joemichaud.com

That iPad is one cool thing, eh?

No question, it will change how people watch videos, listen to music, type stuff, look at photos, play games, and read books, magazines, and newspapers.

What it won’t do is change the economics for newspapers.

Newspapers’ economic problem is this:  their expense structure depends on advertising, and high advertising rates. Very little of their revenue comes from print subscriptions. So one would think that when a new delivery vehicle comes along, like the iPad, the question would be: how well does the ad model translate to this vehicle? Will advertisers pay a premium to appear alongside quality news content, as they do  in print?

But no, the question is “Will the iPad enable newspapers to charge people to read news?”

I guess the answer is yes, they’ll be able to charge.  But the real answer is that  nobody will buy, and now we have some evidence of that reality.

According to The Observer, only 35  people have signed up for Newsday’s subscription model after 6 months and $4 million of site development. This isn’t a prediction or debate anymore, it’s reality.

Back to the iPad’s potential impact on newspaper advertising:  from the photos and videos I’ve seen, the screen looks like it’s big enough to display ads and content simultaneously.

I expect the highest potential could  be a magazine-style presentation:  the tablet is held horizontally, with two facing pages. One page would be content, and the facing page would be a full-page ad. As the user flips pages, new ads appear.

Even so, that’s a big leap for newspapers to make in technology, layout, ad sales, ad production, etc. But at least it’s not as big a leap as expecting people to pay to read news.

I’ve set up another blog — SustainableNews.biz –  to focus  on the ecosystem of local news startups, and specifically on the solo journalist trying to get something off the ground.

Not much there yet, but stay tuned. Even better, if you come across anything along that topic, send it over.

Robert Niles hits a critical issue in local journalism with his post  “Doing journalism in 2010 is an act of community organizing“.

An incredible number of newspaper jobs were eliminated in 2008-09 (40,000  in 2009, and 21,000   in 2008 according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics), and many of these journalists are taking a shot at running their own local news website.  Writes Niles:

Many people who leave the paper for the blogosphere are running one-person shows. As such, they need to not forget about those other important roles within the newspaper business: editorial page advocacy, community leadership and, yes, ad sales. If you’re running a one-person shop, you can no more afford to abandon those roles as a newspaper could afford to dismiss everyone on its staff who fulfilled them.

Trouble is, the modern newspaper  is filled with highly specialized positions. And worse, people are discouraged from performing another professional’s duties, such as a reporter taking photographs, or a copy editor writing editorials. That’s not a  problem when  staffs are big, but those specialists are ill equipped when they’re on their own.

Niles focuses on the community-building challenges of solo journalism, and I totally agree.

I believe the toughest line to cross will be economic. Solo journalists must learn how to run a business and ask for money. And that’s something they have been specifically trained  to believe is antithetical to journalistic  ethics.

Fact is, journalists in the 19th century managed to drag a press  across the plains, set up shop, write news, sell ads and print the thing. Somehow journalism survived.

Today’s solo journalists can and will figure out how to do it again, but they’re up against some huge societal and cultural barriers, not to mention their own career experiences.

These newly solo journalists need to face those realities head-on, as they invent  new ways to do local journalism — before their severance runs out.

Steve Outing’s “Stop the Presses” column has ended with the  recent closing of Editor & Publisher magazine. In characteristic fashion, Steve uses his final column to muse about what might have been, if only the newspaper industry had behaved differently over the past 15 years, and to make a few predictions.  It’s worth a read.

Not to get all eulogistic, but I have always considered Steve Outing  responsible for a tremendous amount of early progress at  “online newspapers” in the 1990s.  Certainly his column held up the best examples of work in the field, but more importantly,  starting in 1994,  Steve hosted the first  listservs for people working in online news.

In a business where everything was new and nothing was known for sure,  we were able to share learnings and mistakes, get questions answered, and to start friendships that continue today.  At the time, I remember feeling that what was happening on those lists was pretty special. These were all busy people, dealing with the stresses of a startup business, system crashes, internal politics, whatever. Yet they took the time to share what they were discovering, to respond to dumb questions, to ask their own questions.

I know running the list must have been a chore: those early email systems needed regular attention, and there were some interesting characters among our ranks.  I’m guessing Steve  got more grief than thanks for his efforts at the time.

So for the record:  Thank you, Steve, for taking the initiative with that list, and sticking with it.

Steve mentions in his final column that he has a new project, the Digital Media Test Kitchen at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Sounds like a cool gig -  a fresh chance to look at the media world from outside the newspaper lens.  Keep an eye on this next phase of Steve’s career at SteveOuting.com

There often comes a point when something that’s been up in the air starts to settle.  This is one of those times, and it’s important for local sites:

According to an Anderson Analytics survey of college students, “Facebook was viewed as ‘cool’ by a whopping 82% of males and 90% of females. All other SNS’  (social networking sites) were deemed “lame” by significant percentages of both male and female collegiate users. In particular, MySpace–the granddaddy of SNS’–was considered ‘lame’ by the largest portion of college students (31%).”

Significantly, Anderson Analytics found no falloff of image for Facebook as its user base has expanded into these kids’ parents generations and beyond. And it found that Facebook now tops Google for usage among college kids.

The relevance of Facebook’s critical mass is twofold for local news sites: first, at a time of scarce resources, Facebook remains an area worth devoting staff time to, such as posting news items. Maybe you can dial back your effort on MySpace  (if any). Or if you’re not doing much with social networking, you can start, and just focus on Facebook for now, maybe Twitter later.

Second,  Facebook’s  critical mass of members makes Facebook Connect look even more attractive as a piece of your site’s infrastructure. Connect gives you two things that are expensive in time and money to come by otherwise:  a registration system that forces accountability for postings, and exposure to lots of people efficiently (through Facebook’s news feed) as people post to your site.

So if you’re running a local site and trying to figure out where to spend scare resources, here’s one place: Facebook.

An editorial on The Digital Journalist site, entitled Let’s Abolish ‘Citizen Journalists’ argues that journalism is being undermined by the presence of people who report on news but aren’t on the payroll (or freelance roster) of a recognized news organization.

It goes further, claiming that news organizations are digging their own graves: “Because of declining revenues, newspapers, magazines and TV stations actually think they can get these ‘volunteers’ to replace the professionals.”

First,  in 30 years in journalism, I have never heard of any news manager  seriously considering such a thing, let alone doing it. (I suspect that the perspectives of The Digital Journalist are colored by its heavy focus on photojournalism, and yes, citizen photos/video have made news. But who sees that as a coverage strategy?)

More troubling to me is that this editorial reinforces the age-old canard that all journalists are members of some kind of priesthood. The editorial cites Afghanistan and the White House as venues where citizen journalists will never tread. True enough. But how many professional journalists will go to Afghanistan or the White House, regardless of their credentials?  And how many professionals will attend the local school board meeting, compared to public-sprited “amateurs?”

There are too many shades of “professional journalist” to allow any blanket description. Professionals can be hacks, and amateurs can serve the public interest.

The comments on Let’s Abolish ‘Citizen Journalists’ do a fine job of picking at its arguments, so please check them out, especially Howard Owens’ reminder that “citizen journalism” is how journalism got started in the first place.

My main problem with the priesthood attitude is that journalism needs all the help it can get, professional or not.  “Professional” news organizations are in economic whitewater right now, unable to reinvent themselves fast enough to fulfill their public-service.

Anyone who cares about the importance of a free press in a democracy should support and encourage journalists, professional or not. If you’re a professional, good for you. Strive for excellence,  strive to advance the public interest, and hopefully someone will pay you. If you’re not a professional, well, same goes for you.

Just stumbled onto the first instance I’ve seen of a mainstream news site using Facebook Connect as a way to ID users in comments.

Back in February, I suggested the new system could be a breakthrough for news site managers tired of all the anonymous trolls. Until now, I hadn’t come across anyone taking that leap. CNN/Money is requiring commenters to use  Facebook Connect, and it looks fairly new, but I can’t tell for sure.

Check it out on this story about stocks. It’s a ripe topic for trolls, but you’ll notice most of the folks are pretty calm. Also note their Facebook pictures next to their posts.

Best part is, their post will appear on their Facebook news feed. Who wants to look like a troll to their friends and family?

If other sites are doing this, please add them in the comments. I’m very interested in following this.

Lots of news industry buzz recently about Google’s new  Fast Flip news reader. Gee, the buzz  sounds a lot like the buzz over the Kindle.

The logic goes like this: Newspapers are at a disadvantage in the digital age because  they’re inconvenient to read. If only we could make the journalism more accessible to more people,  then there’s a business model to be had. And if there’s a way to make them pay for it (a la the Kindle), well, problem solved!

Trouble is, the  business model of printed newspapers involves a slew of different revenue streams, all connected through the experience of a multi-page paper physical product that can picked up off a park bench.

Picture the Sports section of a newspaper in the late 1990s, during the “good times” but before everything imploded in 2001-02. Even in these good times, the Sports section has maybe three ads in it: two for tires, and one for a strip club. Yet there are maybe a dozen bylines of sports writers and columnists, photographers, plus copy editors and layout people.

Where does their payroll come from? Flip  to the next section: classifieds.

In those boom years, some newspapers were getting half their ad revenue from classifieds, and the majority of that from help-wanted. Only about 10 percent of total revenue would come from circulation, (also known as “readers paying for content”).

The sports columnist didn’t know it, but a good chunk of his paycheck was coming from the classifieds section.  Very little came directly from people who cared what he wrote. But  people  bought the paper to read his column, and they also read the  classifieds. Everyone was happy (except of course for the tire store owner, who couldn’t believe a help-wanted ad cost 5 times as much as  his ad for tires in the Sports section).

Fast-forward to now. How does the Kindle or the Fast Flip experience translate to that business model? It doesn’t.  There’s no way their advertising or subscriptions will support that sports columnist.  That would be like assuming the sportswriter in the 1990s would get paid from the advertising in the Sports section. There would have been one sportswriter, maybe.

Neither the Kindle nor Fast Flip addresses the real problem facing newspapers: their traditional business model relies on a number of  revenue streams related only by their bundling in a physical product. Kindle and Fast Flip unbundle the product, and leave it with  one or  two small revenue streams.

The urgency for local newspapers — the same urgency that they have faced since the mid-1990s — is to create  new diversified revenue streams that support community journalism. Some of these business lines may look like the Sports section of 1997: no real revenue to speak of, but strong reader interest or public service. Some may look like the classifieds section: no journalism, but lots of different streams of money.

It will be a shame if developments like Kindle and Fast Flip simply encourage complacency, when the need for true innovation in revenue is greater than ever.

I subscribe to a number of email newsletters (and yes, yes, I also do the RSS thing) and I’m astounded by the number of newsletters that still have no information in the subject line, as if this is 1999 and I should be delighted just to get it.

The subject lines  say something like “Today’s headlines” or “Newsletter for Sept. 8, 2009.”  In a cluttered in-box,  and in a busy day, who’s going to take the time to see what’s in there?

Perfect example of bad and good, before and after: Fast Company switched from generic to dynamic subject lines about 10 days ago. A screen snap shows how they look in my Gmail in-box. See the difference?

Case in point: When I initially sorted my mail to make that screenshot, most of the “generic” subject lines were unread; most of the “dynamic” ones had been read.

For local publishers, a well-subscribed, well-read newsletter is  the most cost-effective way to increase traffic and loyalty to your website. Unfortunately, I see those generic subject lines a lot on local sites.

Yes, you’ll quickly find out why your newsletters have generic subject lines: “the system spits them out that way.”  Or “that’s an extra step and we don’t have the staff.”

Baloney.

The point of doing newsletters is to get people to open them. Change the technology, or change the workflow.

My former employer, Blethen Maine Newspapers,  finally got new ownership last week,  over a year after it was  put up for sale.  The new company is called MaineToday Media (which I obviously think is pretty cool because “MaineToday”  had been the name of our division of the old company).

I’m sure the transition is stressful for those on the inside, and even more so for those whose jobs were eliminated, but it promises to be healthy in the long run.

The  new owner, Richard Connor, has said he wants to make the company successful by tightening  the whole organization’s  focus on local news, and by becoming more responsive to the needs of customers. He has also made clear that there will need to be fewer employees going forward. All those  represent big challenges, and I wish him the best as he puts the company on a path to success.

There’s no question that newspaper companies have to get leaner in response to the new economic realities affecting all media, especially around advertising revenue. And newspapers in particular need to get much more focused on their communities,  in terms of both readers and advertisers. Retaining those readers and advertisers – and growing each as much as possible – is key to stabilizing and growing a newspaper company.

At the same time, newspaper companies need to find ways to meet the needs of local consumers who have turned away from the newspaper, in print and online. The Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel, have enviable reach in their markets. Counting  print and online usage, on a monthly basis they might  touch  around 60 percent of people  in the  communities they cover.  At a time of fracturing media usage, that kind of reach  is huge, and it will be a  challenge  to retain it.

Still, 60 percent reach  means 40 percent of the consumers in those markets have made a conscious decision to  bypass those brands, in print and online. In the past, newspapers would take that as a challenge to remake themselves to serve “young readers,” for example, while gingerly avoiding turning off their core readers. (Hint: it didn’t work.)

Today instead, many newspaper companies are focusing hard on serving that core audience with the news they want, while also creating new print and online products that serve untouched segments. These are local people who aren’t interested in local news, for example, but who do have needs for local information.

I mention all this because the new MaineToday Media contains a strand of DNA  that — for better or worse — was laser-focused on finding and serving local consumers and advertisers who probably weren’t going to be served by the newspapers. I hope there’s a way to embed that DNA in the new organization — or at least keep it on ice until the fundamentals of the company are solid.

At any rate, I wish success to everyone, both new and old,  in the new company.