During an otherwise mundane story about Microsoft’s recent decision to offer a free, web-based version of its Office suite of products, I was struck by this sentence in an Associated Press story:
With Office 2010, Microsoft must decide how much software it can give away online without undermining its lucrative desktop software business. If it doesn’t make the right calculation, the software maker could find itself in the same position as newspapers that gave online content away and now are struggling to replace print revenue.
That second line is almost a throwaway, written with no attribution. That means that the notion has officially entered into conventional wisdom: Local newspapers screwed up by giving away for free the content everyone used to pay to consume.
Conventional wisdom, yes. And untrue.
Correcting this fundamental error is about more than just debating the past. Because this mistaken assumption is driving the debate about new business models for news.
I want to explain why I think this mistaken assumption is causing people to ask the wrong question about the future of local news. And what I think the right questions are. I want to try to reframe the discussion about business models to focus on where true opportunity and solutions might be found for journalism entrepreneurs to pursue.
First, let me address the first half of the assumption about “newspapers that gave away content.” This assumes that people once paid for journalism.
The Myth of Paying for Journalism
Let’s correct that right now: When it comes to local newspapers, people never paid for journalism.
Believing that they did represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what a local newspaper was, or is. Especially when it comes to the business of a local newspaper. And it’s a tragic misreading that I hear repeated on all sides of the paid content debate, whether they’re for or against charging for news online. (The equation is a bit different for national newspapers like the New York Times or USA Today. But I’ll leave that for another time.)
Let’s review the actual business of a local newspaper, at least as it used to be. Back in February, when I was attending a Knight Digital Media Center workshop at the University of California at Berkeley, we heard a presentation from Lauren Rich Fine, a former newspaper analyst for Merrill Lynch and a presenter at Kent State University.
Fine broke down the historic revenues of newspapers. Across the industry, the money people paid to subscribe accounted for, on average, about 20 percent of a newspaper’s revenue. Classifieds, on the other hand, typically brought in 50 percent of the revenue, and 70 percent of profits on average, according to Fine.
So let’s reflect on that: The consumer was only paying about one-fifth the cost of the product. But what were they getting for that money?
Again, the mistaken notion here is that the primary product of the newspaper is journalism. That’s the conceit of journalists, but it’s also the general misinterpretation by those seeking to re-invent news from the outside.
The Consumer View
Let’s look at a newspaper not from the newsroom-centric view, which assumes the whole value is the journalism. Let’s look at the newspaper from the eyes of the consumer.
From that view, a newspaper is a product that, at least at its peak, provided about 50 different services for people. It helped people figure out where to shop. It delivered a boatload of coupons every Sunday. It helped them plan their weekend. It entertained them with comics and puzzles. It let them know what was on the school lunch menu. And along the way, it also delivered journalism.
Anyone who has worked at a newspaper long enough will tell you that what provokes more outrage from readers than anything else is messing with the comics or puzzles.
Just this week, I was eating lunch with a chief executive who had been in Silicon Valley for 30 years. Toward the end of our lunch, he said he had read the print version of my newspaper for 30 years, and still does. But he was frustrated that we now run the puzzles on a different page every day. He’s not alone. About two years ago, when my newspaper all but eliminated the features section, the outpouring of emails from readers were primarily expressing outrage that the puzzles and comics were being moved.
You can shake your head, but that’s as important a part of the newspaper for many people as the journalism is. For their monthly bill, which only represented 20 percent of revenue, consumers were getting a product that did many things, only one of which was the journalism. Did journalism have a higher social value? Certainly. But it wasn’t the core of the business. For the reader, an ad telling them about a sale or a new store might be just as important in their lives.
Losing the Community Marketplace
So if journalism isn’t the business of a newspaper, what is?
Pull back the lens. At their peak, local newspapers did two things: They created community. And they provided the local marketplace for goods and services. These services were so profitable, that they subsidized the civic good of journalism.
The reason newspapers are in trouble today is because they have lost their dominant position on both of these fronts. Classifieds have evaporated, blowing a massive hole in newspaper revenue.
People know this, yet they somehow forget that this was a completely non-journalistic function.
When it came to community, the sum of news and information in a newspaper created a shared base of knowledge, set the conversations about civic life, and provided a bond that created a sense of place. Today, as newspapers have shrunk, and as the audience has splintered, the newspaper no longer serves as community hub.
Having lost all of these things, all that is left is the journalism. And on its own, we’re discovering this is not something people will pay for.
Getting Beyond Paid Content
So the solution that’s carrying the day is to start charging for content. I don’t favor this approach, but I think it’s too late to stop the train. If paid content succeeds, local newspapers wouldn’t be getting people to pay for journalism again. They’d be getting them to pay for the first time.
Once the paid content strategy comes and goes, it’ll be time to look for other solutions. I don’t believe, as some have written, that we’ve tried everything and should simply give up. In my view, there is still enormous opportunity to create business models that support local newsrooms if journalism entrepreneurs ask the right questions:
Let’s stop asking how to get people to pay for content, because they never did.
Let’s stop asking: How do we reinvent journalism? Opportunity abounds here. The new digital tools are allowing us to create deeper, richer journalism than ever. And more people than ever are reading my journalism. Journalism is doing fine.
Instead, newsrooms need to ask:
> How do we reinvent local community on the web?
> And how do we reinvent the local marketplace online?
By no means are these puzzles solved. I don’t believe that Craigslist represents the last, best way people in a community will buy and sell things. Yelp, while growing in traffic, continues to have reputation issues with local merchants.
The discussion over paid content and tweaking the advertising model is too limited. Solve those two bigger challenges of community and the local marketplace, and you’ll create a business that will support smart, multi-platform newsrooms. These newsrooms won’t be dominant, as they were in the past. They’ll exist as part of local news ecosystem.
But create community, help people succeed in business, and you’ll find a way back to re-igniting the passion for a local news organization.
View Comments (20)
"How do we reinvent local community on the web? And how do we reinvent the local marketplace online?"
Both of these are worthy questions to ask, but neither of these questions implies a business model. I can easily imagine a web site that has built a great community and created a great local marketplace, but still loses money. It's called MySpace.
Hi Chris,
I generally agree with you and your angle here. It's a lot easier for executives to play it safe with newsroom-friendly (and likely short-sighted) strategies like charging. That said, I'm going to play devil's advocate on a few points:
1. Not all newspaper businesses think charging online's going to make them money. The publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette claims charging for his online product has helped him stem the circulation declines other similarly sized newspapers have seen.
2. Sure, newspapers have charged readers to cover the cost of print circulation and distribution. But servers aren't free, and bandwidth adds up, and if you're getting 200K uniques a day that stuff has a daily price tag in the dollars, not cents. Is it okay to charge online to cover that cost?
I have responded to this post in my own blog:
http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/newspapers-original-sin-not-failing-to-charge-but-failing-to-innovate/
Mark is right that this post doesn’t provide a viable business strategy but, Chris, I don’t think you’ve pretended to have the answers.
What you’ve done is to suggest the questions the industry needs to be asking, and I think you’ve given us the right ones.
One problem the industry faces is that it has generally settled for trying to replicate what it does in print on the web, without asking what newspapers actually do.
In other words, it believed newspapers were all about stories and features with adverts next to them, so it created websites with stories and features, with adverts next to them, and assumed that would be enough.
I know things are already changing, and we shouldn’t be too pessimistic when papers like the Daily Telegraph are beginning to innovate. (See http://my.telegraph.co.uk/ - a British example because I know British papers best)
But I still wish newspapers would do more to look at what is working on the internet (and what is perhaps failing) – Facebook and Myspace, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, successful forums from Something Awful to mumsnet, and even games (World of Warcraft is a rubbish game on its own, it works because it offers social interaction) – and looking at why they work and the lessons to be learned from them.
I fear that many people are still trying to learn lessons from why print newspapers worked so well 20 years ago.
Chris,
Great post. Perhaps this is one of those times that a meme that has been ascendant will finally start to disappear.
People have never bought newspapers primarily for the news. Advertising came into newspapers when steam driven presses coincided with the growth of the mass market. "Yellow" journalism took advantage of the moraility play to gather eyeballs to sell to department stores to sell mass produced stuff.
This whole thing is only about 100 years old. Before that newspapers were many things, but I think Chris has it right when he says they build communities and enable commerce.
Unfortunately this is very far away from the celebrity journalism that started in the early 70's when the career path became Pulitizer then TV pundit.
It's most likely that the emerging solutions will be some version of back to the future.
About 40 years ago, I was a member of the Rockford Newspaper Guild No. 5, which went on strike against the city's two daily newspapers, the Rockford (Ill.) Morning Star and the Rockford Register-Republic. Thanks to support from the ITU and the pressmen's union, we shut both papers down for 70 days. I had picketing duty for two hours each day, and one of the things I did to while away the time was to take an informal survey of what passers-by missed about their daily newspapers. The responses, in no particular order, were: the comics, the classifieds, the crosswork puzzle, the grocery ads, the sale ads, the astrology column, and so on. Exactly one person said he missed "the banner headline on the front page," and one other person said he missed "the front page news." In short, everyone said they missed their daily newspaper, but only those two respondents missed anything that the news/editorial department contributed to the mix.
I completely agree with Chris when he very accurately points out "that the mistaken notion here is that the primary product of the newspaper is journalism." At http://www.hometowntimes.com, we pull no punches in understanding that the community is what is important - and being responsive to the readers needs ... all needs of lifestyle, awareness, humor, events, personalities, deaths, sports, etc. ... are the vehicles through which any serious journalism or investigative reporting will find a home.
At hometowntimes.com, we’ve answered the question, “how does delivery of news make money?” by creating a proven, successful model that supports Chris's hypothesis and turns the conventional wisdom (or lack thereof) and failed business model for journalism and advertising upside down. While every news organization, reporter, and journalist is out there trying to find a revenue model from delivery of the news, Hometowntimes.com has created a business model and opportunity that aggregates millions of users nationally, providing the source of revenue to build the local community franchise, and create a successful business structure for creation and distribution of relevant localized journalism co-existing side by side in an online model that accepts the notion that advertorial content is as meaningful as hard core journalism, from the local readers' viewpoint and interest.
Steve Buttry commenting here: Something's off-kilter here on the comments. The comments by name are not the comments I made (my comments are the ones immedieately after the onese by my name.) I presume some other people have their comments separated from their names, too.
Hey all: This conversation has been interesting, and moved in a couple different directions across a couple different blogs. I just wanted to let you know I've got a follow up post on all of this here:
http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2009/09/look-beyond-data-when-considering-new-models-for-news251.html
Thanks for all your thoughts and feedback!
The Myth of Paying for Journalism
Your opinion piece is a good example of why journalists need more education than just writing. First of all no company operating on a profit margin in the teens can afford to increase costs and eliminate 20% of its revenue. Second, you can determine revenue brought by a division but not what percentage of total profit it brings. Third a person without proper knowledge should talk to someone in the industry not a consultant with no actual experience in the industry. Fourth it is ADVERTISING not Classifieds that bring ing the revenue, classifieds is a small percentage of the total adverting revenue stream. Fifth if you cannot attach FSIs to your product and only have classified revenues coming in you cannot afford the reporters let alone make a profit so you no longer have a product or audience and no reevnue.
When are so called journalist going to realize that just because they interview and expert on a subject for 30 minutes they do not become experts or even knowledgable? If they did we would go to school for for a couple of weeks instead of 16 years to get a college degree.