On Innovation

While reading up on the latest in college media, I came across this short video on innovation. It speaks about a bunch of things we’ve covered in class, but the take home message is: For media to survive today they must innovate. They have to make mistakes and figure out what works or what doesn’t because the old model is just that… old.

WordPress won’t let me embed the video (!) so here it is:

A Case for Innovation from CoPress on Vimeo.

The Atlantic to Sell Short Stories on the Kindle… Can this work for journalism?

As The New York Times writer Motoko Rich puts it, “Let the iTunes-ization of short fiction begin.”

According to the Times’ article, longtime magazine The Atlantic will soon sell a variety of short stories exclusively on the Kindle, Amazon’s e-reader. The stories will cost $3.99 and will only appear on the Kindle, not in the magazine’s print edition.

This sounds like a great idea for short fiction (it’s basically the same model being used for novels and other literature that can be found on e-readers), and I thought about whether than could be mapped onto journalism. But after thinking about it, I’m hesitant to say this would work for journalism, at least for individual stories.

Not to devalue fiction of any kind, but the issue here is that people need journalism, right? (At least that’s what we like to think.) Stories on embezzlement or on the war in the Middle East are things people shouldn’t have to pick and choose to pay for.

It seems like an iTunes-store like thing for individual issues or packages of stories seems more practical, like what some people said in class Friday.

I also think newspapers could also be sectioned off. At the risk of sounding repetitive, One in 8 Million by the New York Times is something I can picture being sold on a subscription basis. The individual stories could probably be sold like “episodes” in a TV series, like how TV shows are sold on iTunes. (I wonder if this could work for series of print stories, too?)

Of course, you’d have to entice readers/viewers with samples of what they can get, but maybe it can work. I’m just throwing around ideas here.

I’m convinced that if news media are going to try to even sell individual pieces of content is has to be niche content in some way. General news will have to be sold in a general way to succeed, but newspapers especially might have a lot more to gain from selling enterprise stories or multimedia on an individual basis, as opposed to one flat fee.

I can almost picture buying news like you would a cell phone plan. You pay a certain amount for this much access, being able to add and remove features as you please… pretty much like you do on a cell phone plan as well.

Who knows…

My Life as a… Job-hunting Journalist?

If I were graduating in December, ideally I would have had two internships already. I’d have gotten one at a small, local publication like the Long Island Press, and then something bigger like The Washington Post (hey, aim for the stars, right?). Now I think I’d be begging any and every news organization to hire me as a freelancer. But where exactly? And what would I do?

Patch.com actually caught my attention, and I was secretly praying for them open up a Stony Brook patch. The idea of reporting for an online, hyperlocal site intrigued me because it was something new, something different. But then I thought about it… did I really want to restrict myself to a coverage area of maybe 5 sq. miles? And didn’t I want to savor a nice print copy of my work?

It quickly dawned on me that I wanted the kind of job that would allow me to work across platforms. If I could craft web presentations but also report for print, I’d be happy. I wouldn’t mind photography or videography either. All forms seem enticing. Though I’m more of a print man, I realized that broadening my options would increase my chances of finding a job and give me the flexibility I assume employers nowadays are looking for. I think I’d be one of those journalists who can do it all, a multimedia journalist in the broadest sense.

On that note I’d most likely look for a job for a news organization that has a strong online presence, with a good focus on deeper stories. It’s hard to say which one exactly, but publications that give reporters more freedom to package their story seem like the place to go. In that sense, Patch looks interesting. But if push came to shove, I’d start my own news website and post my stories. It would build clips and traffic, and I could make money on the side.

After that I’d just sit by my laptop, typing away at the latest piece, waiting for the New York Times to come knocking at my door to hire me.

Discussion points

• 

  metroactive.com

  Is print too expensive and inefficient? Is it really dying?Michael Rosenblum pretty much implied that print nowadays was becoming an unsustainable media. Advertisers are migrating to the web, or just not advertising at all, and readers seem more interested in the now news the web can provide… not to mention the video, graphics and interactions that come with it. So does print still have a role in today’s increasingly wired world?I ran across an article that claims printing the New York Times (and delivering it), costs twice as much as sending every subscriber a new Amazon Kindle. Shocking? Not really, but it made me think: Is all that expense really worth it? I imagine that pretty soon most of the urban population will have 24/7 Internet access on their phones, laptops, everything. While we’re pretty connected now, reading newspapers online will soon, I assume, become easily accessible on smartphones and contraptions like the Kindle and the Nook.Newspapers now pretty much provide a summary of the day, but I imagine it won’t be that hard to mimic that purpose online. In that case, buying a newspaper for all its other benefits may be for the well to do.

• Would a merger between business and editorial camps result in a better product?News media are businesses. Newspapers are their products. So should the people involved in creating that product be concerned with how well it’s selling and how they can maximize profitability? Some say an emphatic yes. Some say a resounding no. The answer it’s that clear cut.Writers, editors… everyone on the editorial side should be concerned with what’s going into the paper and how their readers appreciate it. It’s not simply about succumbing to the public’s every whim, it’s about being aware of what affects people and what people want to know, and giving it to them.In that sense, most newspaper staffers have already been doing just that, but Rosenblum argues that they’ve let themselves become pawns of businessmen who don’t have their best interest at heart. Instead, in this day and age, Rosenblum argues that reporters should go out and be their own bosses – or even work with or for other people – in an inclusive, cost-effective and rewarding business. It’s about owning the work you do and really profiting from it.

  While I don’t agree with everything he says, I definitely think reporters shouldn’t starve for work they believe the public cannot live without.

• Is hyperlocal news “hypersignificant?”Do people really need to know that the soda and beer place around the corner is shutting down? If the pizzeria on the next block hired a dozen new delivery guys, is that important? For some, it is. Many communities are like universities, and if a student newspaper can exist, why not community or hyperlocal organizations?There are people and communities who feel under-served, and hyperlocal news organizations can provide them with a sense of awareness. From a business point of view, if people want to read it, it’s important. So yes, the local police chief’s appointment may be just as important as the president of the United States’. Kind of.
• Are hyperlocal reporters more sensitive and aware of local issues?Patch.com functions on the idea that one person, the editor, in a community is knowledgeable enough of that community to know what’s important to its inhabitants. That concept makes complete sense. Who better to cover the community than someone experiencing it day to day.  It’s the same idea behind the bureaus of bigger news media, and it works. Hyperlocal news has the potential to be more in-depth, more hard-hitting, and if it’s reporters know so much about the things they cover, maybe it’ll leave room for less mistakes as well.

For Brian Farnham

I’m interested in what Brian Farnham has to talk about tomorrow in class. Not sure if he can top Michael Rosenblum’s charisma, but we’ll see. But here’s what I want to know:

• How does Patch.com financially support it’s multiple editors and contributors?
• What safety net does Patch.com have in place in the event of a lawsuit accusing Patch of libel or otherwise?
• Does Patch expect its reporters to be jacks of all trades? Will they be lugging cameras while their notepads are in the other hand?
• What’s the organizational structure of Patch?  Are stories submitted fact-checked and copy-edited?  Or does the reporter do most of the post-writing work?

Bye, bye, print?

It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that print operations in 2009 are simply a burden to most, if not all, newspapers. Printing is expensive, and axing the paper part of a news organization frees up a lot of money in the wake of declining advertising. But as the paper goes, so does the print advertising, and I can’t see how online advertising could even come close to funding editorial operations? Or can it?

Using the small newspaper I’m a part of as an example and the way things are now, any amount of advertising online (instead of in print) would yield us more money. At best, our print editions break even with advertising revenue and printing expenses, so we don’t make a cent.  Sometimes we lose money. If we axed the print edition and got a sizable amount of online viewers (and we don’t pay anything for our website), any ad would give us a profit. This is, of course, assuming that print advertising won’t ever get better. And that’s a risky assumption to make.

So many things come into play as to why newspapers are losing out on advertising: the recession, the Internet, bad business decisions, the audience’s neglecting print… the list goes on. Pinpointing the cause(s) is crucial in deciding whether or not to say goodbye to print. If it’s bad business decisions, maybe the advertising department could step it up. If it’s the recession, things will get better. If it’s the Internet, a paper’s online presence should be enhanced while trimming the print circulation.

It goes without saying that the color ads newspapers get bring in a lot more money at once than multiple online ads will bring. And if people are eating up the editions, advertisers will feel more pressure to buy space. The same goes for online content. Get enough people to go to the site and to click on ads, and advertisers will pay more.

The ideal would be to have people gobble up the print edition and visit the website, too, to make the most money. But most of the time, that’s not the case. How can newspapers make both media enticing?

Really, the question newspapers today have to ask themselves is: What practical incentive do readers have to pick up the print edition? If they don’t know the answer, maybe it is time to let go.

The NYT gets it right

It probably goes without saying that nytimes.com is one of the most innovate of mainstream media websites. I’m not sure how long it took them to get up to speed, but out of all the big newspapers, the Times knows how to draw readers in – mostly because they devote so many resources into doing just that.

They have impressive, interactive flash presentations centered around photos, public opinion and features. There’s almost always some way for users to interact with the site as well, like this user-submitted feature on the Berlin Wall.

This is the direction all media should go. It may not have to be so over the top, but online users need some reason to go to a news site to read the content, and that reason is the perks. For the NY Times, users get a voice on the Internet, and stunning displays of what the news organization is capable of.

(I feel like a spokesperson for The New York Times.)

Either way… for newspapers to be successful online – and it’s shouted time and time again – they need to adapt and understand the Internet. And that really means understanding the Internet is a community where everyone wants something to say, something to see, something to do. Rather than read a block of text, people want to interact with what that text is talking about.

To you, Michael Rosenblum

I must say reading your blog is more insightful than I thought it would be. I expected a ranting buffoon, but I was pleasantly surprised. Here are my questions:

• I don’t think the news media was ever about not making money. The newspaper giants left standing today are all for-profit companies bent on making a buck any way they can. The journalists, however – the ones on the street interviewing people or photographing a war – are the ones who shouldn’t dabble in the business side. It’s not about not making money, it’s about advertiser influence. What do you think about the danger of having journalists do what they do based on a sponsor’s whims or beliefs?
  
• What new models of journalism seem feasible in the long run to you?

• You seem hellbent on the idea that while newspapers are dying, journalism is evolving. What’s journalism’s purpose in the Internet age?

JRN 301

To be honest, this class has been more enlightening than I expected. It’s one thing to hear someone say “print is dead” and have it be some far-off evaluation of an ailing industry, but it’s another thing altogether to actually examine the problems the news industry faces today and see it for myself.

This class has showed me that the death of print is the least of the news media’s worries. Traditional news media seems to be slashing staff left, right and center in an effort to stay profitable, and has accumulated more debt than it can handle. It’s struggling to adapt to a new medium – the Internet – and if the vulture’s weren’t circling before, they are now.

But if anything, this class has also showed me journalism itself is far from dying out. There’s still hope. The different models for journalism that have popped up or flourished in recent years (e.g. crowd-sourcing, crowd-funding, non-profit, blogging) indicate evolution, not extinction. It even seems like big newspapers are taking note of how the Internet helps them… it’s just a matter of figuring out how to make it profitable.

Premium cable going the way of basic tv?

Looks like premium television is catching on. Cable systems giant Comcast will soon allow subscribers to watch “a slate of valuable cable shows and movies” online by year’s end.

For basic television, the ability to watch programs online has been taken for granted. Channels such as NBC and ABC allow viewers to watch shows like Heroes and Greek online, and Hulu has opened the door to even more online viewing of other shows. This is the first time, however, that premium shows like HBO’s “Mad Men” will grace the Internet with their presence.

Expectedly, the company isn’t taking any chances on security. It wants to make sure the service remains off-limits to non-subscribers. Initially, Comcast subscribers will only be able to watch shows and movies on their home computers after being verified. Furthermore, the service will only be available to users of Comcast’s Internet service at first. The A.P. says Comcast is still working on providing access to customers on other broadband systems.

At least Comcast recognizes the public’s increasing desire to access information online. Rather than be stuck in front of a tv, people want to be able to watch their shows at their own convenience, and the Internet offers just that.

One thing worth noting is that this service is only available to subscribers. So by putting their content online, Comcast is not losing any revenue. It’s interesting to wonder how things would have turned out had newspapers done this when they first went online.