The Survival of Newspapers

[drplokta]

The survival of newspapers in the Internet age is back in the news, with the Murdoch titles starting their suicidal move to lock their content out of the ongoing dialogue that is the Internet. So here's my view.

There is still a role for newspapers, and they can thrive online by filling that role. What they have to do is to cut their costs dramatically -- probably by 95% or more -- by stopping doing everything that someone else, anywhere in the world, is doing better. Why would I want to read the Guardian's coverage of the US elections when there's fivethirtyeight.com? Why would I want to read the Times's technology column when there's ArsTechnica? Why are newspapers still paying journalists to lightly rehash press releases that they don't even understand (of which I have lots of personal experience from looking at the generally appalling house price journalism in the UK)? I don't need a newspaper to compile the news for me any more; I have an RSS reader.

So, my advice to newspapers, and to journalists, is to specialise. Journalists have to do a 180° turn -- it used to be that a good journalist was one who could write shallowly about anything; now a good journalist is one who can write in depth about one topic better than anyone else in the world. Identify what content you have that's better than anyone else, and keep it; ditch the rest. Your advertising revenues should then seem quite reasonable. If you can still make money by printing a generalist publication on paper, then stick with it, but don't expect the Internet to work the same way, and don't destroy your Internet presence to try to save your old business model. We will end up with a lot fewer journalists doing a much better job.

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I'm less convinced that they actually target or predict all that well other than picking up on the specific words. I think success or what there is of it is actually based purely on volume rather than accuracy.

Adwords is really simple to run and really effective for niche businesses.

I'd argue that Facebook is actually a far far more dangerous enemy of Google's than anything else at this stage.

Where I agree with Hal is they are really throwing crap all over the wall trying to figure out how they can protect the business that works and ensure that nobody destroys their market.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Agreed that FB is by far their most likely challenger for taking the advertising cake. Except FB have rather shot themselves in the foot lately. But that won;t last.