Newspapers: Looking back to move forward

The biggest threats to newspapers aren’t just their familiar revenue problems and ever-proliferating competitors, but also the opportunity costs of failing to innovate more boldly — to be transformative, not incremental, in moving forward.

Melanie Sill’s insightful post about former editors wishing they had done things differently got me thinking about current editors.

Have they learned anything from the past five years of layoffs and cutbacks? To find out, I asked several North Carolina editors to address that with these questions: What if you could go back to 2004 with the budget, resources and FTEs you had then, but knowing what you know now? What would you do with the additional people and money? What would you do differently?

To focus on the critical few, I asked them to list three changes. Three editors responded, and I included my own “wishes.” The answers were remarkably similar, and none was earth-shattering.

Here’s a summary. (Full responses at the end.)

1. A smokin’ hot active digital presence. “They would cover breaking news maniacally, create interactive databases and do more video,” Carol Hanner, ME of the Winston-Salem Journal. “I would have challenged them to design a website that’s not modeled after the organization of the newspaper’s content.”

Robyn Tomlin, executive editor the Wilmington Star-News, would create a community engagement team. “Their goal would be to engage the community in a constant conversation, wherever they are. They would focus on social media, aggregation and curation along with doing a better job of promoting our content and staff in the community.”

2. Reorganized coverage. I said reorganize reporting around enterprise, especially focused on investigative and community. Tomlin agreed. “I would create a watchdog reporting team focused on doing investigative and public service journalism. I mean day-in-day-out political fact-checking, creating online databases of public records, doing local consumer reporting and sometimes just chasing our tails in an effort to tell important stories that seem to get missed along the way.”

In addition to a “watchdog team,” Hanner added: “I’d have a breaking news team that covers the heck out of everything that moves in the community and put it online. I would have a team that does nothing but focus on feature stories about local people, community organizations’ work and the acknowledgements of worthy and fascinating efforts.”

3. Idea incubator. Robyn and I had similar ideas; not surprisingly, hers was more expansive. I wanted to take three bright, creative people and tell them to come up with the next YouTube, eBay, or Craigslist based on giving people something they didn’t even know they needed or wanted. She said: “I would hire an innovations editor and obtain other resources necessary to create a Google-like idea incubation initiative where every news employee devotes a percentage of their time to working on a project of their choice. The projects would need to meet certain criteria, like audience growth, innovation in storytelling, improvements to existing processes or products that make them emasurably more effective, efficient or profitable.”

The responses raised two questions in my mind: First, did we go far enough, and, second, can the editors do any of those things now? The answer to the first is probably something like: If it is 2004, that’s a fine start: media watchers would call you bold and daring. But what have you done for me lately?

The answer to the second has to be yes.

As Melanie writes: Thing is, there’s still plenty of time. We’re not at the end of change, we’re in the midst of it. Even for print newspapers, there’s plenty of upside (and plenty of audience) — not for a shrunken version of the newspaper format of 1992 to be valuable in 2012, but for contemporary approaches to print to serve readers well as part of a menu of options in the digital era.

************************************************

The full responses:

Mike Arhholt, editor of the Fayetteville Observer

1.  I would put in place a newsroom restructuring plan like the ones we’ve had to institute by necessity given cutbacks and online growth. I know that 2004 resources focused through more streamlined and coordinated systems would have had impressive results for growth of local content both in print and online.

2.  I would develop an online strategy sooner and put a pay plan in place for the website off the bat. The industry’s belief that advertising could pay the bills for all the work that goes into innovation and management of websites simply didn’t pan out.

3.  I would have spent more resources on developing new local niche products for both print and online, and I would have done a better job of working across the hall with advertising to help that department better understand our online goals.

Carol Hanner, managing editor of the Winston-Salem Journal

1. I would create a Web team led by a few veteran journalists and executed by a young staff that has grown up with the Internet. they do, They would cover breaking news maniacally, create interactive databases and do more video. I would have challenged them to design a web site that’s not modeled after the organization of the newspaper’s content. I would have two or three creative Web developers as part of that staff. The team would include a staffer devoted to nothing but researching what’s cool on the web and examining the much larger pool of market research we would have, with the idea that social media and mobile would emerge more quickly as a focus than it did.

2. I would create jobs that play to people’s strengths instead of expecting journalists to become even more generalized than they already are. I’d have a breaking news team that covers the heck out of everything that moves in the community and put it online. I would have a team that does nothing but focus on feature stories about local people, community organizations’ work, and the acknowledgements of worthy and fascinating efforts. I would have a watchdog team for the people who always have a nose for something fishy and don’t mind obstacles to getting information. Every story would have multiple layers.

3. I would focus much more on business in two ways- understanding it myself more, and reporting on the local business community much more extensively.

4. Bonus question. I would use staff to create more niche publications and web sites and get as close to customizing what kinds of news people get as tecnology allows, with the goal of getting away from an expensively produced and distributed print mainstream paper trying to reach a mass audience.

Robyn Tomlin, executive editor, Wilmington Star-News

1. I would create a watchdog reporting team focused on doing investigative and public service journalism. I’m not talking about the yearlong project kind of stuff, although there might be a little of that. I mean day-in-day-out political fact-checking, creating online databases of public records, doing local consumer reporting and sometimes just chasing our tails in an effort to tell important stories that seem to get missed along the way. One piece of this initiative would be to hire a general assignment reporter (or some paid interns) who can fill in on other reporters’ beats when there’s a big project that is going to take more than a week or so to develop.

2. I would create a community engagement team (we have a community engagement editor, but he’s just one guy) focused on both digital and in-person community engagement. Their goal would be to engage the community in a constant conversation — wherever they are. They would focus on social media, aggregation and curation along with doing a better job of promoting our content and staff in the community. They would also organize more events like public forums and community conversations “in real life.”  The run regular contests and do other fun things to make our print and digital products more interactive and engaging.

3. I would hire an innovations editor and obtain other resources necessary to create a Google-like idea incubation initiative where every news employee devotes a percentage of their time to working on a project of their choic. The projects would need to meet certain criteria, like audience growth, innovation in storytelling, improvements to existing processes or products that make them measurably more effective, efficient or profitable.

Moi

1. I would reorganize the reporting staff almost entirely around enterprise. Anything I could get from the wires, I would — which includes many of the non-Guilford County sports. By enterprise I mean stories and photos that people can’t get anywhere else, especially investigative and community. I’d look for the “wow” content.

2. I would take 25% of the people that I am getting and put them on the digital report, creating a different site than a newspaper site, curating, aggregating and building a large social media presence.

3. I would find the three brightest, most creative people I could and tell them to come up with the next youtube, ebay, facebook, groupon or craigslist. I’d tell them not to worry about the technology. Give me something that will give people something they want and need.

 

 

8 thoughts on “Newspapers: Looking back to move forward

  1. If I were the N&R I would ditch that crappy e-platform you use now and get a real mobile based platform. Take all those wonderful reporters and turn them loose. Ramp up the content on the e-platform, charge a $1 a month for access, increase it over time, and continue to watch the paper version fall apart.

    Pretty soon the paper will be a few times a week on street corner boxes. How much longer can folks deliver it?

  2. Great stuff, but why don’t current editors do it all now? Because it’s hard, damn hard, and upclose resource issues always cloud what seems so clear from a distance. To do that, we’d have to do a lot less of other things – even with the resources of 2004 – and we already hear from so many constituencies that believe they aren’t being covered well enough. And finally, would any of those things have significantly changed the bottom line today? Call me skeptical.

    • Thanks, Scott. I don’t know that they would have changed the bottom line, but they certainly wouldn’t have hurt it…and it would put us ahead of the game now, I think.

      I know well the challenges facing editors. This post originated with Melanie Sill’s whose post originated with me wishing I had moved faster and changed more frequently. So, I was trying to get to the issue you raise about the forest and the trees. I know the decisions are hard, but someone has to make them. In my perspective of 6 weeks removed from the job, I wish I had made more of them.

  3. I understand, John, and I don’t want to come across as a burned-out editor unwilling to advance rapid and needed change. I read Melanie’s piece. I read just about everything written about our industry. We’re all trying – or at least most of us are – and I think a reasonable future is out there. Tough choices and considerable pain between here and there, but I believe we’ll get there. It’s just hard to do it quickly enough given all of the other demands that you remember well..

  4. Your No. 3 and Carol’s No. 4 responses get at the heart of what’s really going to matter for journalism going forward. We must find ways to break out of our broadcaster roles and learn how to become narrowcasters. We must learn how to deliver content (news, entertainment and advertising) that is particular to each user’s interests. Google Reader gives me all the news that’s pertinent to me. Yes, we must also sometimes give users information we think they need — watchdog projects etc — but we will increase our value and utility when we can tell people what they want to know when they want to know that. This is the new organizing principle.

  5. I would critically question every story we choose to pursue/publish and be sure it’s something we have a good reason to believe our readers want. There are still too many stories we run because we always have or because they become favorites of reporters or editors.

    The website needs to be as different as the newspaper as possible and has to constantly have new content, including images. Report things that are happening all over town as they are happening all day. Have an online police blotter and keep it updated with scanner traffic — Wilmington fire dept. responding to house fire, etc.

    Limit the wire report to no more than 2-3 pages, one for live news and one for analysis and explanation. Entire paper had to be tightly.

    Raise hell with AP to give us stories in formats we can more easily use or try to look for another news service — wasn’t CNN going to offer one? If small city papers are going to continue to report world and national news, it needs to be more of a format like The Week Magazine.

    Scott Nunn, page designer and wire editor at Wilmington StarNews

  6. Pingback: Lost in translation (by web bots?) | Melanie Sill

  7. Pingback: Creative spam | Media, disrupted

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *