Morning:
8°c
A short memo sent last week by an editor in the United States to his staff has provoked a controversy far beyond the confines of his newspaper. It has attracted odium from critics around the world who view it as some kind of counter-revolutionary putsch. One was so upset he called it an act of insanity.
I doubt that Michael Leary, managing editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, realised the storm he was about to unleash when he announced an "Inquirer first policy", meaning that only breaking news would be posted on the paper's website while all the other editorial content - such as investigative reporting, news features and reviews - would no longer appear on screen until readers had had the opportunity to see it first in print.
Furthermore, waving a giant red flag in front of the blogosphere's bulls, he said that the paper's bloggers must refrain from using their blogs to work on stories in progress, a familiar method in many US newsrooms in recent years. The reaction to this print-firstweb-last initiative was immediate and devastating.
Jeff Jarvis, one of America's foremost digital missionaries who writes a new media column for The Guardian, did not mince his words. "What the hell are they thinking in Philadelphia? Let me make this very clear to the Inquirer ownership and management: You are killing the paper. You might as well just burn the place down. You're setting a match to it. This is insane.
"Even the slowest, most curmudgeonly, most backward in your dying, suffering industry would not be this stupid any more. They know that the internet is the present and the future and the paper is the past. Protecting the past is no strategy for the future. It is suicide. It is murder. You should be ashamed of yourselves."
There was a lot of sober backing for Jarvis. For example, David Carr of the New York Times, wrote: "The Inquirer seems to be making a mistake. If the future of our business is online, then why set up a firewall, delaying the best content to protect a legacy product? More adept reporters are beginning to realise that the web is not just a way to broadcast news, it is a great way to assemble it as well."
Several critics thought the Inquirer's move foolish because it will not accomplish its supposed aim to halt the sales rot. Worse, it will inhibit the paper from constructing the new business model that is considered to be essential to preserving its non-print future.
Leary did find some supporters who stressed, as many owners and editors tend to do, that the overwhelming bulk of current advertising revenue comesfrom print rather than online. Therefore it makes sense to "protect" the major source of revenue. That is all very well, of course. But the logic is flawed.
While no-one is denying that print provides revenue now, that income is declining. Anyway, it is quite beside the point to advance an argument about commerce in answer to an editorial initiative.
What Leary is trying to do is convince his paper's audience that the web is only good for one kind of content, breaking news, and that print is the proper place for all other editorial material. That strikes me as completely reactionary. He is playing Canute, trying to turn back the waves of people in societies across the globe who read everything on their computers, whether it be news, comment, analysis or sports results. They watch video clips, they participate and they communicate via their lap-tops. They live on them. It is the medium of now and the medium of the future.
They are not going to change their habits at the behest of a maverick managing editor.
NEWSPRINT newspapers have a way to go yet, and some will survive longer than others, especially those who tap into a wellheeled niche market. But they will not extend their life, as the Inquirer seems to think, by turning their backs on their related websites, treating it as some kind of print archive with a smattering of so-called breaking news.
One glance at the latest set of figures for British national newspaper audiences reveals the reality. The Guardian, for instance, is selling about 340,000 a day and has a readership of about one million. Yet its website attracted more than 20 million unique users in June, more than eight million of whom live in Britain. The Daily Telegraph, with an 860,000 print sale, recorded more than 19 million uniques on its site and a record 151 million page views. The story is the same for The Times, The Sun and the Daily Mail.
All of them are winning online audience ratings they could never hope to emulate with their newsprint papers. That does not mean that owners should give up entirely on print. But it does mean that resources now being poured into online products and applications are far from wasted.
At the risk of annoying fellow journalists who are uncomfortable with the language of marketing, the development of the title as a brand with many platforms is key to building a secure future for journalism.The Inquirer has made a bad mistake because its current webusers are bound to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, its current daily sale of 334,150 is very unlikely to improve. Did Leary not notice that his paper's circulation started to decline well before the internet came along? It was selling 648,000 in 1968, 533,000 in 1984 and 402,000 in 1999.
The net has accelerated that downward trend but it is not the only reason that people are giving up on print.
Reader views (6)
Compelling commercial argument? Where?
The only thing compelling about the 'commercial argument' is that it is (very) short term, irresponsible and flawed.
I hate stating the obvious but some have obviously missed it…
Take the decline of your classifieds and circulation revenue and project how long till your business is no longer in profit (it should be that thick red line that no doubt we have all seen). Then look at the amount of revenue Digital is bringing in to your business. If your gain in Digital does not have an impact by the time your print revenue hits that red line then your business strategy is flawed and your business, the brand, the families it employs, the local business it supports, the public it informs, all that makes a Newspaper is GONE. And that’s not in 10 years time, for some, that is a lot sooner.
- Cal, Glasgow UK, 26/08/2008 10:55
Report abuse
There's no time left to wait and see. The Inquirer's business - model and scale - has to change. It used to be a monopoly. It's not anymore. It's job is not to publish paper but to serve an audience and serve that audience to advertisers. The audience is clearly online and not to serve them well there is insanity. Is the revenue going to be the same? Of course, not! The monopoly is gone. Craigslist is here. News from even the Standard is just a click away. The entire economics of news have changed. Not to change with them is irresponsible; it is bad stewardship for journalism.
- Jeff Jarvis, New York, NY, 15/08/2008 11:54
Report abuse
What would Ben Franklin think?
- Roy Stilling, Gillingham, Kent, 14/08/2008 16:55
Report abuse
I agree entirely with Jw, Glasgow. It has always been a mystery to me why newspapers are rushing to give away their product on the internet for no, or very little, apparent reward. Where is the sense in it? I can't think of any other business that would give away for nothing the product that it is in existence to sell.
News, of course, is now universally available, but the unique comment, analysis, reviews, images and archives of individual publications are not. Why give them away? Twenty million "hits" mean absolutely nothing unless the "hitters" pay something for the service that they receive or online advertising revenue compensates for the loss of print exclusivity. There is not much sign of that.
- James Hilton, Chelmsford, 14/08/2008 16:11
Report abuse
Why don't we wait and see Roy? The web first doesn't seem to be doing a lot in terms of saving the industry commercially, perhaps making people pay for the product - and aggressively protecting copyright - could work. I detect a certain amount of arrogance in the webevangelist cause which isn't justified by the results.
- Mr Osato, Blackpool, UK, 13/08/2008 15:28
Report abuse
The commercial argument is simply too compelling to be ignored, and Jeff Jarvis would do well to heed it, for it is the web that is killing newspapers, not initiatives like this. We've been at it for 15 years now, it is time to admit the long-hoped for business model isn't going to turn up, and act to stop destroying the value in the only thing we have to sell.
The Guardian may have an online audience of 20 million, but does it make any sort of compelling income from them? Enough to support a newsroom once the print is gone? No? Then that audience literally has no value, other than as bragging rights while editors compete to see who has the most silken noose.
- Jw, Glasgow, UK, 13/08/2008 13:54
Report abuse
