Not to be missed: Alan Mutter's superb evaluation of the Cablevision deal for Newsday—and how it compares to Rupert Murdoch's offer. As Alan suggested in an earlier post this week, it wouldn't be surprising if Murdoch winds up with Newsday in a year or so after Cablevision runs headfirst into reality.
When I took a temporary gig as VP-Editorial at Philly.com a few months ago, I wrote that I probably wouldn't be able to say much in this blog about what we were doing while we rethought the site. Well, now I can: We launched the new version of Philly.com this weekend, and I think we've broken some important new ground in what it means to be a newspaper Web site.
To start with, the new Philly.com doesn't look like most other news Web sites. It doesn't have an endless collection of text links on the home page. Instead, it's got a clean, elegant design (by the good folks at the Philadelphia office of Avenue A/Razorfish) that highlights important content and is designed to move readers deeper into the site to find more. It makes very strong use of photos and video, in addition to text. It uses photo-illustrations of Philadelphia landmarks at the top of most pages so that there's no question that you're on a site about Philadelphia. In short, the new Philly.com has a strong personality and identity—unlike most newspaper sites, which generally lack local identity.
But those are just the cosmetics. Philly.com also tries to rethink what it is to be a newspaper site. Yes, the excellent content of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News is front and center. But the site is not just about news. It's also full of guidance to living and visiting in the Philadelphia region, including events calendar searches on every page, to help readers find out what's going on around town besides what's in that day's news.
More importantly, Philly.com finally breaks free of being a one-way lecture to the audience. It's bristling with calls to action for reader participation, in comments, discussions, user-submitted reviews, photo and video uploading and other user-generated content. Highlights of that reader content are displayed on just about every page, so that visitors are invited to talk amongst themselves about what's on the site and what's going on around them. I don't think any news site as gone this far in encouraging reader involvement. Underlying this is an industrial-strength comment-management system that minimizes the amount of work the staff has to do to police all of this user interaction.
On top of that we've got dozens of reporter and columnist blogs, a growing number of video elements and shows, ubiquitous horizontal navigation to keep readers moving around the site, some cool tools from Aggregate Knowledge to help readers see what others like them are interested in, and much more.
And this is really only the beginning. As with any redesign and relaunch there were a few things that didn't make the deadline, most notably some social features, which will be phased in over the next few months. Philly.com will continue to grow and improve, but it's already light years ahead of where it was before this redesign. (For a glimpse at what it used to look like, see the screen-grab at left. The change is really dramatic.)
There are a number of people who deserve great credit for the new site, starting with Philadelphia Media Holdings CEO Brian Tierney and Philly.com President Eric Grilly, who have strong ambitions for what the site can be and how it has to move from simply being a "newspaper site;" the aforementioned Avenue A/Razorfish, which delivered a great design (further polished by Jill Hoover and Jeff Aiken); Jennifer Musser-Metz, who did an incredible job project-managing the design and launch process; and the talented and hard-working production and tech teams at Philly.com, who brought it all together and will keep the site evolving and growing over the next weeks and months.
As you can tell, I'm very proud of what's been accomplished with the new Philly.com, and I'll be excited to see it get even better in the future. We're defining what makes a great newspaper site. Up next: Philly.com does hyperlocal. Watch this space.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (and again): Managing comments on newspaper Web sites isn't exactly rocket science. But newspapers seem to keep thinking that it is.
Today's hapless example: Norwich (Conn.) Bulletin, which turned on comments and discovered that, HORRORS, contributors were posting horrible things (even on wedding announcements, which is actually pretty funny). So what did The Bulletin do? It turned the comments off—while The Day, in neighboring New London convened a public forum about online comments, replete with various experts and editors (not necessarily the same thing), along with an earnest followup story in the paper that talks about "the relatively new and challenging world of online reader comments."
Relatively new world? Really? Maybe to The Day and the Bulletin. But there have been online comments for more than two decades now, beginning at places like The Well, Compuserve and AOL, and advancing through too many online forums to mention—some of them even run by newspapers. There's nothing new about comments. The only thing new is the newbies in the newspaper business that don't do their homework before turning them on.
What those veteran sites have learned—which papers like The Bulletin only seem to bother to find out through trial and error—is that fully anonymous, ungoverned comments turn into chaos. Surprise!
Let us count the ways—and the ways it could have been prevented: The Bulletin said it had trouble with profanity (try a profanity filter), "irrelevant ranting" (try registration and moderation) and "vitriol" (see previous recommendations). Yep, that's pretty much the usual list of complaints. And they all could have been avoided from the jump. (I'll link to my previous post on this again.)
To repeat: This isn't rocket science, and it's hardly a new field. The Bulletin says it is going to relaunch its comments with user registration and staff moderation (the latter is probably unnecessary if registration and user-policing are used); no word about a profanity filter (highly recommended). And like other newspapers before it who have taken these steps, The Bulletin will discover that the comments aren't as difficult as they first appear. Gee—maybe The Bulletin's editors could have avoided these problems if they'd just done a little research first.
The New York Times has an interesting story about International Data Group, the tech industry trade magazine publisher, which is transitioning its print magazines to a Web-only model. Results: losses turn to profits, online ad revenue outstrips print, and revenue is growing 10 percent a year. Surprise!
Stewart Alsop, the journalist-turned-VC who once edited IDG's flagship, InfoWorld, gets the kicker quote: “What’s happening at IDG is a fairly accurate map for every other publishing organization. Get over it, it’s going to happen.”
I'm not sure why this hasn't gotten more industry media attention (or maybe I've been so busy I've missed it), but the eBay-craigslist relationship has finally hit a bad patch.
This fracas has been fairly predictable since eBay purchased 28.4 percent of craigslist in 2004, reportedly from a former employee (though eBay now hints that it bought the shares directly from the company). Everybody involved talked about how amicable and friendly it all was, but you had to wonder how long it would take before tensions bubbled up between the auction giant and the classifieds behemoth.
Craigslist is run essentially as a cooperative, with little focus on profit or stockholder value. At some point, there had to be a flashpoint with a big, publicly owned investor like eBay, which would want to see some return on its investment (the price was never disclosed, but it was said to be a few million dollars; in theory, it's now worth hundreds of millions, at least). Capitalism vs. communism—it never ends happily.
There were a couple of signs of problems in the relationship over the years, most notably eBay's promotion of its own classifieds site (and craigslist competitor), Kijiji. But now, eBay has filed suit (PDF) in Delaware alleging that craigslist has diluted eBay's share in the company by issuing new stock. Craigslist, in turn, allegedly tried to adopt a "poison pill" provision to head off an eBay takeover, and has been trying to buy back eBay's stake.
Game on.
“The recent actions by the craigslist directors have disadvantaged eBay and its investment in craigslist,” eBay General Counsel Michael Jacobson said in a written statement. EBay's Delaware complaint--with some key numbers and details oddly redacted--argues that craigslist's actions "robbed eBay of valuable economic and non-economic rights" and accuses founder/namesake Craig Newmark and CEO Jim Buckmaster of breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Counters craigslist, on its blog: “Sadly, we have an uncomfortably conflicted shareholder in our midst, one that is obsessed with dominating online classifieds for the purpose of maximizing its own profits.”
"Dominating online classifieds?" Hmmm. Who does that sound like? Newspapers, devastated by craigslist, should be watching this legal battle closely. Though it may be too late--this is a case of two big players fighting over a business newspapers wish they still had. The outcome could be a change in ownership structure and control at craigslist. It would be interesting to see how different a company craigslist would be if it had to focus more on the bottom line.
Oh, and memo to newspaper executives: The company's name is craigslist (lowercase), not Craig's List. It's comical how many newspaper company presentations get that wrong. If you don't even know the proper name of one of your biggest competitors...
There are glimpses of the past and future of the newspaper industry in today's media headlines.
The past: Yet another six-month period of circulation declines, averaging 3.5 percent daily and 4.5 percent Sundays among the nation's top papers, including some real whoppers like a 9.3 percent drop in The New York Times' Sunday circulation. Even people I know who cancel daily newspapers say they'll hang on to the Sunday Times; maybe not so much.
But a few posts away on Romenesko today is a glimpse of the future—or at least one popular future. Today's the day that the Capital Times, in Madison, Wisc., switches to essentially all-online publication, a move it announced a couple months back.
The Cap Times isn't a major newspaper by any stretch, but it's taking the lead in a transition I suspect we'll see more of in the next (very) few years. (In some ways, it's already underway overseas.) Those ongoing declines in circulation and revenue are going to force print newspapers to come to grips with their future, and in many cases, that future will be online. And only online.
More reading: Ken Doctor has a good take on the circulation numbers and what they portend.
For years, Rupert Murdoch has done battle with The New York Times using the very imperfect weapon that is the New York Post—a classic scrappy tabloid, provocative and fun to read, but no match for the Gray Lady in clout, circulation or ad revenue.
Now, however, Murdoch has re-armed, and the Times should be afraid. Very afraid.
Murdoch's near-deal to buy Newsday for $580 million means that the Australian-turned-American press baron has the Times surrounded and hemmed in in a manner that any military strategist would appreciate.
Assuming the Newsday deal goes through, here's how Murdoch threatens the Times:
• From below, and in New York City, with the New York Post.
• From the side, in the Long Island suburbs—with potential to move elsewhere—with Newsday. Imagine Murdoch dusting off the old New York Newsday plan and giving The Times a real run for its money as the quality local newspaper in New York. Or what if Murdoch decided to expand Newsday beyond L.I. 'burbs and takes it into affluent Connecticut, New Jersey or Westchester, encircling The Times in markets in which it now has hegemony?
• From above, with top-notch financial and national coverage—and national distribution and influence—with The Wall Street Journal. You think the Journal's recent changes and expansion into broader coverage, especially of politics, is designed to increase it appeal to its core business audience? Of course not. It's a direct strike at The Times' strength as the only serious national newspaper.
• Bonus: Murdoch owns a couple of New York City TV stations, as well.
Put all those pieces together, as the savvy Murdoch is doing, and voila, The Times is surrounded. Everywhere it turns, it will see Rupert Murdoch. Checkmate
It's a fascinating scenario, and it still could be derailed by antitrust concerns (doubtful, really) or further deterioration in the advertising market. But if he can get Newsday, Murdoch will have the final weapon for a pincers attack on the nation's premier newspaper, in both its home and national markets.
And at that point, the end game for The Times is....what? Wow, suddenly the unthinkable, selling out to Murdoch, might be the inevitable outcome. This multi-front newspaper war is going to be interesting to watch.
More reading: Veteran media analyst Lauren Rich Fine has a slightly different take on what Murdoch is up to.
And another interesting opinion, from Alan Mutter, who believes the real threat is to the New York Daily News.
In professional sports, the kiss of death for a coach or manager going through a losing streak is when the team owner or general manager comes out with a rah-rah vote of confidence for the beleaguered leader. Phrases like "Joe will always be our manager" or "We have full confidence in Jim" generally presage Joe or Jim's firing, usually within a few days.
And with that preamble, I bring you today's votes of confidence in two big names in the newspaper business: "This company is not for sale," declares New York Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger. "Don't worry--McClatchy is decidedly not going bankrupt," proclaims McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt.
OK. We believe you. For now.
Seen the latest numbers from the newspaper companies? They're pretty heinous. Gannett: Revenue down 10.3 percent overall in the first quarter, with real estate, job and auto classifieds tumbling 26.3 percent, 24.2 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively (that's an 18 percent overall drop in classifieds). The New York Times Co.: Revenue down 6.4 percent in the first quarter; classifieds down 22.6 percent.
Those are big drops, especially in classifieds. Not surprising, but large nonetheless. We all can agree there's a serious problem in the newspaper industry—and it will get worse in the second quarter as the economy worsens—but even more disturbing is industry executives' seeming inability to do anything about it.
Sure, you can argue that there are structural and economic forces beyond the industry's control that are causing these scary declines, but if you really want to get scared, check out this story from Poynter.org, in which four publishers on a panel at last week's industry conference in Washington are asked for an example of radical ideas they've heard recently to transform the business. The response? Crickets, basically. Silence. Well, there was one half-hearted answer about getting newly placed ads into the paper quickly. Oh yeah, that's going to move the needle. Sheesh. That's what passes for big thinking these days?
Look in the mirror, newspaper execs. One of the big problems is you. You're surrounded by dramatic, earth-shattering industry change, your core numbers are dropping by double digits, and you're all still working off the same old, boring playbook. Try something new, people. Roll out some groundbreaking new products, target some attractive audiences, experiment with new technologies, try involving the readers more in content creation. Take a chance, for crying out loud. Roll the dice. It really can't be worse than what's already happening. And who knows--it might work even better!
Maybet there's a subliminal message in the Pulitzer judges' failure to pick a winner for editorial writing. It's probably unintentional, but perhaps the conclusion that can be drawn is that the unsigned newspaper editorial simply has become an anachronism.
Newspaper editorials made some sense decades ago when papers were run by proprietor/publishers who wanted to advance their personal causes, or when readers had far fewer voices of opinion to help them shape their own views.
But today, most newspapers are corporate-owned and have no proprietary axes to grind, and there's no shortage of opinions for readers to choose from—courtesy of columnists, blogs, TV's talking heads, talk radio, etc. Hell, we're drowning in opinions. In that atmosphere, the stately unsigned newspaper editorial seems superfluous, no matter how well-executed. Ironically, in an era when there seems to be an appetite for opinion, personality-free newspaper editorials seem quaint—and unnecessary.
Moreover, editorials cause problems for the rest of the newspaper. You can explain the separation of editorial opinion-makers from news reporting until you're blue in the face, but readers still believe that the paper's editorial stance drives news coverage (that itself is a throwback to the proprietor/publisher era, when it indeed was true). Even where that separation is most structurally distinct, at the nation's largest papers, there is consistent reader confusion. It's even worse, no doubt, at smaller papers where the line between the editorial page and the news operation is more blurred.
This confusion is most apparent in an election year, when newspaper editorial pages take it upon themselves to endorse candidates—another unfortunate anachronism. It's hard for the average reader to believe that a paper that has endorsed candidate A is capable of objectively covering candidate B. That's just human nature. It's bad enough that critics of mainstream media see bias in every sentence of every story; layering editorial opinion on top of that is just asking for trouble.
There are a handful of papers that have done away with institutionalized editorials—USA Today is perhaps the most notable to eschew them—but it's time for all papers to look hard at this dinosaur. In a time of stringent cost-cutting, the editorial board and its unsigned opinions may be an unaffordable luxury (and I'm not even sure luxury is the right word, for all the damage editorials do to credibility). In a few years, maybe the Pulitzer for editorial writing will finally go the way of this editorial dodo.
Recent Comments