New Study: Newspapers’ Progress Going Social

The Bivings Group just published their latest annual “Use of the Internet by America’s Largest Newspapers.”  The study shows newspapers have made significant progress from a year ago  to become more social, open its content by linking outside its own web universe, and allow more user-generated content.

Courtesy of Precious Roy via Flickr

The study is indicative of two trends that run parallel and in many ways, hold the key to large newspapers’ ability to make profits.  First, newspapers by now fully understand the environment in which they are publishing.  Blogs, online video, social networking sites and mobile will not be beaten and major newspapers cannot simply fend them off.  Information sources outside of newspapers will exist alongside them.  Newspapers get that.  They’re figuring out now how to best handle that relationship.  As the Bivings Group report shows, newspapers understand this reality and are embracing this new media environment.

Second, the Bivings’ study also demonstrates that while newspapers are becoming more social, and therefore more relevant in the social webosphere in which information is exchanged, they are still a long ways away from monetizing their content in a digital medium.  In other words, they’re improving their online audience aggregation, but cannot match the audience with advertisements in a profitable way that existed with paper editions.  That’s traditional media’s new media dilemma.

Just this week, I read that Digg founder Kevin Rose is also grappling with how to best monetize his highly trafficked site.  Inc magazine reports that Digg is in fact losing money.  For me, I see the financial challenges Digg is facing, without all the overhead that traditional media carries, and I believe it will take some massive traditional media reorganization to remain profitable.

My prediction is that the very biggest newspapers, like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal will be able to continue to focus on the journalism they are currently engaged in and get by.  But others, like the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe and Washington Post will have to do a better job of becoming something unique and meaningful to its readers.

I think that’s a healthy process and is a natural outcome of technological and media advancements.  Years ago, getting national newspapers in my hometown, Chicago, was just more expensive and often came at the expense of missing some of the local news that I liked in my Chicago papers.  But now, I can easily access national newspapers like the Times, get the content I want, which makes my reliance on Chicago papers for information significantly less.  In other words, I’m not going to read Chicago papers for international or national political coverage when I can get better coverage and writing from other places.

In that environment Chicago papers have to provide something relevant to consumers.  I doubt a paper like the Tribune will have a readership as big as it once did.  That’s just the reality of the new media envrionment.  I think the Tribune should be building new expectations for this new media age.

Thank you to the Bivings Group for great research.

Surprise? Tribune in Ch. 11

News of the Tribune Co.’s bankruptcy this morning was hardly surprising.  In fact, I was most surprised to see the Tribune simply mentioned when I went to the NYTimes website this morning just because  I can’t recall the Times ever referring to the Tribune for anything.

The Tribune joins the Chicago Sun Times in financial trouble, calling into question whether America’s third largest city will cease to have any, let alone two, major daily papers.

This got me thinking, how has the Tribune gotten into this financial mess?

Horizontal Growth

Over the course of many years, the Tribune has acquired other media entities, including newspapers (L.A. Times), T.V. (WGN) and radio (AM 720 in Chicago).  For decades this seemed like a good move because TV, print and radio were simply the sources of information distribution.

I have a feeling that over time, the Tribune just got too big.  Plus, all forms of traditional media advertising, the way these outlets make money, have been hit hard simultaneously as ad budgets get allocated further away from print, TV and radio.  Enduring all these blows at once must have been crippling.

I think the reality that TV, radio and print really were not the same business, became very evident as the Tribune began falling.  On the surface, yes, they are all media and they all survive on advertising.  But beyond that, they are different businesses and it’s simply hard to be great at the newspaper business, and the TV business, and the radio business.  Scalability could probably be reached through owning many outlets within the same the medium – all print or all TV, for example.

Image courtesy of http://flickr.com/people/beautyislikeyeah/

Applying the Wrong Prescription

Then along came the Internet, and these weird things called blogs and social media began to undermine traditional media and steal audiences.  Instead of trying to adapt in this new online world though, the Tribune began making changes within its own pre-internet world.  For example, its answer to declining readership was to put a heavier emphasis on entertainment news.  It seemed as if some genius at the Trib read a marketing report saying that entertainment news is a hot seller, and so the Trib better start focusing on entertainment to gain back audience.  This only compounded the Tribune’s downward spiral into not just being in a business where the means of production and consumption were changing, but the paper also no longer did what it was originally good at – reporting the news.  More on that later.

By making all these costly changes – heavier focus on entertainment, layout changes, cutting out news sections, etc. – the Tribune was not addressing how people wanted to get their news and how the Tribune could continue being relevant to a changing readership.

They could have stopped and said, “hey look at the Huffington Post” (who just got $25 million in funding), “what makes the windycitizen blog a hit?”  They didn’t ask those questions obviously because their delivery style has not changed and there has been no attempt at changing it.  These new forms of journalism that feature more interactivity were key to these sites’ successes.

Moving Away from Tribune’s Core Business

In the last few years, I find it extremely hard to tell anyone what area of the news the Tribune really owns anymore.  Local politics?  I’d choose a host of blogs that provide stories that I follow via Twitter.  Business?  Crain’s has the Tribune beat.  Sports?  Maybe.  But, I’d still take ESPN.com to get a fuller picture of what’s happening.

My point is, areas that the Tribune used to be great at, they no longer are.  When I get up each morning and look at the local news section of the Trib online, I see anywhere between 10 and 20 stories, of which about 3 are interesting.  International news?  The Tribune is a joke.  Regional news?  I don’t see them taking leadership on this either.  City politics?  There’s some decent coverage, but again, there’s more depth from someone like a Ben Joravsky at the Reader or the blogs that cover this.

What about the Tribune’s columnists?  That’s probably the biggest turnoff about the Tribune.

Think about the New York Times again.  People read the Times because of minds like Tom Friedman and David Brooks.  The only one at the Tribune worth their salt is John Kass.  Kass has proven he has the chutzpah to report on tough issues, call out people when he believes they’re wrong and he’ll stick with a story.

The others? Eric Zorn is soft and Mary Schmich is uninteresting.  And what’s with Dawn Trice?  Do we really need a columnist devoting their three to four days per week column to race relations?  If the Tribune should know anything about the next generation of readers, it’s that the Millennial generation is a post-racial generation in so many ways.

Prescriptions for Success

Here’s my recommendations to getting the Tribune back on track:

1. Develop a real online strategy.  Give readers the news and give them control over how they get their news.  Let them rate articles to determine what goes on the front page, put up new pictures from the day’s news instead of the same photos week in and week out.  Also, the Tribune should show respect to bloggers and other smaller news outlets.   A little humility and cooperation might go a long way to engender some good cooperation between news sources.
2. Invest in good minds, make things interesting.  Right now, I don’t see any debates happening from the Tribune between its columnists.  Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Trib featured two smart people with differing political views to take on issues in order to make its readers think and question their own assumptions?
3. Be really good at something.  If the Tribune is cutting its DC staff or its international staff, ok…then cover local politics better than anyone.  Give us good reporting and full coverage, with pictures, videos, etc.  Then, cut out the stuff that you’re not good at.  If I wanted to read about entertainment news, I’d go to People or US Weekly.
4. Downsize the scope of media ownership.  I think being as big as the Tribune is, has hurt the company.  Again, it can’t do everything great.  It should pick a core business and be the best at it.  Get out of the businesses that it doesn’t understand or is not good at.

The Wild Card

Sam Zell is no ordinary owner.  He’s one of the keenest business people in the world and he knows what he’s doing by bringing the Tribune into bankruptcy.  I think the paper will emerge one day in much better shape than it is today – I wouldn’t dare say profitable but I’d say not hemorrhaging money.  Zell has the business understandings to fix this complex problem.

Looking at PitchEngine from Afar

Looking through my Twitter feed I came across a post that turned me on to PitchEngine.com. As someone who works in public affairs and has to pitch traditional media more often than I’d like (rather than helping clients publish themselves), I’m interested in ways that make traditional PR pitching a better process.

PitchEngine is trying to bring together PR pros, brands, and journalists.  The PitchEngine software then allows these groups to build their personal profiles and manage contacts, just like in any other online community.  PitchEngine goes a step further though by simplifying the process of sending the release with various attached media (pics, video, etc.) and has a well-organized, simple interface.

Oh, and the PR pros and brands (not sure about journalists) have to pay a fee for joining and using the services.

Not that there’s anything wrong with a fee based network, I just question PitchEngine’s ability to truly make PR pitching a better process.

I’m quickly finding out in public affairs that the strength of any good pitch has more to do with the story being pitched than any other factor.  In other words, if the story’s good, interesting and timely, it will get play.  Does it help to have relationships with journalists to help get published?  Of course.  But, then again, good relationships don’t guarantee publishing, it just increases the likelihood that your pitch gets read.

That’s why I look at PitchEngine and caution against PR pros looking to sign up and think their pitching will be that much more effective.  The same basics that would make someone successful using PitchEngine makes that PR pro a success without it.  Traits like, telling a good story (even when it’s uninteresting), knowing the audience you’re pitching to and brevity, are still foundational to good pitching.

I think handling media relations is best done through the PR person’s personal contacts and through social media activity.  Using email, Twit pitching, building relationships via Facebook and LinkedIn, and following/commenting on blogs are the right set of tools for an effective PR pro in today’s media environment.

We have the social media tools to allow us to succeed.  We just have to use them well and remember that there are no shortcuts.  It’s an old adage but true.

I’m skeptical of PitchEngine.  If anyone else can prove to me otherwise, I don’t see the benefit in it.

Old and New

Something kept hitting me over the head the last two days that’s compelling me to share it now.  First, I came across the custom publishing company, Imagination Publishing in Chicago.  They’re an interesting company because their leadership saw the writing on the wall.  They knew that to continue simply to publish printed materials for an assortment of clients would not cut it in the age of new media.  No, media was changing and they astutely adapted by diversifying their delivery methods and bringing more value to target audiences.

Then, this evening, I attended an interesting lecture by Chicago author and journalist, Alex Kotlowtiz.  Alex wrote the acclaimed, There are No Children Here, in 1991.  If you haven’t read this book, you should.  It’s a fascinating story/journalistic account of two young boys growing up in Chicago public housing, the neighborhoods they live in and the daily challenges they face.

There Are No Children Here

Alex’s lecture was compelling.  He said good journalism is nothing more than storytelling.  And good storytelling means putting the reader into the eyes, ears, shoes and emotions of the subjects.

What Imagination Publishing and Alex Kotlowitz have in common, is what Imagination asserts: “content is king.”  That never seemed more true than today.  There are so many examples of social media being used in smart and creative ways.  At the same time, it’s very easy to use these social media tools.  What then makes some ideas remembered and some forgotten?  Good writing.  Content is indeed king.

The irony is amidst this always-changing media environment, the one thing that won’t change – ever – is good writing and compelling content will always be key in getting your message remembered…and talked about.