Bad management is what is hurting the newspaper industry. Journalism can save it
The Brisbane-based journalist Jason Whittaker has written another excellent piece on the future of journalism over on his blog Importance Of Ideas.
In it, he argues that if Google wants decent news content to aggregate, then it needs to be a part of the solution to newspapers’ current malaise. In the comments thread, the conversation turns to considering when problems began for newspapers. It’s a subject that feels particularly poignant for me as I discovered this morning that in the UK, Press Gazette – the weekly newspaper, and more recently monthly magazine, for journalists – is to close.
But it made me realise that this all began long before online took hold.
I became a hack nearly 20 years ago. At the time, I got the distinct impression from my seniors that things had been much better ten years before. Now I realise there never really was a golden age of journalism.
So ultimately the follow through is journalists going off and doing their own thing then… building up their own fiefdoms with content at the heart and so the cycle starts again of audiences and content creators at the middle of the business – albiet in a much more fragmented way in line with the changes to media consumption.
I just can’t see big, old-school print publishers putting content-friendly people at the helm again any time soon. So while I agree with your interesting piece, Tim, and that there’s life in the old model yet, nonetheless, I think too much damage has been done – and too negative a culture been created – for some of the world’s best-known mastheads to pull up out of the nose dive most of them are currently in (or about to fall into).
Fairfaix media is a classic example, the ppl in the media/advertising industry knows how shocking bad management is there….. what goes around comes around.
It’s all about ease of access.
10-15 years ago, my local paper was what I read for local issues, world news, sport and more. Now it’s barely worth bothering with. I get quicker sports results on the web and broader/shallower coverage from forums that newspapers can’t match. I get my world news all over the place, and there are countless interesting reads when it comes to politics, arts and more. I don’t think one single source can compete with that.
Gossip in newspapers is largely ripped from the big gossip blogs (Perez, PITNB, Go Fug Yourself, etc). There are more restaurant and movie reviews online. There is better IT coverage, without a doubt, or industry-specific news for countless industries. There are loads of classifieds with search functions that newspapers were too slow (and scared of losing revenue) to replicate. Readers of the local paper are still reading Fred Basset while those online get Penny Arcade, XKCD, Cyanide and Happiness, First Dog and more.
For special interest topics, the internet means that instead of a newspaper regurgitating information and opinions from experts, people can go straight to the source.
It’s obviously not perfect but as the majority of readers look for snacks rather than meals and become accustomed to the culture of free, it’s where things are headed.
That leaves those classic breaking stories of corruption and the like. Firstly, no one is going to pay for them on their own, and secondly, I can’t remember when I last saw much along those lines from the daily here which slips further into tabloid territory with every day. (Quick thought: could universities/students/researchers fill the democratic-watchdog gap?)
Micropayments won’t work and paywalls won’t work. Advertising will change but potentially leave newspapers and radio behind to increase online budgets. Journalists will hopefully shift online but I doubt they’ll save the newspaper industry as your headline implies – paper is the past. Leave the old format behind and hope that increased funds through advertising can keep the writers employed.
I liked this story from the Washington Post recently: Life After Newspapers – http://linky.com.au/gbkec
And this one from Slate (linked from the WaPo article above): http://www.slate.com/id/2214724/
Obviously journalism is what needs to be saved, and what will ultimately save media companies.
And I think your post reminds us that this is hardly a new problem – that newspaper companies are struggling to pay the bills is only the climax of what the smartest people in media have seen coming for a very long time. Managers have never understood the shift in consumer habits and new delivery technologies, and have only accelerated the turn-off through the mistaken belief dumbing-down content was the answer.
Great post. Glad I inspired the memories. 🙂
Tim. Good post. Thanks. Did you also see the WSJ editor saying that (news) aggregators on the internet are parasites:
QUOTE:
Thomson, a former editor of The Times who was appointed editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal last May, said consumers must understand why they were paying a premium for content.
“It’s certainly true that readers have been socialised — wrongly I believe — that much content should be free,” he said.
“And there is no doubt that’s in the interest of aggregators like Google who have profited from that mistaken perception. And they have little incentive to recognise the value they are trading on that’s created by others.”
UNQUOTE
http://www.theaustralian.news......82,00.html
As they say in the UK: Turkies don’t vote for Christmas.
The only thing that will save any newspaper from bad management is good management.
The challenge for newspapers is not the quality of journalism but the ability of management to meet today’s challenges. This is not to relegate the importance of journalism but let’s not kid ourselves that journalists will save newspapers – they will contribute but they can’t and won’t do it alone.
Even at iconic titles in other parts of the world, where their journalism is revered in their own markets and cultures, we are seeing dramatic falls in revenue and cuts in operational costs: New York Times, Washington Post, and closer to home, The Straits Times of Singapore and South China Morning Post. Australian and New Zealand titles have not escaped the attention of cost-cutters, either.
Let’s accept this: management has faced the challenge of internet entrepreneurs since the late 90s, even if some did not know it at the time.
Mistakes have been made, of course. And the pain of structural and well as cyclical economic challenges feels like it has arrived all at once (which it hasn’t) and it is really hurting (which it is).
I firmly believe newspaper management around the world needs to recalibrate their thinking and their actions.
The first step in this situation, then, is to transform their business operations – both internally (process) and externally (editorial innovation on all platforms).
Whether one accepts it or not, many management teams will look at their immediate cost structures and income, and try to balance the two in a way that is acceptable to those who invest in our companies and therefore own them.
This is painful. It takes a bit of time. It is absolutely where we are today. And it is essential.
We also need to improve processes, create better sales management tools, enhance publishing systems; reward success, empower staff through technology… and a list of stuff far too long to bore everyone with here.
These are the easy bits.
Part of the transformation must be a recalibration of cultures.
Every company has a different culture and, as such, each will need to change in different ways at different times.
Cultural change requires vision, strategy, communication and a bunch of other good stuff that many journalists (and others) today say they do not experience.
I have absolute faith that we will achieve this transformation, as painful as it feels – and newspapers will continue to play a vital role in society.
Best regards,
Mark Hollands
Chief Executive
Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers’ Association
Mark, I agree with most of that. Certainly journalists can’t save newspapers alone (and while you quite rightly have the interests of newspapers at heart, we don’t actually need to SAVE papers, only the sort of reporting models they have perfected.)
But content is always at the heart of making media companies sustainable and profitable. And I would argue the “mistakes” you refer to have mostly revolved around sacrificing quality content and quality journalists. I understand there is a commercial reality to job cuts and other cutbacks, but editorial should be the department the razor gang visits last, not first.
Fairfax is such a miserably unsuccessful company BECAUSE it has sacrificed essentially the ONLY advantage it ever had in the market – quality editorial. Companies should be building new models AROUND editorial, not making journalism another function of the business.
Journalism won’t save newspapers, but – as I’ve argued repeatedly on my blog at http://importanceofideas.com – if newspapers don’t put journalism at the core of what they do then they don’t deserve to be saved.
Hi Jason, thanks for the feedback.
I appreciate your not agreeing with everything I said; few do. So I’m sure you won’t mind me saying that I don’t agree with your sentiments about Fairfax. I think journalism remains deep in the heart of Fairfax – and some very fine journalists work there.
Also, it was not the only advantage that the publisher had over the years. Its classifieds rocked… and that helped finance the very quality of journalism we all treasure.
But that’s history.
Now and the future are what counts.
Tim said earlier that we need to rediscover quality journalism. We have quality journalists but ‘quality journalism’ is ambiguous. Broadsheets don’t get to define it. The ABC doesn’t either. Or the union. There is great journalism in the tabloids, and on TV, radio, the Net etc.
Tim also said we need to go back to the model of 10-30 years ago when “content matters”.
Content still matters, but the “model” isn’t there anymore.
When I joined the Sidmouth Herald (UK) (30 years ago next Sept 3) we ran that wonderful local rag like we run newspapers now: Good local stories / Ad revenue/ bit of cover price/ and “watch the costs”.
The world is different; our readers and our advertisers have changed behaviours.
What I feel we do miss from three decades ago is a bit of passion (not anyone’s individually). We have become very analytical and often judgmental of the industry we love. So much is written about what is wrong (and, yeah, it’s not perfect); but that over-shadows all the many good things journalists achieve for society.
What I experienced 30 years ago as a teaboy / cub reporter was passion, fun, and a love for the bloody hard work that produces a great story, and made my hometown pay attention to its newspaper.
That came from inside me, and it came from the enthusiasm and passion that my editor shared in return.
Collectively, we all must rediscover within ourselves that passion for what we do; whether that is journalism, sales, or printing, or persuading the newsagent to do home deliveries on time.
If we achieve this for ourselves, it becomes contagious. We can persuade others to follow – our colleagues, readers, advertisers and managers.
To the outside world, I reckon we look danergously close to being resigned to our fate.
If, collectively, we keep slipping in the knife; twisting it a little further each time, then literally, we write our own destiny.
To go back to my original point: Everyone will contribute to the future of newspapers – good managers, great journalists and smart commercial people.
Best regards,
Mark Hollands
Chief Executive
Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers’ Association