There is a virtual consensus that the newspaper industry is in a state of decline. It isn’t that the business is no longer profitable; rather, profit margins are slowly receding as younger generations obtain their news online—and often free of charge. The situation is not unlike that faced by the music industry five years ago when illegal downloads threatened the traditional business model: Some companies will fall by the wayside, while the innovators and creative thinkers in other organizations will “roll with the punches” and adapt to the new model. The news organizations that will thrive in the new model will embrace evolution and view the “print versus online” situation as a “both / and” opportunity instead of an “either / or” conundrum. The problem is convincing the decision makers within news organizations (and/or investors) that changes must be made to ensure future profitability.
The American Journalism Review from March and April of this year featured several articles from experts in the field that were concerned with the future of the newspaper industry. Rem Rieder, Editor and Senior Vice President of AJR, summed things up nicely: “In recent years public ownership of newspapers has gotten more bad ink than Terrell Owens.” He discusses McClatchy buying the Star Tribune in Minneapolis in 1998 for $1.2 billion, and that eight years later it is “dumping its largest paper for less than half of what it paid for it.” He contends that “readers and advertisers [are] defecting to the Internet in droves,” which is certainly true, but he does not discuss the potential for newspapers to inhabit the medium.
As if on cue, the next article in AJR was about Robert Allbritton, underwriter for Politico.com. Allbritton started things off on a high note, by hiring Him VandeHei and John Harris from the Washington Post as editor in chief and executive editor of the publication. They have 19 writers and 11 editors, bringing experience from Time, USA Today, and other sources. The organization is far more than talented reporters, though: “Synergy is a big part of Allbritton’s formula…[He] has cut a deal to give his reporters and editors high-profile exposure with regular appearances on CBS. In addition to the Internet site, the Politico’s team will produce a daily television show for Webcast and potential syndication.” Allbritton plans to produce a newspaper three days a week while Congress is in session and hopes to “tap into a lucrative, only-in-Washington market of…government contractors and lobbyists.” Probably the most interesting note of interest is that Allbritton seems to understand the economics of the industry: “Publishing strictly on the Internet is ‘the future,’ he adds. ‘It’s not here yet.’” The message is simple: economic success requires an integrated approach.
That same thought guided Robert Kuttner’s piece in the March/April edition of Columbia Journalism Review, where he succinctly argues, “newspapers stay alive as hybrids.” Kuttner notes with a tinge of self-deprecating humor that he turned to a 22-year old “colleague…prodigy…I opened the conversation by inviting us to compare how we get our daily ration of information. I begin my day, I immodestly confessed, by reading four newspapers. What do you do? Ezra suppressed a smirk. I use about 150 or 200 RSS feeds and bookmarks, he explained.” Kuttner concludes that he was “feeling very last century.” Perhaps even more interesting is that in his interviews, he expected to encounter dread from newspaper editors regarding the online shift, but surprisingly found that virtually everyone was either “fine” with the shift, or—more often—enthusiastic about the potential. “It wasn’t very long ago that I and a lot of other people in the newsroom were worried about the competition from the Web, and its effect on journalism…we were wrong. The Web is not the distraction that we feared it would be, and all the feedback improves the journalism.” Kuttner then delves into the world of hyperlocalism, citing the pride of Lawrence, Rich Curley, and his work at the Lawrence Journal World, Naples Daily News, and other publications. He concludes his article much as I began mine: “As readers, we no longer have to make that either / or choice between newspapers and the wild Web. We can have both the authoritative daily newspaper to aggregate and certify, and the infinite medley of the Web—all of which puts the traditional press under salutary pressure to innovate and to excel.”
For the time being, however, it is always easier to prolong necessary change. Robert Picard argues in the Winter 2006 Nieman Reports that newspapers “Tend to engage in short-term planning rather than developing longer-term strategic visions and promoting company development. Investors pressure them for short-term returns more than they do other types of companies that are able to articulate a vision of a sustainable future.” He believes that the problem is that many newspapers need to develop a new strategy for attracting readers and investors: “Forward thinking requires newspaper companies to rethink their roles as creators and purveyors of information.” In short, he argues that each newspaper must consider “who they are, what they are, and how they serve readers.” It seems simple, but can be a daunting task—particularly if it requires reorganization of the company; the danger of course is that a company may not realize a substantial economic return quickly enough to retain its investors.
In that same edition of Nieman Reports, Chris Cobler passionately argues that the industry he loves is in a “death spiral,” and changes must be made to survive. He argues that newsrooms need to be aligned in such a way that accepts the online reality, and trains reporters to work in a multimedia setting. He too sees it as a matter of attitude: “The Harvard Business School professors, among others, advise that we can view this change as a threat or an opportunity.” He sees the path ahead as one of great change that entails “looking for new partners and being willing to collaborate far outside of our comfort zone. And it means knowing that we have to cannibalize our print edition rather than grudgingly having it happen because of a corporate dictate.”
The newspaper industry has finally encountered a challenge to its monopoly on the dissemination of information. Some companies greet this reality while others ignore it at their own peril. News organizations have a balancing act between the online future and the present demands of investors seeking short-term returns. Allbritton’s synergistic model should provide an excellent blueprint to find what works. In the end, the risk-averse newspapers need to take the plunge. As Charles Bukowski reminds us in “Roll the Dice,” “If you’re going to try, go all the way.”
Works Cited
Cobler, Chris. “Risk-Adverse Newspapers Won’t Cross the Digital Divide.” Nieman Reports. Winter 2006. Accessed online at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p08-0604-cobler.html
Kiely, Kathy. “Politico Mojo.” American Journalism Review. February/March 2007, p. 10-11.
Kuttner, Robert. “The Race: Newspapers can Make it to a Bright Print-Digital Future After All—But Only if They Run Fast and Dodge Wall Street.” Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 2007, p. 24-32.
Picard, Robert G. “Capital Crisis in the Profitable Newspaper Industry.” Nieman Reports. Winter 2006. Accessed online at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p10-0604-picard.html
Rieder, Rem. “The Conventional Wisdom Trap: When it Comes to Newspaper Ownership, Saviors are Elusive.” American Journalism Review. February/March 2007, p. 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment