Ironically, the name of his company reflects his mindset — which is backwards looking and not forwards thinking — not focused, not expanding.
Judy | May 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am #
Regarding your Step 1, e-newspaper technology is poised to break out soon and solve this issue of “newspaper or internet” once and for all. Sure, the Kindle 2 has been introduced, but it’s a baby step on the road to a fully interactive, portable newspaper which should be hitting your virtual driveway in the coming years.
There’s a nice look at the future on the video “scenarios” in Beyond The Fold, a e-newspaper design, at this address:
http://beyondthefold.net/Version_2.0.html
With a design such as that, you supply all the change-resistant boomers with a solution that feels familiar, comfortable, and portable, yet delivers actual “news” instead of yesterday’s yawns. Best of both worlds.
As a side note: with all this talk about the “death” of newspapers and resulting layoffs, supposedly journalism as a career is on life support. The e-paper could create journalism opportunities that are not constrained by page counts, and with the extra costs saved by not investing in paper, ink, labor and delivery, there should be more funding to pay salaries.
Although it gives me little personal pleasure to say that… my husband is the manager of a large newspaper pressroom. His long-term career is about to become as relevant as the village smithy.