It's Not the News. It's the Packaging

Amid the news industry's crisis and the attendant fingerpointing over the causes, there is seemingly endless discussion these days of the pros and cons of things like micropayments, pay walls, aggregators, Google and the like. 

"We're being ripped off by Google and the aggregators," say the traditionalists. "We need to find some way to make people pay for our journalism. Otherwise we can't support newsrooms full of reporters and great investigative projects."

"Google is not the enemy—it's driving traffic to news," say the modernists (including me). "You can't put the genie back in the bottle and get people to pay for news. There's too much competition from free sources."

But maybe we're all looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope—or rather, the microscope. Maybe there is something in the news business that people might want to pay for. It's just not what some of the pay-proponents think it is. Maybe—maybe—the thing you can charge for is the package the news comes in, not the specific news items themselves.

Let me explain.

The focus of the pro-payment crowd seems to be coalescing on getting people to pay for news by the story. They generally concede (thank God) that so much news is commoditized that it's all but impossible to slap a pay wall on an entire news site. But maybe it's possible, they hope and pray, that people will buy news by the bite, paying to read particular stories and even—in some of the wildest fantasies—paying to forward those stories to their friends (good luck with that).

But you know what? Nobody's ever bought news by the story. This isn't iTunes, as Clay Shirky and others have pointed out, where you buy something you keep and want to enjoy over and over. News is ephemeral, and the sell-by date is generally measured in hours. Nobody's going to keep a copy of even the best news story, just for posterity (except maybe the reporter's mother). As Jack Shafer points out, there are so many ways to evade a subscription wall—many of them with rich traditions in journalism—that it will be impossible to maintain the exclusivity needed to make such a scheme work.

What people do buy are packages of news, often supported by other, non-news content. Journalists don't always like to think about this, but the reasons for subscribing to a newspaper often are as much about the comics, the crosswords and the ads as they are about the news itself. That's what people plunk down their quarters for: the package, not the story. News collected in a convenient, easy-to-use form that adds value.

So maybe we need to figure out how to replicate those traditional collections of news by creating compelling online packages that people will want to pay for. When it's so easy to find free news all over the Web, the advantage may be in bringing it together in an efficient, attractive, easy-to-digest form, suiting the readers' needs and desires, to create something of value that they might even want to, gasp, pay for.

This may look nothing like a traditional newspaper package, of course—comics and crosswords are just as widely and freely available on the Web as news, after all. But it may take the form of highly targeted, finely crafted packages of news in which readers can find value in the whole rather than the sum of the parts (to coin a phrase). 

As Shafer also points out, there's a long tradition of this: magazines like Time and Readers Digest were valuable because they provided quick, comprehensive reads on the news of the day, drawn from multiple sources. Hell, that's what newspapers are at their core: somebody choosing the best stuff a reader might want to see about what's going on around them.

On the Web, of course, this is known as aggregation, something that not enough news sites do on a regular basis. It's the notion that editors can act as curators and pick good stuff from a wide variety of sources for their readers. It's the journalist acting not necessarily as an investigator, but as an expert on a subject. There's value in that, though it's not often fully appreciated by many journalists. And it may provide a business model that could subsidize the investigative part of news.

On reflection, such packaging actually may be the reason why one of the most celebrated online journalism subscription models is a success: The content of the Wall Street Journal's Web site really isn't all that unique—there's good business content all over the Web these days. But it's a well put-together, well-edited, yes, well-packaged site that provides readers a one-stop source for up-to-the-minute business news. Is that packaging worth as much as $150 a year? Several hundred thousand people seem to think so. (Yes, it's imperfect, and yes, many WSJ.com subscribers write off their subscriptions, etc., etc. But the more I think about why I pay for WSJ.com, the more I come back to its efficient packaging. The Journal seems to have figured this out, too: It's making noises about charging a premium for packages of niche content.)

Oddly, journalists have an excellent (free) protoype of what I'm talking about right at their fingertips. I'd imagine that just about everybody who regularly reads this blog is a frequent reader of Jim Romenesko's indispensable daily digest of media news stories on the Poynter site. But Romensko produces essentially zero original content on his page. He just digests the best media stories of the days and provides links to them. (Funny, nobody in the media ever seems to refer to Romenesko as a parasite, a la Google or Drudge.) That's the service he provides, and it's got value: Romenesko is a quick read on what's happening in the industry. 

Romenesko fans: Would you be willing to pay for Romenesko's service? Perhaps. It beats scouring the blogs and other sources he aggregates. This isn't paying for content—it's still free. But it would be paying for Jim's expertise. His curatorial abilities. That's a news service with value: it's all about the packaging.

Romenesko and WSJ.com are just a couple of examples of great news packaging on the Web. Thinking of those as models, there may well be subscription-based business opportunities out there for highly targeted, edited, aggregated products focused on hyperlocal news, sports teams, hobbies, industries, special interests, whatever, drawing from a myriad of otherwise free sources. Can you accomplish the same thing for free with an RSS reader or a canned Google news search? Yeah, maybe, though it might still be unfocused and inefficient. Can you rely on following a bunch of Twitter feeds to point you to interesting content? Only if you have a high tolerance for a lousy signal-to-noise ratio. 

But a well-thought-out, well-packaged, well-edited site on a specific topic? That has value, day in, day out, far more than any individual story ever could.

I'm still skeptical that people will pay for news, in most cases. But I've always thought there's a business in high-value, specialized information. Maybe high-quality, well-chosen collections of focused news fit that definition. Maybe, rather than paying for news, per se, people will be willing to pay for smart packages of it.

Comments

[J.A. Ginsburg]

Well put! I edit a small aggregator - http://TrackerNews.net - that focuses on health issues, humanitarian work and technology that supports both. It is a little unusual in that content is grouped for contextual relevance rather than by category and links include research, websites, even twitter "#" feeds, along with news stories. It's not as deadline-driven as most aggregators. In fact, TrackerNews doesn't cover breaking news terribly well at all, so links to sites that do it better are provided during major events. TrackerNews regularly recieves "thanks" from both sides: those whose stories and sites have been featured and those reading them. the value-added is the research that goes into putting these groups together. A Google search can get you started, but it often takes a lot more to ferret out the good stuff. TrackerNews is still very much an experiment-in-progress; the aggregator itself is part of a larger concept about cross-disciplinary awareness.

Also, one more point about packaging. I personally have a long deep love of newspapers. Years ago I curated an exhibit called "The Art of the Message" about the evolution of the modern newspaper as a graphic medium, using an rare rag edition archive of the Chicago Tribune as a case study. http://tinyurl.com/6bvm2x

Among many other features, including its aggregate experience, the printed paper offers a rare degree of privacy in this age of every-keystroke-analyzed. What may be seen as an advertising weakness, also has an intrinsic value. As far as I can tell, there has been no attempt to try to figure out how to monetize the packaging...

[Charles Batchelor]

Mark, I'm seeing several media firms moving in this direction. I've said for years adding context adds real value. (I even own the domain name AddContext, and I, oh, nevermind....)

I would add that each local newspaper has several different worthwhile markets that require different packages. But, heh! And each can attract different ads. For example, I'm working on creating a new park in my community right now. News articles on these efforts are of interest to 1) contractors, 2) area real estate investors, 2) the neighbors of the park, 3) other community-minded types, 4) government pros, 5) government anti-spending, 6) parents, 7) sports leagues, 8) people who want the money for something else, 9) etc. Same story, eight-plus packages. Some are low value. Others, very high value.

What I saw worthwhile coming out of the November NAA "crisis" meeting was the idea of media firms creating a portfolio of different products, or to use your term, a bunch of packages. A network. Maybe it's hard to get super-excited about offering a service such as WuduPlz to target ads to the parents of teens and pre-teens, but add a service such as that with 25 others packages (often using the same news) and, marketed around the brand of a respected core product, a media firm can dominate the high-value sectors of the local market.

But, yeah, most news will never be iTunes. Even my mother never saved any of the articles I wrote.

[RickWaghorn]

When it's so easy to find free news all over the Web, the advantage may be in bringing it together in an efficient, attractive, easy-to-digest form, suiting the readers' needs and desires, to create something of value that they might even want to, gasp, pay for...

Mark, are you not describing a mobile phone app here..?

[The Editorialiste]

Mark,

Great post. The kind of post one would pay for, no? (Your point is the very basis for consulting as a paid profession -- you curate advice for a specific audience.)

I agree completely. One is either the first or the last on a story, so why bother? Skip the rat race, consider analysis and make your site a destination, rather than a stopover.

(Oddly, newsweeklies haven't learned this lesson as quickly as one would think.)

We always have been curators. We don't own the news. The source always had it first, and now there's little stopping them from breaking it themselves -- so curating is even more important with consideration to the Internet.

And hey, a little design and PR to brand the whole thing won't hurt, either. How come journalists never look at ROI?

Best,
The Editorialiste.
http://editorialiste.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/editorialiste

[Jeff K]

Very very true. I've often thought that the Nytimes.com web site is a much better product than the paper itself. First of all, it emails me the stories every day that match my pre-configured interests. It even lets me choose authors that I like and sends me an email when the post a new story. That sort of packaging adds tremendous value to my news reading experience. One other thing you might think about is this: Instead of just hyper local or micro blogging, why not have an aggregator be just super-personal, like Amazon or Tivo? Why not have it digest the news that YOU seem to like to read or give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down and then present you with stories that match your interests? THAT would be the ultimate in value. Kind of like how Starbucks allows you to order a Grande 2% 3-pump Vanilla Decaf Latte.

[David Eedle]

Mark

This whole issue of context and packaging is a theme I've started to push with a number of people. We used to run a large subscription only niche content site network. A large portion of our content was not unique, it was readily available through other sources. People paid our subscription fees for:

Context - we placed individual items into an overall picture.

Convenience - we delivered in the format they wanted, when they wanted

Personalisation - we let them filter to suit their needs.

It led to very loyal subscribers (now heading towards 9+ years) and consequently a successful business.

David Eedle
http://www.NicheContentMillionaire.com

[Uprinting]

Excellent post! With the tons of information available online, it can get daunting. It really is all about personalization. Thanks!

[valvoci]

I couldn't agree with you more, Mark. At Newsbytes, we sold subscriptions based on the ability to keyword select your newsfeed from over 100 stories a day. From a Bulletin Board Service. We moved to the web in 1996. Subscribers paid because they got a great service that they could change on the fly, the content was good and delivered timely. Flash forward to today and many publishers think their content is so good it should be behind a wall. Not really. It's the combination of what makes the pub unique? Why does someone need to read/view/interact with you? And like another commenter mentioned, how many audiences do you need to reach? The task for those who work in paid content is to price it right. Yes the web wants to be free but my staff needs to eat!
Val Voci
voci.com/east
#valvoci

[Gab Goldenberg]

Speaking of packaging - this was a fascinating read ... but it
a) buried the lead
b) rambled.

IMHO, people will pay for quality news.

I wouldn't pay for the P.o.S. newspaper handed to me free in the subway bc the content is all wire stories + ads, and the wire content reads like it was written by a soulless monkey. It's 100% generic.

My family still subscribes to a print newspaper, and I get much greater satisfaction reading it than the metro paper. It's the difference between a full meal and swallowing a Hershey's kiss.

You can't just say "it's the package" without emphasizing that the usability of it all needs to be seamless. You need to consider that carefully. La Presse is trying to get people subscribing for $ to an online pseudo-PDF version of the print paper. The functionality blows, my mom couldn't figure it out, and she said she'd prefer to just have the paper.

IMHO, the path to saving newspapers is more journalism, not less. More soul, less wire crap. More research, less rehash.

p.s. If you'd like, I'd be interested in guest-posting here [free] on the topic.

[Conal]

Sure, I might pay an aggregator ("editor" in the old speak), but he has to have something to aggregate. Who pays the journalist who writes the story to which the aggregator links?