Interesting battle reports came in today as the newspaper industry convulses and evolves.
The Los Angeles Times today appointed the 12th publisher in 125 years: Times Publisher, Who Resisted Cuts, Ousted.
Meanwhile, the New York Times published a video today at http://video.on.nytimes.com/ titled ‘A Farewell to Johnny Apple’, who was a career writer for the New York Times. In that video he says from a June 6, 2004 presentation, "[when I was 13] I came to notice that there were all these people being paid to do wonderful things" [which was write for the New York Times], "Dostoyevsky said the best stuff you ever write comes out of place you don’t understand. The really vivid image or phrase kind of flows as if someone is moving your hand and you don’t understand" a colleague says of him "The breadth of his knowledge and the depth of his background in politics and the sheer skill he had in writing were unsurpassed. I admired him all through his career."
Last weekend over at the Washington Post, Bob Woodword caused a stir because his muckraking book on President Bush included information not reported through his employer, the Washington Post.
I’m empathetic to the classic American notion that the free press is a part of the bedrock of democracy – the 4th branch of government I learned in PolySci 101. Is this key pillar of modern life going to let the roof fall in? Of course not. This is about money.
The problem is the old bundled business model crossed expectations about being an employee. The ousted LA Times publisher is correct to fear degradation of the quality and breadth of new produced through his newsrooms. It will happen. The Tribune Company, meanwhile, is correct to be alarmed that a big chunk of their $6 Billion investment is withering. The clash of money and fluffy bunny position of newspapers is palpable. However, this is what will happen.
The best new writers are going to find they can go directly to the readers and be supported by multiple business models. The benchmark isn’t ‘maximizing’ returns, it’s being able to lead a reasonable lifestyle by doing something well. Like being an elementary school teacher or firefighter. TechDirt has a fine business model I think where it’s advertising and premium subscription based. TechCrunch has a fine business model too with advertising and premium sponsorships.
I am not afraid of a world where newspapers are downsized and they are not employing people to cover as much space. It will happen and the people that worked there are going to be directly employed by their readers. Mike Arrington at TechCrunch and Mike Masnik at TechDirt are putting their torches into the darkness.
Here’s what could happen. Newspapers take a strategic leap to make less money in the short run and carve out a new model in the world around them. They should stop trying to put their fingers in the dyke and just relocate instead. The damn is going to break and they will not be able to manage a controlled retreat. The best entrepreneurs change what they are offering when they get feedback. I don’t think it’s likely since there are too many vested interests, mortgages and egos that would get crushed. Those are people running the show and most likely they can ride their position in the captains chair to the bottom of the ocean.
Mike Arrigtons and Mike Masnik are making money, not so much because they are just open, but because of the quality of their content. There will be a position for career like Johny Apple in the new world. It seems so short sighted right now for the Los Angeles Times to get drawn and quartered because they won’t reduce their staff. They have to. They don’t draw the audience anymore.
Why not offer to writers that they will take home 60%-80% of the revenue generated from the clicks off of their content? The Times could then get some efficiencies by getting sales people to connect some big deals and letting syndicates take care of the rest, or become an advertising syndicate.
Why not increase the subscription contribution to the bottom line? Shrink the audience to people who really care about the paper. If the subscription is doubled every 18 months after 3 or 4 years, you’ll be left with the audience that values the print edition. Right now, the subscriber base is too big to support the business model. This could also be the demographics advertisers want anyway.
I think Mike Masnick’s business model in particular could contribute to new revenue streams. Mike makes his money by providing industry intelligence – custom newspaper reading and light analysis, to paying clients. He also posts a lot of free information without the depth he’s paid for on his site. Hmmm. There’s a market that could provide some interesting synergies. Why not have the newspapers go and bump up on McKinsey’s turf? Just a little nimble where the current information and daily analysis matters on a pre-paid custom basis.
The future of newspapers is happening before our eyes and it’s going to happen with or without the newspaper owners driving the change.
Comments