Does Philly Inq have an answer?

[bloggin]

From Romanesko:

August 7 memo to Philadelphia Inquirer staffers from managing editor Mike Leary

Colleagues – Beginning today, we are adopting an Inquirer first policy for our signature investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features, and reviews of all sorts. What that means is that we won't post those stories online until they're in print. We'll cooperate with philly.com, as we do now, in preparing extensive online packages to accompany our enterprising work. But we'll make the decision to press the button on the online packages only when readers are able to pick up The Inquirer on their doorstep or on the newsstand.

For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment. Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first. If in doubt, consult your editor. Or me or Chris Krewson.

This does not mean that we will put the brakes on the immediate posting of breaking news that puts us first in a competitive Web marketplace. On the contrary. That's one of the reasons that we instituted the morning team led by Julie Busby at the beginning of the year, and I want to re-emphasize that being first with the news is all-important. That's why we were out early this morning, tracking down the driver of an alleged hit-and-run car, and on the trail of that pesky, mangy fox. That's why when the DHS story broke, we went all out with multiple updates, timelines, sidebars, profiles and a pdf of the indictment. That's why when there's something breaking on the Phillies or Eagles or Flyers or Sixers, we'll be first with the news. That won't stop.

Thanks, Mike

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32127

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I think this is a smart move.

 

[slappy4428]

A paper figured out that giving news away damages the print product... go figure.

 

[fishwrapper]

They are still giving the news away. Just not the occasional investigative or enterprise piece.

Leary stated very clearly:

This does not mean that we will put the brakes on the immediate posting of breaking news that puts us first in a competitive Web marketplace. On the contrary. That's one of the reasons that we instituted the morning team led by Julie Busby at the beginning of the year, and I want to re-emphasize that being first with the news is all-important.

 

[thegrifter]

yeah, but still, this is a great idea in comparison to what many are doing.

 

[Reacher]

I get the whole, "you can't give the product away for free" point.

But deemphasizing the most efficient, modern and cost-effective form of communication in order to try to salvage the slow, clunky, expensive, outdated (nearly obsolete) print method of information distribution does not seem like a good long-term strategy.

Print is going away. Sooner, not later. It doesn't make sense in the Internet age. The challenge for media companies is not how to save print. It's how to make the transition to electronic distribution and still make money.

This seems to me more like a step back.

 

[Stitch]

Aren't most of these pieces posted after the paper is out the door? If not, it would mean delaying uploading the next day's paper on the Web until 5 or 6 a.m.

This isn't ground-breaking or really newsworthy.

And those who say that giving away news for free is bad when supporting this move, nothing changes. The content on Philly.com is still free.

 

[steveu]

The Inky is still a decent paper. The problem is it can be sooooooooooooo much better given the fact the city has about 1.5 million people in it and is essentially the paper of record for most of southern Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, etc.

That said, I'm glad someone figured out a way to maybe get a handful of readers to pick up the print product.

 

[Joe Williams]

I expect to see a lot more people going without the fancy schmancy enterprise stuff, rather than rushing out to buy that day's edition when (if?) they hear someone talking about the story or maintaining a year-long subscription for those half dozen times a year when there's a big investigative project that, gee, they just cannot miss.

Most people probably figure, if the story has enough impact, they'll get an easier-to-consume version from the local TV stations anyway.

Plus, not a big fan of the editor's memo, in which he has no trouble defining the sports scribes as frantic 24/7 info shovelers.

Does the writing -- apart from the reporting and the news and the info -- matter in this business anymore?

 

[waterytart]

I expect to see a lot more people going without the fancy schmancy enterprise stuff, rather than rushing out to buy that day's edition when (if?) they hear someone talking about the story or maintaining a year-long subscription for those half dozen times a year when there's a big investigative project that, gee, they just cannot miss.

Lived in Philly way back in the day.

There actually were people who maintained subs to see what Barlett and Steele would investigate next.

Gone, baby, gone.