How would you save this industry?

The industry itself won't die, but it will shrink. How dramatically it shrinks depends on how many publishers are willing to ride out the recession/depression, accepting smaller profits or actually losing money, while adapting to the new age.
(In an attempt to head off the obvious, call it the George Costanza Theory.)
The papers that are doing the most hacking away at newsroom budgets will, ironically enough, probably the first to die since they will be trying to modernize and expand their scope with insufficient staff. Readers are, and never have been, as dumb as we sometimes treat them; they know half-assed when they see it.
Papers that hang in there, keeping staffs intact and successfully converging print and online, will go on. They'll never return to the days when the pressess were money machines, but they'll go on.

 

It's funny to me to watch the whole industry going under and the jackoffs most responsible for it be utterly baffled by it. It's sad, yet somewhat funny, watching as they slash newsroom employee after newsroom employee and kill the quality, and then blame sagging sales on "THE INTERNET." As if the fuckin' newspaper isn't on the Internet, too.

Look, fact is, there's one reason this industry is failing, and it doesn't have anything to do with people being unwilling to read the newspaper (either hardcopy or online). We're failing because our management sucks balls. Pretty much every industry in the world has learned how to adapt their business to the Internet. Newspapers, though, which allegedly employee the best and brightest, are still trying to figure it out. (I have a daily reminder of that each day as I visit our paper's online site, which, honest to God, could double as a how-not-to guide for other papers.)

Most papers still don't have a clear ad sales plan for the Internet. They still don't know how to maximize those sales. And they haven't yet come up with a plan for effectively displaying the product online.

On top of that, even online, most newspapers are still attempting to be THE SOURCE for info. Why? Why not be "the source" for some stuff and the conduit for others? Why not provide a shitload of links? Why not be the place readers can count on to at least find the story? Do you know how simple that is -- to have someone linking the hot stories of the day?

As for the newsroom itself, this idea that people aren't reading anymore is ridiculous. Have you strolled through a line at the grocery store lately? Have you seen the number of gossip mags? People are reading. They're just not reading the same things they used to -- or the things we're used to giving them. Guess who has to change? If it takes mixing in stories about Britney Spears' crotch or Lindsey Lohan's AA meeting to keep the place afloat, I'm on board.

The one drum I've been beating for the last year has been marketing of people. There are just a few newspapers that do this and even fewer that do it well. But it's basically the local TV tactic -- promote yourself. If newspapers, especially the small to mid-range papers, would do a better job marketing their writers/columnists, it would benefit all involved. The writer would feel more appreciated, the public would connect and the paper could maybe hold onto the guy for a bit longer. If there's one thing the ever-growing world of blogs and personal info sites should teach us, it's that readers like a personal connection. Have some chats. Put the guy's face and name on a billboard or in some ads. Run a few TV/radio spots promoting the guy. Yes, it goes against all of the "you're not a part of the story" lessons we all received in school. But if it keeps us employed, who gives a shit?

We've spent a long time trying to save this business while still holding onto all of the old rules, beliefs and mindsets. It should be clear that that's not gonna work.

 

What Dog said about marketing of people is right on. And then, to add to that, once you've marketed your writers and your paper/website, stop giving it away for free.

In what bizarro world is there a business model that says "Expect people to pay for your product while giving it away for free"?

Give 'em the first 3-5 paragraphs of every story online. Then explain their either have to buy the paper or subscribe to the website to read the rest of it. If they don't, so be it. But you get nothing by giving them all of it for free.

 

That's the first reasonable solution I've heard to the problem newspapers created by giving the online stories away for free. Sure people will be pissed at first that something that was free is now gone, but they'll get over it eventually.

 

Ownership change.

 

Why not change the dynamics so the content is paid for by ads, just like radio?
I think that's a win-win, because it will keep readership high and the advertisers won't like to pay more but they will like knowing more people are seeing their ads.

 

As in more local owners and less national chains?

 

You just have to make stuff relevant. This hyper-local stuff isn't good - you need a paper that people are going to want to pay to read in the morning. They don't need a four-page sports section; they should have a 12-, 16-, 20-, hell, a 24-page section for each department to open up, learn everything there is to learn and keep with them throughout the day.

That's going to require a larger staff - something we don't see anymore. But to me, a compendium of knowledge every morning, where someone can see something on TV for four seconds as they walk by it on their way out to work and then turn to the paper to learn about it when they arrive, is what people need. Does that mean 12 inches on the Class A vs. Class A girls swim meet? No, but it means that they should be getting at least six on each professional game, several inches on colleges of local interest and other news stories here and there.

In essence, if you combine the top headlines on the individual league tabs on SI.com, ESPN.com, FoxSports.com, etc. and throw all those stories in there, then throw in the local stuff that the staff can handle - along with the ever-important features and breaking news ... that's what people want to see.

 

Yes.

 

The sad answer to this question...

We can't...

 

We need to gradually -- and I mean very gradually -- start making our Web sites subscription-based to get some income.

I think ESPN is doing it right. Have plenty of free stuff, and some Insider subscription stuff. Slowly slink the content toward the Insider side until people are willing to pay something for what they're reading online.

Giving our product away for free on the Internet won't help our print product. Period. But at the same time, we need the Internet with the way society is heading.