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.

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.