A Look at Mainstream Media from @Amyvernon and myself.
Look, if we truly knew the answer to the question of how to monetize the newspaper mainstream media, we'd be drinking mai tais on the beach of our very own island in the South Pacific. That said, we do know enough to suggest some ways the MSM, at least, slow the decline in profits.
OK, so what CAN the print MSM do?
1. Dump Print.
After staff, newsprint is the biggest cost factor for newspapers. But sure, we read the CNet story the other day that said only 3 percent of newspaper reading is happening online. So a lot of people are still reading the print edition. How is it, then, that circulation is tanking? (Sure, customer service and delivery problems account for some of that, but not nearly all.)
The people reading papers are getting their information from a wide variety of sites. Some of which are online-only. Some of which, sure, steal from print sites. But if "newspaper" sites made their content available in varying formats that were optimized for reading on a desktop PC, a laptop, an iPhone and a Kindle, among others, that would make the online experience far more palatable.
Let's face it - the core newsprint audience is getting old. You can't rely on that audience to be around forever. And providing new ways for them to get their content is only going to make them happier, too. Mrs. Wizork is getting too stiff in the joints to wander down to the end of her driveway each morning, no matter the weather, to pick up a (possibly soggy) newspaper? It's getting harder to read the typeface? What if you gave her a Kindle or other e-book reader that converted the printed word into speech and she instead subscribed to an electronic version delivered to her reader in her nice warm (or cold, maybe she lives in Arizona) house each morning.
Print is dead. Everyone says it is. To hold onto reasons why it's not is to shortchange your readers.
2. Hire Ariana Huffington?
OK, few can afford to hire an independently wealthy Internet entrepreneur. But follow her lead.
Hire people who can write who are experts on what they're blogging about. Heck, some of 'em will do it for the exposure and minimal payment. Don't make your existing staff keep doing all the daily journalism they have to do for the core product and ALSO blog. Make some of them purely digital journalists. Their blogs are their beats. Don't try to do more with less, because you can't. Well, you can, but you can't do it well. You know it. And, more importantly, your readers know it. Use the people you have left in your newsrooms to cover what they cover well. If you simply still must have a print edition, have editors take their blogged content and make it fit whatever format you need for the dead tree edition.
Explore new revenue channels through blogging - find sponsors for blogs. If the blog's about music, get a venue to sponsor. If the blog's about that particular topic...do outreach, engage your community. Create an army of bloggers with the sanctioned trust of a major newspaper.
3. Allow users to design their own home page.
Every other news aggregator has been doing this since the dawn of the internet. Why can't you customize a newspaper website's layout?
To attract a more hardcore audience, you should use a Custom CRM for max web integration. Expand your reach and allow other newspapers to be imported (pass linkjuice onto them as well and they'll just do the same). Allow third parties like Yelp to integrate their services into the paper. The more customized content that you allow your customers to have access to, the more eyeballs will get to see it. Also, make sure your articles are easily shareable and transferable back to you ... and allow people to tweet directly from your site.
Think of your home page like a Google homepage. Let users add RSS feeds to their favorite content around the web and choose their favorite comic strips that you purchase from syndication. Make users able to turn your homepage into their homepage, so they don't have to go anywhere else.
4. Do breaking news. Or do longform. Don't try to do both.
When you try to do longform, you get sidetracked by the breaking news of the day. When you do breaking news, you get sidetracked by trying to figure out what longform pieces you're gonna write about the event. Plus, there's always some hotshot reporter working on a major longform piece you just can't pull her off of, so instead of giving your all to the breaking news of the day, you put who you have on the story, rather than who you need.
Breaking news: Own it. Incorporate Twitter streams into the breaking coverage. Monitor the Tweets and comments and follow up on leads from them. Sure, not every day has a major breaking news story. But if you cover your area well, you'll find far more breaking news than you ever imagined.
Long-form: Do it right. Be the written version of NPR. Delve into your subjects. Cover angles no one else is. Be the site that people go to when they want to know the story behind the story.
You know, do journalism.
5. Stop Interrupting, Start Interacting.
Broadcast media is no longer the accepted form of communication between user and provider. People expect to learn, respond and react to news. You can no longer broadcast something and then ignore its repercussions...the FCC would crucify you for one thing, but more importantly? So would your readers.
Take the example of Colonel Tribune and actually meet, talk and hang out with your audience. Also, take the approach that your story isn't done once it has been published look at it as if it has just begun.
This by no means is a complete list and MSM has a long way to go. What would you suggest?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment, showing us some social love or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
tagged as @Amyvernon, Amy Vernon, Ariana Huffington, interaction, interactive social media, mainstream media, Media, monetization, print media, Social Media, tv
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
“News” is a loss leader. Always was, sorry to say. Doesn't mean we don't need it as a democracy (far from my point), just that, from the owner POV, newsrooms create the stuff between the ads, keeps the Post Office from charging more money for mail delivery, allow 1st Amendment arguments for newsboxes on street corners, and so on. This was clear to … Read Moreme from the first day on my first job in this business.
So, it's a clear business model. Keep newsroom costs low, ad rates high. If ad rates fall below newsroom costs, you're done. If you lose your monopoly on news distribution, doubly so. Both things have happened, and no amount of suburban growth distribution or tricky Web ploys can overcome it. I know a lot of people want this not to be true and will criticize me for putting quite so bluntly, but there it is.
I too don't have the answer for newspapers (or the Mai Tai and my own island.) Just some related observations from one of those who falls into the non-digital native camp. This morning the Globe's Alex Beam wrote (and I read about it in the print edition, so sue me) about the challenges of reading material online — and interviewed several experts on the differences between reading print and on a screen. (http://tinyurl.com/devk5w)
I get the Globe in paper form because I enjoy reading it that way — however I get a majority of my news and information online. When I get the paper Globe I am helping to support journalists and the people who make the news possible — monetizing it. I don't click through many online ads — not helpful in the whole revenue generation model.
Bluntness is saluted here Greg
. Definitely, I think Amy and I are just trying to recommend ways to fend off the inevitable. I don't think news as we know it today is going to be around for much longer…
This sucks in my mind, but it no longer is a business that will ever be profitable thanks to high over head costs, low readership and the dumbing down of content.
I am actually the opposite Bobbie believe it or not. I can't stand reading print in a newspaper (I much prefer a magazine…and if all possible off a laptop). I have no idea why and if pressed would give you some lame reason about newspapers being bulky and unwieldy.
I want to support journalists at all costs. They provide an invaluable service and one that doesn't pay nearly well enough. The fact that their model is inching closer and closer to irrelevance is sad and disheartening. I hope some solution is found sooner rather then later…NPR model?
Sorry, I'll oppose you on the “print is dead” bandwagon. I don't buy that mantra; there's a good 20 years to go. But, hey, to open your mind a bit with a slanted perspective on the issue, take a look at http://technosailor.com/2009/04/24/the-death-of...
20 years to go is a short period of time (granted not for me as it is the majority of my life) but extremely short when it comes to how long newspapers have been around. The point Amy and I were trying to make was that they are floundering some opportunities that could potentially increase their longevity.
Point number two is crucial. I constantly hear journalists blasting bloggers for not being journalists. Duh! They are two different fields and should be staffed by different people. Sure, some journalists can be solid bloggers (and some bloggers can be solid journalists), but often it's best to have the experts at each devote their time to what they are good at.
Have you seen the New York Times reader? It's a step in the right direction but is lacking on a lot of fronts. Personally I prefer their web-site to their reader but can see how the reader would appeal to print subscribers.
“You know, do journalism.”
Yes, I've been beating that drum for a while now. I get sick and tired of hearing about how newspapers are crucial to our society because of their investigative journalism, but then when you pop to their home page or pick up their print edition you can blasted with celebrity rumors and other inane stories. I'm sure it moves eyeballs but it's not journalism.
Point number two is crucial. I constantly hear journalists blasting bloggers for not being journalists. Duh! They are two different fields and should be staffed by different people. Sure, some journalists can be solid bloggers (and some bloggers can be solid journalists), but often it's best to have the experts at each devote their time to what they are good at.
Have you seen the New York Times reader? It's a step in the right direction but is lacking on a lot of fronts. Personally I prefer their web-site to their reader but can see how the reader would appeal to print subscribers.
“You know, do journalism.”
Yes, I've been beating that drum for a while now. I get sick and tired of hearing about how newspapers are crucial to our society because of their investigative journalism, but then when you pop to their home page or pick up their print edition you can blasted with celebrity rumors and other inane stories. I'm sure it moves eyeballs but it's not journalism.
Point number two is crucial. I constantly hear journalists blasting bloggers for not being journalists. Duh! They are two different fields and should be staffed by different people. Sure, some journalists can be solid bloggers (and some bloggers can be solid journalists), but often it's best to have the experts at each devote their time to what they are good at.
Have you seen the New York Times reader? It's a step in the right direction but is lacking on a lot of fronts. Personally I prefer their web-site to their reader but can see how the reader would appeal to print subscribers.
“You know, do journalism.”
Yes, I've been beating that drum for a while now. I get sick and tired of hearing about how newspapers are crucial to our society because of their investigative journalism, but then when you pop to their home page or pick up their print edition you can blasted with celebrity rumors and other inane stories. I'm sure it moves eyeballs but it's not journalism.
Point number two is crucial. I constantly hear journalists blasting bloggers for not being journalists. Duh! They are two different fields and should be staffed by different people. Sure, some journalists can be solid bloggers (and some bloggers can be solid journalists), but often it's best to have the experts at each devote their time to what they are good at.
Have you seen the New York Times reader? It's a step in the right direction but is lacking on a lot of fronts. Personally I prefer their web-site to their reader but can see how the reader would appeal to print subscribers.
“You know, do journalism.”
Yes, I've been beating that drum for a while now. I get sick and tired of hearing about how newspapers are crucial to our society because of their investigative journalism, but then when you pop to their home page or pick up their print edition you can blasted with celebrity rumors and other inane stories. I'm sure it moves eyeballs but it's not journalism.