Newspapers are dying: Perception or reality?

Tom, at this point it's all riding over the hill after the battle and shooting the wounded.

I'll trust that your request for suggestions isn't an attempt to dash my criticism -- you don't have to be a freakin' chef to know when the meal sucks. I do think some major errors in judgment were made when newspapers put up all of their content -- and often more! -- on the Web site, even though they hadn't figured out how to properly monetize it. Better they should have used the Web as a digest to promote their print product. Stick to story summaries or wire copy, and entice people to learn more in the paper. Obviously, that's been suggested elsewhere, plenty.

Who did it at the time, though?

Even now, allowing unfettered access to the stuff that only the legit news organizations have and pay for -- real journalists, trained and working to professional standards -- seems like a mistake. I've said it before: The numbers on the old McDonald's signs would change rapidly if the place was only counting burgers distributed: 105 Billion Given Away! But if you want to make money, you still have to sell. And hammering on the gulch between all the noise on the Internet and the legitimate news and information seems like the best competitive advantage available anymore.

Dedicating a certain amount of the profits, when there were profits, to R&D might have been a good idea too. Not just pre-Internet but now, pre-Whatever Is Next.

Again, though, there were a lot of stiffs pulling down big, big bucks who presided over this mess as it was happening. Me? I was writing a gamer, sidebar and notes. Sorry I was asleep at the wheel.

 

joe - god no, i wasn't kicking you in the nuts. i'm simply not sure there is an answer to the internet issue when you consider the vehicle and the passengers.

 

OK. I had a late thought that you were baiting me, gullible and no-longer-gruntled journo that I am.

 

Newspapers are dying. Slowly, but inevitably. I firmly believe there will come a time in my lifetime when you cannot read the news on a piece of newsprint.

But I refuse to accept the notion that journalism, and particularly sports journalism, has no future, in some form.

You're telling me there will come a day when people won't want to read about their sports teams? That the people of Chicago will have no interest on what's going on with the Cubs? The people in Green BAy won't want to know everything there is to know about the Packers?

There is a demand for sports news, features and analysis, and always will be. As long as there is a demand for something, there has got to be a way to monetize it.

 

What I see are the leagues and the teams themselves scratching that itch for people. They'll be the ones with the features and profiles and game accounts, all filtered through implicit league and team approval. That will leave all the rumors and gossip and speculation and criticism to the citizen journalists, people who are so passionate about those teams and leagues that they work for free (or nearly so).

BTW, what the leagues and the teams provide, even with their filters, isn't all bad. They're not going to run a list of likely replacements for the overmatched head coach or carry an opinion piece urging that a pitcher be yanked out of the rotation. But in 70-80 percent of the daily coverage, they won't be appreciably different and they might be able to flex better access. Then there are the few national sites -- ESPN.com, SI.com, FOXSports.com -- that can handle the middle ground.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the void left when real news journalism isn't funded by independent organizations. That's the stuff people need and won't be getting from other places, filtered or unfiltered. Besides, it isn't like the mayor's office is going to make sure that cityhall.com has strong daily coverage.

 

Very well put, Joe.

There is no doubt in my mind that good journalism will continue. The questions remain of how it will be used to generate revenue and how will it be distributed? We continue to talk about the "newspaper business" like that is journalism. It is not. Newspapers, or more specifically newsprint, is the distribution method. The journalism taking place can be distributed in many different ways as long as the revenue will support those methods. The transition is slowly happening and will continue to evolve.

Part of that evolution is citizen journalism and the roll that the leagues play in satisfying the news hunger out there. While we are not considered "journalists" at the leagues, we do satisfy the consumers' (your) need for everyday news and results as well as the exclusive video content that we can provide.

The short-sighted newspaper executives of the past are gradually disappearing. And that is a good thing. But the new wave needs to figure out what is going to do more than sustain a failing business. And we all need to realize that this is a business first.

 

Joe, the only part of what you've said I would disagree with is that the web should (or should have in the past) tease to your newspaper.

It's the other way around and it should have been that way about 1996. Unlimited web space, you know.

 

kleeda, I know we can do more on the Web and provide richer, deeper coverage. But we can't make more money on the Web. Couldn't back in 1996 and, lookee here, still can't 12 years later.

I'm not saying that's the direction in which things should flow forever. I'm just saying that directing people from the format that doesn't make money to the format that does make money would have been a smarter initial approach. Figure out from there how to deepen their commitment to your "brand", whether it's through Web subscriptions, "extras" for paper subscribers that really are glorified Web subscriptions or something else.

The first thing we began telling our customers was, what we give you over here, you can get the same product for free over there. I've said it before: It's like McDonald's charging when you walk through the front door but giving away burgers in the drive-thru lane. Guess where the lines are going to form.

I also acknowledge the view that what newspapers traditionally sell is their audience, rather than news/information, and that the consumer is the advertiser, rather than the reader. Makes sense to me, but it's pretty much the same issue, once-removed.

 

I believe this is the winner.

 

I figure "the newspaper" can last about 5 or 6 more years with annual 10 percent revenue reduction before corporate figures its just not worth it any more.

The web growth in the last five years just isn't enough to be optimistic. The news business will survive, but when you think about the circulation area populations for the majority of local newspapers - is that enough of a revenue or readership base for a viable web enterprise?

 

Information will be written, edited and received, but what will be lost as this industry moves forward is the viability of an upwardly mobile career as a journalist. A few will be paid OK, but most providers will not achieve even a medium-level sustenance. Companies aren't going to pay 50k-plus to edit Tweets.