Wall Street Journal calls hyperlocal effort a "flop"

There is this new thing called the internets.

 

Ace, face it. You're stuck. (Full disclosure for those who may not know, but I work for ESPN.com and we have more editors than most daily papers I've heard off. Of course, we publish 20 times the volume).

Generalizations to follow.

So as newspapers, you have admitted you are not experts at international news, leaving that to the NYT, Washington Post, and a few mags. Then you admitted you're not experts on national news, leaving that to essentially the same players. Then all but say one paper in the state cuts back and admits you're not experts on state news. Now you want me to BUY a product written in part by Joe The Mechanic and you want me to believe you are experts on local news?

What a joke.

 

You're too late to the game. Most of the railroads have been built. Now the question is who can buy the most track?

 

Again. I am talking about adding content online and trying to develop a community of readers. Not shrinking back from anything else papers and newspaper websites are doing.

By the way, I have just declared ESPN.com a failed experiment. It's official. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

Yeah, the internets is tough.

 

OK, trying to get back on topic here.

Most newspapers have not invested adequately in the internet because they have never seen the profit in it.

So now, a full 10 years late, the internet will be the salvation? When your "brand" (yes, I hate the word, but it is appropriate) means nothing to anyone under 30? Like I said, the track's been built (or is being built) by other entities in nearly every market. New track over the same ground is twice as expensive. Best of luck getting ownership to sign off on that if they think there is ANY alternative.

 

You are correct in your top statements, but local news seems to be the only track that really hasn't been laid. So that's the obvious place for newspapers focus.

 

This article should be of particular interest to Gannett's Information Center folks, a concept pushed by the CEO. The newspaper division has been focused on this approach for more than two years, and if the big G is still committed to the effort, why didn't they make a play for Curley and Co.?

 

Hyperlocal, it seems to me, would – at its best – be the stick with which the Loudoun Times-Mirror, say, would hit the WashPo over the head with in their neighborhood.

Big newspapers tried this with "zoned editions," then basically let them wither and die by not giving them adequate institutional backing. Sounds like hyperlocal is getting the same shoddy treatment.

 

Zoned editions seldom did more than save newsprint and give readers and incomplete product. Very few papers got many zoned ads, most were ROP. If you live a mile or two from the county line, do you not care what happens across that invisible line? Even though you may shop there, maybe go to church there, maybe like that little downtown 10 miles away in the next county better than the one five miles away in your county?

I have the same problem with hyperlocal. I think it's doomed not because newspapers aren't throwing enough money at it, but because it's a flawed concept that ignores the way people really live. I live a quarter-mile from the next county and before we moved here, I lived within a 10-minute drive of four counties. County lines were completely meaningless and yet newspapers treat them as if they're a Berlin Wall.

 

funny that the post hired this guy after he created the KU sports site. whoever hired him is a moron if he thought people would give a shit about loudon county news (or sports, for that matter) with the same passion they would show for a big 12 sports web site.

 

I don't think "hyperlocal" must inherently mean "this county but not that county." The focus can be on subjects rather than invisible geographic lines (local moms, local tourism/visitor's guides, local golf, local health care, etc.). Of course, Gannett has made a push into the moms sites; I'm not sure how lucrative it's been. For that matter, I'm not sure how lucrative this LoudonExtra site has been, since that seemingly important information is absent from the WSJ article.