Image: "Newspaper dispensers" by MY Montreal

Maybe what’s plaguing so many local newspapers these days is that they aren’t so “local” anymore. I mean, one of the ideas that Tom Foremski had about how newspapers, especially local ones, could reinvent themselves was by owning their local stories — from community reporting to business and political stories that originate within their beat. The crux of this approach is that it’d allow newspapers to offer wholly original content, something that people might be willing to keep paying for (whether through subscriptions or their eye-balls).

After all, most of what online media has done to over-saturated the content market has been through regurgitation. Even though the mainstream media (MSM) has lost revenues, it’s not like the up-and-comers have captured their marketing sure. These up-and-comers are costing the MSM more than the up-and-comers themselves are worth (i.e. generating in revenue).

So there’s still a demand for oringinal content if only because it seems even scarcer on the high-seas of content-up-chuck. Consider a recent AdAge interview with Nick Denton , the founder of Gawker Media:

On his way to the bunker, Mr. Denton sold two non-core blogs, Consumerist and Idolator; folded Valleywag and Defamer into Gawker itself; and shed some staff. Now he’s hired some new journalists at Kotaku and Gawker, and while they’ll still live and die (or at least dine) by their page views, Mr. Denton said he believes traffic rewards scoops and original reporting over snarky reheats. [emphasis my own.]

Why should we listen to Denton? Well, because he seems to have pulled up Gawker’s boot straps and gotten its head above the water while the undertow was pulling a lot of other publishers down by those very same boots.

So how does a local paper focus more on original content? Well, maybe by becoming more verticalized. And since no media does “vertical” better than blogs, maybe successful blogs offer a clue on how to save local newspapers.

Blogs have verticals. Well, so do local papers. Their veritcal is the municipality. And where blogs have categories, local papers can also learn a lesson. Instead of categories, local papers could have neighbourhoods.

Right now, the majority of local papers syndicate their national/international news to cut costs, and they are failing there because news off the wire doesn’t put it into the context of the community. Providing that “community context” will be an integral part to becoming news media organizations rather than mere “papers” (as Tom suggests), and will make it all that more viable to reinvent their revenue model for an increasingly mobile and personalized web.

Disclosure: this post is the bastard child of a comment on the Nieman Journalism Lab and Nicholas Carr’s Realtime Chronicles.

Image: "Super Target" by jeco

But now content is now dynamic. It exists in “realtime,” in the stream, and that’s killing the real space that was so cumbersome and beyond our control.

Now, if publishers are smart, if they’re really strategic, can actually amass more practical information about their audience than most government agencies. And that means that they can proactively connect their audience with offers that their audience actually care about, is actually interested in. That, after all, is what symbiotic editorial is all about.

I mean, smart publishers, the strategic ones, have so much information that they have to hire database-miners! A job that didn’t even exists all too long ago. So maybe publishers need to stop thinking about how advertisers can target their readers and start thinking about how they can use their readers to target advertisers. Maybe they need to start thinking about a kind of third dimensional advertising.

It’s been a busy week in the world of newspapers. While publishers continue to watch their revenue streams dry up, entrepreneur Steve Brill, former Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz and cable guy-turned-investor Leo Hindery, Jr. think they have the answer: an online paid-content model.

In any case, both these events have generated a considerable amount of opinionated dribble, and wading through it all, I’ve come across a few perspectives worth considering.

• Newspapers must grow their online news market share. Can they?: Writing for the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard, Martin Langeveld explores how news consumption patterns have shifted online, but newspapers are in no position to charge for online content, so they’re just going to have to become “digital enterprises.”
• Don’t blame Google for newspaper woes: A former newspaper man himself, Alan D. Mutter puts the newspapers who repine about Google in their place by reminding us that “newspapers actually had a head start over Google. But Google “got” the web. And newspapers didn’t. That’s not Google’s fault.”
• Steve Brill wants to try charging for content online… again: Also writing for the Nieman Journalism Lab, Matthew Ingram of the Globe and Mail casts serious doubt on Steven Brill’s proposed paid-content model by asking “whether readers want to pay for any of the content that Brill and his partners want to lock up, regardless of how easy they make it.”
• Why Newspapers Shouldn’t Buy What Steven Brill Is Selling: Ryan Tate of Gawker points out that Steven Brill’s paid-content model isn’t so much about publishing as it is about micro payments, and companies like PayPal are already doing a very good job of handling that (suggesting that if micropayments could save newspapers, PayPal would be even richer than it already is).
• Should Newspapers Charge for Online Content? To Answer This Question, You Have to Consult a Lawyer: Peter Scheer looks at the Steven Brill’s paid content model from an even more practical standpoint, noting that “Copyright does not protect ideas or facts, just the way they are presented” — suggesting that it wouldn’t be worth it because newspapers would have to entangle themselves in litigative mire to fully protect their paid content.
• Newspapers: No Bottom in Sight: Ashkan has a great little clip from CNN about newspaper ad revenues, putting all the debate above back into context.
• This Sounds Familiar: The Death Of Newspapers… 91 Years Ago: A poignant reminder how this isn’t the first time newspapers have been in trouble, and it probably won’t be the last — suggesting that the sky might not be falling on the presses after all.

Credit: Arcanon

Even though the content market has been completely saturated, that’s not what’s killing mainstream media outlets. No, Google, Craigslist, and Amazon are killing mainstream media. Google took away their readers, Craigslist took away their classifieds, and Amazon took away their advertisers. This is what Tom Foremki is getting at when he says:

Silicon Valley has turned into a Media Valley, because so many of our large and startup companies are essentially media companies. They are technology-enabled-media-companies, they sell advertising around content. That’s true for Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, Craigslist, and it is true for many smaller companies, Web 2.0 companies, etc. And the rise of social media is just a continuing part of this trend.

What it comes down to is content delivery. These start-ups have made content more accessible and easier to consumer, and if troubled mainstream media outlets are going to reinvent themselve in ways that will increase ad revenues and possibly elicit subscription payments from consumers in an over-saturated market, that’s what they have to do: recreate how their readers/listeners/viewers consume their content — no matter how rich, authoritative, or original it is.

Content production is something that we’ve pretty much figured out across all media. And with the barriers to publishing eroding more everyday, there are more and more producers figuring out those media. It’s not the media, then, that needs perfection, updating, or reinvention. It’s the consumption — the delivery, the targeting, the filtering, the delivery.

This is what Google and Craigslist and Amazon have done. They’ve perfected the delivery of a certain kind of content. What mainstream media outlets should be asking themselves, then, is whether there is a better way to deliver the kinds of content they specialize in to the audience that they cater to. And if so, whether the technological means to doing so are withing, well, their means.

Credit: Shadowgate

When Tom Foremski (a former Financial Times journalist) had some ideas on how newspapers can reinvent themselves, he was trying to address both falling subscriptions and declining ad revenues. He suggested that newspapers needed original content worth paying subscription fees for, and should develop a hyper-local focus to get that content:

Newspapers should own their local stories. For example, San Jose Mercury or the San Francisco Chronicle should “own” Silicon Valley stories. They should be breaking all the best Google stories, Oracle, Apple, etc. That would be something people would pay for.

Well, assuming that a newspaper is successful at owning their local beats, they still need to adapt their subscription and ad models to new media. Basically, if a newspaper can own its local beat, it has an opportunity to completely reinvent itself through better targeted ads, social media, and mobile engagement.

Hyper Targeted Ads

As a paying subscriber, a newspaper knows a lot more than my IP. They know my billing address, which means that they can show me ads for businesses in my own neighborhood.

This, in turn, means they can open up a variety of speciality ad rates that will make it affordable for a mom & pop to advertise “in the paper.” They know exactly how many people in that neighborhood subscribe to the paper, what content they interact with the most, and can target them accordingly.

Social Media & Added Value Subscriptions

The first thing that newspapers need to do is build community around their paying subscribers. This means the usual sweet of social media features such as user profile, opening comments, etc. This can help to both increase reader loyalty and page views which means more ad revenue.

Basically, as readers interact, debate, and “share” stories that interest them, page views rise and so do impressions. As a logged-in subscriber, then, I should be able to easily tweet and digg stories with a single click.

Going Mobile

If, as Foremski points out, papers are already thinking in terms “mobile journalists equipped with notebooks, cell phone modems, and cameras,” then the next step is thinking in terms of mobile subscribers — not mobile readers, but mobile subscribers.

First, by sending readers mobile alerts on topics they want, papers wouldn’t only be increasing engagement and offering more value on subscription fees, but they’d also be boosting impressions. As mobile readers click through on an SMS to view the story, papers further increase page views, and therefore impressions.

In fact, if their social media feature leverage the Twitter API, they might even consider using Twitter as an SMS service provider.

And to build on the idea of hyper targeted ads, they could also use location based services technology to show mobile subscribers ads that are relevant to their current location. Imagine a mom & pop restaurant reaching out to a mobile user who is not from that neighborhood, but happens to be in it.

The Watchdog Business

Newspapers are more than just content publishers. They serve an integral role in a healthy democracy, so there is more hinging on their survival than mere jobs and tradition.

What newspapers have to realize is that an edition printed on paper is not an integral part of their business model. Rather, their in the business of (1) providing authoritative information so that they can (2) sell subscriptions and ads. Web technologies enable them to disseminate said authoritative information, so they simply need to adapt their subscriptions and ad models to these new media.

See it’s your thang, and you can shake it how you wanna.
Give it up free, or make your money on the corner.
– Tupac Shakur

Okay, so I’m watching Loren’s latest, and I got to thinking about the problem with getting me to pay for online content. Now, let’s forget competitive disadvantage of charging for content when the internet is saturated with quality content that’s free. Rather, let’s focus on the precedent: cable and satellite television.

When I pay for a cable subscription, I’m not paying for content, I’m paying for distribution. I mean, sure, there are channels like Showtime and HBO that are commercial-free. But the majority of what you’re paying for is a syndication package of channels from all over the place, and most of them do have commercials. When I subscribe to cable or satellite service, then, I’m not paying for content. I’m paying for access — a big ol’ basket of syndicated content that’s being monetized through ads, and not subscription fees.

When it comes to the internet, though, I’ve already paid my ISP for that access. It’s up to the content producers, then, to come up with a better monetization scheme. Of course, they’re not going to start charging the ISPs royalty fees, ’cause that would kill them. But they still have to come up with an ad-revenue model becaue I am not going to pay for something that I can likely find a reasonable substitute for elsewhere for free.

Granted, that volume is part of the problem in the first place: just as I’m reluctant to pay for content because the net is so over-saturated with it, so are advertisers. But hey, there’s a reason that the stereotype is that of a starving artist. I guess that content producers who are bent on doing what they, themselves, find interesting are just going to have to tough it out for a little while longer, and rely on their their getting noticed to get them other paying gigs, ’cause as much as the net has broken down the barriers to production and dissemination, it sure hasn’t broken down the barriers to get rich quick and easily.

The reason that new media must be multi-media is that a web page can contain text, images, audio, and video. To remain fully competitive online, then, you should provide as many of those as your users can get value from (hint: at least 3 of the 4). And we’ve been seeing it for sometime. Where CNN used to be television news, they’re web portal is completely multi-media, and more recently, newspapers have started to embrace video.

But if that’s enough, how come newspapers are still struggling? Well, the answer is that it’s not enough. Newspapers have a business model that has evolve to need two revenue streams: ad sales and subscriptions. And when it comes to their online portals, they face a double whammy that (1) ad sales aren’t sufficient, and (2) users are loath to pay for online content.

If newspapers are not going to go the way of the dodo, then, they need to find a way to both increase their ad sales revenues and entice users to pay for content. Well, Tom Foremski (a former Financial Times journalist) has some ideas on how newspapers can reinvent themselves. For Tom, what it comes down to, is that newspapers have to become more than what they are now. They have to become news organizations, who (1) sieze control of their own ad revenues, and (2) own not just their content, but their stories and their beat. Here’s just a few of Tom’s ideas:

- Focus on original content, do not rewrite wire stories or press releases–people are more likely pay for content they can’t get anywhere else.

- Focus on hyper-local coverage, newspapers should “own” their regional beat because they have the best contacts and the best understanding of local companies and issues.

- Be a regular and visible part of your local communities by getting out of the office and into those communities.

- Celebrate the best citizen journalists/bloggers in your communities, publish them on your platform.

- Don’t let advertising networks sell your advertising. They take a huge cut for serving ads and you lose the customer connection. Newspapers should always own their customer relationship.

- Online readers that want to pay, have no way of paying for the the news except by buying a newspaper subscription! PBS does quite well with membership packages that include discounts from local businesses, while keeping broadcasts freely available. That’s a model that could be offered by newspapers.

- Become the host for all important discussions about local issues and politics. Moderate the discussions to ensure civil discourse. Nothing kills discussions faster than offensive comments made by anonymous people.

There are bunch more, and Tom does a great job of leading into them by outlining the current plight of newspapers. What’s interesting, though, is that there are two strains of thought co-mingling here: a business theory and a social theory.

On the business side, newspapers seem fated to embrace vertical integration or die. That have to sieze control of both their production and ad sales if they’re going to adapt. Vertical integration was largely overshadowed by horizontal integration in the 70s and 80s, but if there’s anything that the credit crisis has demonstrated, it’s that outsourcing your primary value proposition is not sustainable in the long-term.

I think that the businesses and industries that pull through this recession will be ones that find a way vertically integrate their operations in a profitable way. Now, doing so is no easy trick. It’s a lot easier to outsource and show returns than to “insource” and do so, but I guess that’s the difference between business-innovation and business-as-usual. As we’re starting to figure out, business-as-usual isn’t much business at all.

On the social side, Tom is talking about reconciling social media with both a business and editorial mandate. This is interesting because it’s not the usual evangelical kool-aid where you take a few sips and it all marshmellows and strawberry shortcake on a yellow submaring.

Rather, he’s saying this is what users expect online, so if you do find something to offer them that they’re willing to pay for, then it better come bundled with that as a bell and whistle.

He’s not suggesting that newspapers become aggregators of localized UGC. No, he’s saying that newspapers have to leverage social media tools to better connect with their readers and their community so that they can more easily (and efficiently, and cheaply) produce content that (maybe) someone will be willing to pay for.

Granted, as my buddy Ash once pointed out, “Mainstream media just isn’t what it used to be. They’re slow to react. That statement could apply to business or editorial.” I think what Tom is getting at, though, is that if some (of the better) newspapers change their way of thinking now, they might be able to adapt to the changing media landscape both more quickly and more profitably in the future.