My buddy Jason sent me a link to Sean Blanda’s blog today, there is a really good post on it today talking about his college newspaper and how they are using WordPress to publish their online edition - but what I really wanted to talk about was Sean’s blog itself.
This guy has a really great blog.
Number 1 - He’s customized the design. And wow, what a great design. Nothing too fancy, but nice. I love the post it note.
Number 2 - He’s starting conversations. It’s not about posting - but engaging.
Number 3 - He’s putting up fresh content. Talking about how to run an online paper with WordPress is cool.
Keep an eye on this guy and his blog…it should be an interesting conversation to enjoy.
…half of the content in the local paper is wire copy - written by the WaPo or the NYT. The local media outlets don’t cover the stories that are important to him.
…it really got me thinking. I wonder what percentage of the many local papers are filled with wire stories. I took a look at the paper I used to work for and still work with - the Cedar Rapids Gazette.
For Tuesday March 11th - there were 4 stories on the front page - 2 local, 2 wire. Section B & C the is the “Iowa Today” & “Sports” section fronts and were all local. It seems like there is a good bit of local content - but it sure makes for interesting talk and speculation.
You also have to wonder what percentage of the audience is getting their national news from the “local” paper. If you cut that out - there is a significant amount of savings in paper. And if someone is really fussy and still wants the nation stuff - lets add it to a special section which can be opted into on a request basis. Now we’ve cut a big portion of the budget in both wires fees and paper costs and can invest more into local community.
Hmmmmm…it really makes you think about what you read, is it local - or wire? I will have to be a little more attentive and check back in. (Oh hell - who am I kidding, I rarely read the paper edition.)
I like the style they use over at Reflections of a Newsosaur - they recently posted an article called “Help wanted. Desperately.” speaking to the serous decline in print revenues generated by recruitment advertising:
The sad state of the recruitment advertising business provides an instructive look at how the tradition-bound newspaper industry copes (or doesn’t) with change.
The post is good and goes in depth to some of the problems facing newspapers today. Check it out - and let me know what you think possible actions newspapers may take to get back in the game!
It’s tempting to say the same about the many diagnoses of what ails the newspaper world. We hear endlessly that the troubles are a result of the Internet, new technology, “people don’t read anymore,” and, my favorite, “people don’t have as much time as they used to.” As if there was once a 36-hour day, or people who once worked 12-hour shifts while raising large families had this abundance of time.
A well written piece which goes through a lot of stuff - but the high point is near then end - and I think the opinion is dead on:
The biggest problem, of course, had nothing to do with the newsrooms. It was the collapse of an unsustainable business model. Simply put, the model involved sending miniskirted saleswomen out to sell ads at confiscatory rates to lecherous old car dealers and appliance-store owners.
If you watch the beginning of this video, Ron Paul explains that his fund raising efforts are not being directed by “his people” - it is a grass roots group of people working in his behalf.
If we could do the same thing with newspaper and broadcast websites - we too could be champions of community. We need to figure out our message and stick to it.
The newspaper industry (or at least some of it) is changing. There are some interesting ideas being tested in a few markets which incorporate the tried and true methods of news gathering and the new concepts of new media and social networking. (Found from a link off Rob Curley’s blog.)
Maybe a beat reporter could do a way better job if there was a “live” social network connected to the beat, made up of people who know the territory the beat covers, and want the reporting on that beat to be better.
Wow - that is very cool. So these people are going to actually talk to real people and see what they think? From a Rethinking the Mercury News article.
The idea NewAssignment.Net’s founder, Jay Rosen, and editor, David Cohn, are trying to test is simple: Maybe a beat reporter could do a way better job if there was a “live” social network connected to the beat, made up of people who know the territory the beat covers, and want the reporting on that beat to be better.
Another post from MediaShift explains it like this:
Just as the L.A. Times had its Spring Street Project to figure out its future, the Mercury News now has its Rethink project, complete with committees and community outreach to figure out how to “blow up” the newspaper. All employees at the newspaper were involved in the effort to go out into the community and see how real people were using media. Now, there’s a public blog explaining their rethinking in minute detail.
The company I work for is also trying to “figure it all out”. It is called the Gazette Family of Companies - or as we affectionately call it GFOC. We are starting by separating the content creation from the product management. So we’re hiring for a new position called “VP of Content” who will be working on:
Developing a new business unit to solicit, create, and store in a searchable manner all content and information used in multiple broadcast, online and print products.
We’re excited about the possibilities in the media industry. It seems like we have all the right parts - we just have never gotten them working together as a finely tuned machine.
So if you know of someone who wants to bridge the gap from traditional media to new media - please send them our way - and tell them Tom sent you! :)
Maybe there is hope for newspapers. These two deals are a good sign that they understand the need for change. I have written before that local newspapers should “own” the local search and classified market. The local newspapers have a trusted brand name, a long history with advertisers, and significant assets. They have let the online opportunity slip through their fingers. Maybe these two deals signal a change in thinking. Do you think your local paper will make a move online? Or, is it too late?
Isn’t the big winner here Zillow & HotJobs? They are all gain and no loss. In fact, but looking at some ofthe “terms”:
Such deals help Yahoo and Zillow extend their reach into local U.S. communities, while newspapers benefit by getting exposure for their ads on a national online ad platform.
Exactly how do newspapers benefit from getting exposure nationally? How many of newspaper’s classified ads need to be exposed nationally? Don Dodge himself said in May that “Newspapers need to go hyper-local to survive” - so now I’m really confused.
Which is it - national or local. I don’t see how what a given newspaper does on a national level really matters. In my opinion, newspapers should focus on local first - and if it ends up spreading national, then so be it.
I’m interested in hearing anyone thoughts on this.
Five of the nation’s largest newspaper publishers are rumored to be working on their own online advertising network. Such a network would allow advertisers to buy advertising from one central destination, and include 7 of the top 10 markets in the US according to the report.
“Among the tools for networked journalism I’m wishing for is a simple one for creating collaborative data bases.”
and also this comment
“Here’s another one I want: When a reporter, pro or am, uses a camera phone to take a picture — or, for that matter, to upload text, video, audio, anything — wouldn’t it be wonderful to attach the data the device knows: time and date, of course, and also GPS. This then allows gangs of reporters to submit information that can be plotted on maps and timelines and then associated with other data.”
I just really like where this guy stands in terms of “getting the job done”.
I found an interesting blog post by Jeff Jarvis from Aug. of 2005 this morning called “Who wants to own content?” (If you’re not familiar with Jeff, he writes a blog called Buzz Machine which focuses on media and news)
In this model, newspapers have a problem: They want to control information and the means of sharing rather than enabling that sharing.
…
It’s hard for someone raised on the value of owning content and owning distribution to let go of exclusivity and instead value openness and participation.
EDITED: I found a great comment at the end of the article by “DAR” that said:
You make it sound as if all they (old media) need to do is adapt to change and they will survive, and that they’re fools not to see that. But I think that’s not true at all - adapting won’t solve their problem. Their existing business model is ending and even the new business models won’t replace it. And THAT is what they’re scared of.
I work for a newspaper organization now - and this is very hard to grasp, because the model has been so much like this for so long. We’re working on innovating our business model and it is hard enough getting people to grasp the fact of separating content and production - I wonder what they will think of this? I wonder what they will say when I tell them it came out two years ago? :0
