BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

News without newspapers?

10 comments on News without newspapers?

News without newspapers?

: Doc Searls comes out with on-the-spot insights that abstract and summarize big trends with the clarity a new pair of glasses brings and he does it with the ease and frequency with which Howard Stern farts.

At the Syndicate conference this week, I was standing next to Doc and a fellow media executive who was saying what all us media executives say all the time: We need to find the business models that will support quality journalism.

Without missing a beat, Doc says, “You need to come up with business models that support news without newspapers.”

Exactly. You needn’t take that as a literal prediction — though some will — to find truth and value in that. We need to look at a world in which support from classified, retail, and national advertising will leak or pour out and in which the audience goes wherever it wants to go.

We need to rethink about newsrooms as news-gathering (not just news-creating) operations that bring together the community’s news and share it wherever, however, and whenever the community wants. And, yes, we need to think of new business models to support this.

10 responses to “News without newspapers?”

  1. Ryan Avatar
    Ryan

    Isn’t this what NowPublic.com is trying to do?

  2. JennyD Avatar
    JennyD

    News is now a commodity. It’s available all the time, from lots of sources. That’s why the old business models are struggling; they aren’t designed for a commodity business.
    I’ve been trying to think of other business that have gone from specialty to commodity. The chemical industry is one. You might say that the US auto industry is another. Think of it as an industry where suppliers have gone from few to numerous, where the amount and similarity of products has increased.
    So what businesses do is try to differentiate their products. Or try to develop technological improvements to make their products less of a commodity.
    These things are happening all over the place in media. Why are news executives unable to see this?

  3. Alex Rowland Avatar
    Alex Rowland

    Both Jenny and Ryan are right. News isn’t going to be reported by the “professionals,” it’ll be reported by whomever is closest to the action that warrants attention. Where news organizations can add value is in aggregating stories that are interesting to specific individuals, not the population as a whole. This is a very valuable service and one that people will either pay for, either in cash or their time and attention (that can be monetized through equally targeted advertising). The business model is there, it just requires the abandonment of the existing model. That’s never easy to hear.

  4. Tom Chadwell Avatar
    Tom Chadwell

    The model I don’t see yet is the one that supports ‘hard’ news gathering and reporting. The requirement for an organization dispersed geographically still exists, and it still requires funding.
    Without face-to-face, person-to-person pressers and questioning, we could all too easily be wagged by the tail.

  5. Phil Hodgen Avatar
    Phil Hodgen

    Newspapers may be dead anyway, no matter what happens in the rest of the news world. For a hint that this might be true, you need only go to Washington DC to see the ongoing construction of the the mausoleum to the news industry, the Newseum.
    I saw the hole in the ground last weekend while running, and it immediately brought to mind memories of C. Northcote Parkinson, who said (I’m paraphrasing from dim memory now) that when a business builds the perfect headquarters it is an immutable sign that the business is in terminal decay. Example: the Sears Tower in Chicago. Where is Sears now? I must remember to borrow from my dad the next time I’m at his house. Funny, funny book.

  6. laurence haughton Avatar
    laurence haughton

    JennyD says “So what businesses do [to deal with the changes newspapers are facing] is try to differentiate their products.” Good point.
    Then she wonders “Why are news executives unable to see this?”
    IMO, they see it but refuse to acknowledge it. They’re not blind. They’re just mad that they have no choice but to reinvent their business model. It was cozy to have the money rolling in while they pontificated. Now they have to figure out how to find, keep, and grow clients who find value in their products.
    And if you look to the bloggers who are scribbling so much on this subject you’ll find they too refuse to see the handwriting on the wall.
    Redesigning the news business means redesigning the business part as well.

  7. laurence haughton Avatar
    laurence haughton

    Apologies
    My comments about bloggers blindness should have read “And if you look to the bloggers who are scribbling so much on this subject (present company excluded) you’ll find they too refuse to see the handwriting on the wall.”
    Sorry Jeff.

  8. Old Grouch Avatar
    Old Grouch

    Hey Jeff, do you recall who built those elevators that Doc blogged about?
    I want to short that company’s stock.

  9. Don Surber Avatar
    Don Surber

    News is now a commodity
    When wasn’t it. Good newspapers survived radio — Movietone — TV — cable news — the Internet.
    Good newspapers.
    Unfortunately, there is a shortage of good newspapers and too many poseurs

  10. Doc Searls Avatar
    Doc Searls

    I think I also said the Times was looking forward to “the end of print.”
    The problem is complex, but the long-term result is the same. Newspapers are expensive to produce, and waste trees by the dumpload. But publishers need them to carry the advertising that brings most of the income. Problem is, most advertising is also wasted. Right now, certain product categories, such as automobiles, believe they need to advertise. Take away car advertising, and you damn near kill both newspapers and commercial TV.
    But what happens when the car makers finally *do* decide (as many will) that there are better ways to attract and keep customers? Newspapers will need to find other ways to make money. Not easy.
    So I don’t have the answer there.
    I do know, however, that it’s flat-out dumb of the New York Times to give away online what it charges for in the daily paper, and to charge for what’s worth nothing the moment the next day’s paper comes out.
    If the entirety of the Times’ archives are worth only $49.95/year… well damn: why not give it away for free, let Google find it all, and finally obtain the incalculable increase in authority that will result when old Times items show up in search results, and when countless posts and essays start pointing to them?
    It makes sense for the Times will to experiment with “paid content.” But why not start with what people are already willing to pay for in a daily paper?
    Shoot, guys, you’re aldready doing your best to say the daily paper is worth zero if it’s online. Stop that, and offer free archives in trade. You might lose $1 million /year in revenues (enough to buy a small house in Scarsdale), but you might gain far more in sales of the daily paper. Online as well as off.