Jeff Jarvis flags up Colin Crawford's comments on International Data Group's transition from print to digital and leaves us with the following ruminations:
Yes, print is a burden. It’s expensive to produce for it. It’s expensive to manufacture. It’s expensive to deliver. It limits your space. It limits your timing. It’s stale when it’s fresh. It is one-size-fits-all and can’t be adapted to the needs of each user. It comes with no ability to click for more. It has no search. It can’t be forwarded. It has no archive. It kills trees. It uses energy. It usually brings unions. And you really should recycle it. Wow, when you think about it, print sucks.
Today I have also been reading a lot about the World Editors Forum and the revelation that, in order to compete with the Internet, newspapers of the future will become free and place more emphasis on comment and opinion.
According to Reuters, who commissioned the report with WEF:
Some 86 percent of respondents believed newsrooms should become more integrated with digital services as two in three believe the most common form of news consumption will be via electronic media such as online or mobiles within a decade.
According to 704 senior news executives surveyed, the greatest threat to the industry was the declining number of young people who read newspapers while the increasing emphasis on speed meant only 45 percent of editors thought the quality of journalism would improve over the next 10 years.
Press Gazette also reported on the findings saying that:
Despite the threats from new media to traditional business models, 85 per cent of editors were either somewhat optimistic or very optimistic about the future of their papers – the same figure as last year.
It's not clear from the accounts I've read so far why there is so much positive feeling - I think I would be very worried. IDG have found a way of making online advertising bring in more than print - but they are the exception rather than the rule I think.
The New York Times has an interesting in-depth piece about the privately-owned publisher's success. IDG targets a niche audience and produces titles such as InfoWorld and PC World. In April 2007, InfoWorld became a Web-only publication.
There were nervous months after the switch as the company awaited the reaction from advertisers and readers, but before long InfoWorld’s Web audience was growing and its business improved. Today, I.D.G. says, the InfoWorld Web site is generating ad revenue of $1.6 million a month with operating profit margins of 37 percent. A year earlier, when it had both print and online versions, InfoWorld had a slight operating loss on monthly revenue of $1.5 million.
Across the company, the remaining print publications still typically play a vital role, but a lesser one — physically smaller and financially diminished. In 2002, 86 percent of the revenue from I.D.G.’s publications came from print and 14 percent online. These days, 52 percent of the revenue is from online ads, while 48 percent is from the print side.
As the then-editor in chief of InfoWorld, Steve Fox, noted just before the transition to digital was made:
. . . the most fundamental difference between print and online was the ability to measure precisely how many readers view a particular article on the Web — and how those results influence editorial decisions on what to write about.The new chief, Eric Knorr, has said that while page views are important, they are not everything - if they were, you'd always be reading about the same handful of topics. This is a good point.The link to the business is direct. When a person views a Web page, ads are automatically presented on the page and the publisher collects a payment.
And InfoWorld has also embraced other opportunities afforded by Web technologies and used these as a jumping off point for further interaction with its readership:
Without the physical limitations of print, Mr. Knorr said, it becomes easier to explore topics more deeply. InfoWorld presents a stable of bloggers, including 19 freelance writers, who are authorities in niches including data protection, green technology, open source software and cloud computing.The goal, with reporting and blogging, Mr. Knorr said, is to create “thought leadership and depth” in several subject areas online, and also set up InfoWorld conferences around those topics.
The article closes with this pertinent observation from journalist turned venture capitalist Stewart Alsop
“What’s happening at I.D.G. is a fairly accurate map for every other publishing organization. Get over it, it’s going to happen.”
5 comments:
Thanks for so much coherent and interesting information. This debate is warming [too early to be 'hotting'] up!
As you know, in the realm of "reading" material, I am dinosaurically in favour of the printed page but, as far as news is concerned, I admit to being my own contradiction... I haven't bought a newspaper in years and get all my news from the radio and the BBC Internet news.
Can't remember where but I've read the Jeff Jarvis piece... & it seems to me he's not comparing like with like..... newspapers were never intended to be "adapted to the needs of each user".... as for "clicking for more"... newspapers deliver news and comment... they're not research documents..... computers use energy.... their usage and manufacture kills trees and depletes the planet of minerals [where does all the paper that both mainframe and personal computers spew out come from?... where do their components come from?]
As for Steve Fox and "the most fundamental difference between print and online was the ability to measure precisely how many readers view a particular article on the Web — and how those results influence editorial decisions on what to write about." For newspapers... firstly, circulation figures show how many people buy [OK not necessarily 'read'] the paper and I've never heard of a decent newspaper editor worth his or her salt who was led by "what the readership" wants. They report news and employ columnists to write about the things that they believe their readership should read.... not necessarily what they want to read!
I could go on but I want to watch Waking the Dead on iPlayer..... All I will add is that, with a daily newspaper, reading it should be manageable within the day and you then get the next day's "pennyworth" and so on. The main problem with "instant" news and comment via the internet is, simply, information overload! There aren't enough hours in the day!!!
Night, night XXX
Great post and interesting comments. I want to pick up on the point about online advertising. For the media generating revenue through ads will be easier because of their brand awareness but take Travel Rants, gets great traffic, gets media attention but is really struggling to earn revenue through advertising.
I have to admit, even working where I am, I still find it amazing that they can make enough money from online advertising!
I'm going to try and write a bit more on this later.
I may be speaking out of the top of my head but could it be the case that already established print-based publications have a better chance of earning advertising revenue when they launch web-based versions because those of their advertisers who also move to a web version follow them. They have a history of dealing with the print version of the publication and trust that revenue stream. In the case of a new-start web publication there is no history of an established print version already having advertisers onboard.
Obviously this will not apply to browsers... I'm thinking of Google's roaraway success... because their "readership" is geared toward searching for all kinds of information, not just "niche" information.
How would something like Phorm benefit web-based businesses as opposed to ISPs only?
I will have to read this about 12 times to get my head around it all - but as a journalist my immediate reaction is that print isn't dead.
The fact that it's changing is a given, and I think there's a real argument in print becoming a luxury (both in terms of cost and time needed to consume it) and online news becoming a practical daily commodity.
I think we'll see news start to fall into one of two categories: The news everyone has, and the news only e.g. The Sun has because of a special investigation/contact.
When an earthquake in China happens the web comes into its own - it's the obvious place for a running story to break. So online news sites get there first and own it - unless the people actually involved beat them to it. Fundamentally, the reaction to the Chinese disaster proves that no-one can own big news thanks to citizen journalism. With a huge event it's about immediacy, not who you are and how you'd like to see it packaged. From a news organisation's point of view that kind of news comes cheap and provides shedloads of copy.
That's very different to a story a paper has invested in to get an exclusive. Spending time, money or both to get a story that no-one else can get still sells papers. The Mirror nobling The Sun and getting the exclusive with canoe man's wife is a classic example.
Why would you put that online for the competition to nick even quicker? Because legally it is very easy to lift copy - and it's a common industry practice.
Old school hacks don't want to have this debate -it scares the pants off them. I think that's a shame because the news room isn't dead, and they probably know that better than anyone in the business.
Gosh, rant over.
Post a Comment