We should let the audience make the content. We should just print it up for them
It came it to focus for me as I read an article by in the British Journalism Review by journo/management prof Dr John Hill called tomorrows world is digital.(Hey, I’m supposed to be an academic after all.)
He suggest that newspapers are struggling because they are a *‘one size fits all’ *product in a market that wants a more personal approach. To succeed he says papers need to become more like consumer goods manufacturers:
Ideally this means providing each reader with a range and depth of stories in which they have expressed a personal interest. In short the ‘me’ newspaper.
He reconginsies that this is a not a new concept but argues that it’s been ignored by newspapers in particular because ‘traditional printing presses cannot be modified sufficiently to make it economically viable’. Until the technology exists and is embraced by all, Hill suggests an intermediate step of segmented coverage. Not just in geographic terms but also on demographic, psychographic and behavioristic needs.
Now that was written in 2006 so there are no awards for being ahead of game in anything other than recognising how late newspapers where to this whole web thing. But reading Jon Fines post betting on which major newspaper group will ditch print first it rang some bells.
It tweaked a little feeling I had when earlier this year I read about Trinity Mirror’s plansto start publishing free newspapers filled with stories gleaned from its hyper-local citizen journalism. Darren Thwaites, editor of the Teesside Gazette told Journalism.co.uk:
“The reality is that we would not have been able to populate papers at such a hyperlocal level without the content that has come to us through the micro-sites, we simply would not have the news content,”
You could argue that this is just an extension of the resource starved newspapers using punters to do what they should be doing anyway. But the idea that print could flourish from from the way community and hyperlocal can flourish online, punters and newspapers, is one that is gaining ground.
“One of my short term goals to increase cash flow is to start-up a print component (free, weekly tabloid reverse-reverse published from website content.) There’s another 5 to 10 years worth of (big) revenue in print … at least.”
And what would he do with that money? He wants to pay his contributors. You still get a newspaper, you can still sell ads but you become a facilitator of the conversation and the audience is benefiting as well.
And that’s what really struck me about this approach. It’s a model that could really work because it puts the punters in the driving seat when it comes to deciding what is important. It puts the print product in the position of distributing that to a wider audience- less involved practically but no less interested. Tapping in to that market seems to me to be the heart of this hyperlocal debate.
The problem seems to be in identifying the relationships and attracting them to your site. Identifying those relationships and defining the separate segments Hill talks about is proving the big challenge.
In a great post, Ryan Sholin, suggests that there are plenty niches – hyperlocalised areas of interest – that can be exploited if you know where to look. He warns about the coverage of demographics:
Sell to a niche, not a demographic. Local moms are a niche; Women are a demographic.
Ryan suggests that ‘If your newspaper isn’t covering it, it’s unserved’. Maybe so. Or maybe they are serving themselves.
Newspapers are built around demographics and increasingly these niches are rejecting their style of broad identity and serving themselves by simply engaging with the new technology that newspapers are just about getting to grips with.
thinks he sees a more pressing reason when he comments on Fines post and talks about newspapers not closing but outsourcing.Rebuilding media comes at it with another angle but
The real problem, Mr. Newspaperman, isn’t that your content isn’t online or isn’t online with multimedia. It’s your content. Specifically, it’s what you report, which stories you publish, and how you publish them to people, who, by the way, have very different individual interests. The problem is the content you’re giving them, stupid; not the platform its on.
Given the struggle to identify an audience in such an individualized market place and the lack of resource given to generate effective content at a local level, maybe the model of giving the audience control over the content at a local levl is what we need to do. And maybe publishing it for them is the role we are increasingly destined to take.
I’m not suggesting that would work, or is desirable at all levels of the industry. We still need to exercise that journalistic muscle to tell people whats important even if they don’t think it is (Ryan title his post ‘Find yourself a nice comfortable niche and sell it like blueberry pancakes’ and we all know that people will gorge on the pancakes when stuff that is good for them is available).
But simply offering the capability to print and distribute it in return for the right to advertise around and maybe reuse the content elsewhere could be the niche that everyone is looking for. It takes hyperlocal to its logical conclusion and makes more sense of the convergence of old and new media. It could make Parish pump a reality when a purley digital hyperlocal strategy is obviously struggling to find a foothold
In his conclusion Hill says that for newspapers to survive ‘ a new printing process is imperative’. He sees the segmentation, the appeal to the niche as a stepping stone to the necessity of a printed publication based on an ‘individuals’ requirements. A real ‘daily-me’.
I don’t agree. That’s trying to make a process fit a need that it was never designed to do. But I agree that a new process is needed. The process of making a newspaper has to change if print is to survive. As Hill concludes:
Those papers that do not change, or which delay those changes inordinately, will disappear.