What’s really changing the news biz

What’s really changing the news biz

: Citizens’ media isn’t changing the news business nearly as much as business is changing the news business.

Craig Newmark of Craigslist has been touting the potential of local citizens’ media — as do I — and he has been taunting us with hints of content plans — I can’t wait to hear what’s on his mind. But it seems he has felt a twinge of caution about this as he said:

Hey, there’s a lot of furor now around the emerging area of citizens’ journalism, where ordinary citizens complement the work of professionals and maybe go beyond.

That’s a big topic, best discussed elsewhere.

I just want to remind everyone that people’s jobs are involved, writers, editors, delivery people, PR people, and more.

When an industry goes through a major shift, sometimes people lose jobs.

I don’t have anything smart to suggest, except that news professionals starting looking hard at the blogging phenomenon, and try to get ready.

But Craig himself is having more impact on jobs in the news business than any blog phenom. I’ve said this to him over dinner.

In one oft-quoted study, CraigsList eliminated $65 million in newspaper classified revenue in one market alone: San Francisco. He didn’t shift it from the papers to his pocket. He destroyed it, burned it up — gone — as consumers got a new deal. I say that with no judgment: Let the market decide. And, in fact, I’ve also said — and said to Craig — that I believe he and Monster and company are only waystations to a different future, a distributed future when these buyers and sellers won’t need to come to a centralized marketplace but, instead, will sit out there, anywhere, on the internet waiting to be found by some specialized successors to Google that put them together (with, perhaps, no revenue at all). See this chart on Craigslist showing pageviews of the major job sites and know that there’s another colored line — called distributed — that hasn’t even shown up yet.

craiggraph.png

Now add to this the factors we know: declining print circulation… increasing competition from the internet and from new, free print products… declining viewership of network news…

I gave my blogboy presentation to a bunch of strategic guys at a certain major mass media company (not my employer’s) the other day and said that the mass market was dead, to be replaced by the mass of niches, and the young MBAs in the room screeched as if I’d goosed them. Fine, I said, imagine that things won’t change and others will come along and eat you up bit by bit. You’ll still be there, but you’ll have new competitors and your growth will be gone.

The business of news is changing and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that. And many in the business fret about how we are going to be able to support quality journalism; it’s a real worry.

But — now, at long last, here’s my point — citizens’ media and other innovations may not be the threat but one of the solutions:

1. You’ve heard me say before that citizens’ media may be a new source of news, information, and viewpoints that established media cannot afford to gather on their own. That’s the idea behind hyperlocal citizens’ media. And the hope behind it is that it opens up a new opportunities to attrack new audiences and advertisers. This doesn’t replace existing jobs; it expands existing coverage and, if it works, helps support existing operations — though that’s all still quite unproven.

2. Online provides a means of diversification for big media. That’s what the Marketwatch deal meant for Dow Jones: a way to get more ad-supported traffic and less-expensive content and audience. That’s what the About.com deal means for The New York Times: a way to get search and cost-per-click advertising that is going, instead, to Google now and a way to expand into distributed networks of niche content. If these deals work, they, too, help support existing operations.

3. Citizens’ media and online tools show the way to much, much cheaper content creation. Note my silly blogcasts for MSNBC last week: a $100 camera and a $40/month internet connection and I was broadcasting to the world. Video, audio, and text tools show how to create content at a far lower cost. This does, indeed, affect jobs — but restructuring has come to every other industry, why not content? If we put less money into commodity content and into production hoo-has that don’t really matter, then we can maintain budgets to build unique and valuable content.

At the same time, all the new competitors of online do what new competion always does: wake up the old, established players and enliven the good ones and kill the bad ones. That, too is good.

The news business is unquestionably changing. But it’s not necessarily for the worse. There are more news outlets; I believe that in aggregate, people will consume news more; and there are new efficiencies and new opportunities. It may not be an easy road to get there, that’s all.

4 responses to “What’s really changing the news biz”

  1. David Foster Avatar

    Do any of these “young MBAs” read the business literature, or did their education stop when they graduated? If want to understand what’s going on with blogs and MSM, I’d recommend Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Solution” which talks about the influence of disruptive technologies in many industries. Although he doesn’t talk about blogs, the extrapolation seems pretty clear.

  2. Craig Newmark Avatar

    Hey, I think we agree fairly completely.
    See you later this week at the Nieman/Harvard thing, I need to learn a lot, then do something, and personally get outta the way.
    Craig

  3. lrh Avatar

    The MSM has been steadily losing market share (the share of the marketing dollar earmarked for advertising media) for 20 years. The reason: the MSM has invested next to nothing to learn out how to get more results for their client’s dollar.
    Now that they are losing the only hold they had (information that gets the public’s attention) they know that clients will be free to defect at even greater rates.

  4. David Bennett Avatar
    David Bennett

    The “economics” of the situation are exceedingly complex. But I would note that Craiglist also creates a lot of wealth or at least economic activity. Transactions that would not otherwise occur do occur because the service is free and as it’s readership extends the quality of service or at number of people it reaches increases. For that percentage of transactions that would have gone elsewhere the money doesn’t dissapear, it goes into people’s pockets.
    Overall the net is having this effect. In a year I probably consume resources that could have cost thousands to buy, I get them directly and easily, they include customized advice for experts who vounteer on various groups (let’s not forget the revolutionary value of these just because blogs are big) and to have these resources arranged so that I could so easily get at them would have once required an infrastructure costing millions, once availible only to corporations, government, large institutions and the very rich.
    I suspect people need to start appreciating this value and be ready to pay for content. But how is it be organized? “MSM” may have to bundle their publications so a subscriptions get’s access to many, new forms of markets will emerge. Certainly papers which do have a strong local niche are in the position to stake out territory in local markets.
    Overall however the net does in many respects create the closest equivalent we’ve had to “perfect markets.” Entry is easy, something resembling total information is theoretically availible and will improve, economies of scale are easily applied and the capacity to create one’s own “money” is a part of the process.
    Some of this is already occuring and is semi formal, for example various possessions in some online games are sold for real money. Some of it is social and involves the return of traditional economic systems where social relationships were tied to value. For purposes of self valuing or in sorts of barters people offer information and services. Attempts at making formal mechanisms for mapping transactions and contributions are occuring making this a true form of electronic currency.
    So lots and lots of economic niches are going to be upset. We do need some sort of “safety net,” my argument would be not welfare, but money used to employ the contributions of displaced “knowledge workers.”