I wonder how many publications refuse to change because a (their) shrinking audience still want to get their news from them the same way they got it ten years ago. I wonder how much this costs the publication every day, duplicating efforts, stretching their resources offering something which fewer people want, while refusing to offer services more people want.
I wonder if someone at the top is saying, ” so long as we have a customer base which still wants it this way, we will offer it” and then, for financial reasons, because they are forced, slowly make forward moving changes.
I wonder, if you are waiting for your audience to die before you change your business model, will you die with your audience. Likewise, if you change your business model before you audience dies will they be harmed? Will they join you? Will you ensure your survival for your next audience?
A few additions:
Correction to the above: Yes, the Earth existed *without* the Internet.
To the first comment: Definitely. 80 million without internet access is a lot. Some Americans actually choose to not have internet access, either due to cost, lack of interest, etc. Those folks cling to the print newspapers. If print newspapers were suddenly to vanish, would that tip the scale of information (and, thus, power) towards the upper socioeconomic classes (who can afford computers, high-speed internet to watching streaming newscasts, etc.)? What does the TV digital transition mean– that people either “catch up” or are left behind in other aspects of society as well?
Bloggers have to get their news from somewhere. Often, traditional outlets (CNN, New York Times) have more staffing and resources to hunt down the latest news. Yes, their resources are “dwindling,” but “dwindling” is relative if you consider the non-existent (or nearly non-existent) resources that start-up blogs have (think original Drudge Report). Traditional outlets often fuel “Web 2.0″ (I hate that term) outlets. CNN, the BBC, and other major outlets covering YouTube debacles make the YouTube videos they cover garner millions of hits. Without the traditional media, some of the videos would never have been noticed in such a widespread manner. Same with blogs– the “Why I hate DC” blog was picked up by traditional print newspapers, leading to publicity and success. (On an aside, free newspapers on the subway are all the rave there– Blackberries and mobile phone news feeds rarely work well underground. Are subways the savior of print journalism? The free papers, of course, are supported by advertisements. Can this not be an answer for the paid subscription newspapers?)
Will the shift towards “mostly” online continue? Of course. It’s convergence– CNN now not only has to make sure they can broadcast daily televised newscasts, but they also have to compete with other outlets and offer mobile web sites, podcasts, blogs, web site news, etc. Here’s hoping that The New York Times will be able to muster up enough power to compete with “web news leaks” and convergence across other sources. Like other traditional outlets, their costs have got to decline– which likely means fewer jobs and more advertisements. I can’t imagine them dying out by 2009, like some allege (hello, Murdock?). They are too big a player, garner insane number of web views, and are an advertisers dream land. But, they’ve got to redefine themselves to stay on top. By redefine, I mean nix the office renovations, eliminate some of the top-paid salaries, and focus on key positions. (I sure as hell don’t have the answer to “save” them, or any of the big players, but these are a few things that are obvious needs.) Plenty of big players will likely crumble, but isn’t that capitalism at its finest? Other big players (newspapers, retailers, industry leaders) have crumbled over the past 100 years– without the internet. Yes, the Earth existed with the Internet. Journalism long pre-dated the Internet, and some form of it is permanently etched in our lives regardless of the medium that it is printed on. Back in the early 1900s, newspaper printing techniques were crude and relatively time consuming. The technology has changed over the years, but the result is the same– sharing information with the masses. Technological improvements could help save print journalism if the cost of printing continues to go down. Staffing costs, however, are another story.
Time might kick my ass, but perhaps there might be a temporary and fading rekindling of simplicity. With so much technological crap around us, it’s nice to just hold a printed newspaper. Or, a book. Or, write in a notebook (hence the popularity of the Moleskine notebook in urban areas). Or, listen to vintage records on an old record player. It’s fun to read the news on a Blackberry, and it’s nice to have e-mail on everything I touch, but can we ever be “too wired?” Is it not a nice change to cut the electronic wires on occasion and pick up a good old book/newspaper/CD? Don’t get me wrong, the internet is full of free information and resources, but it doesn’t have the charm of sitting down with the evening paper. I can only hope my future kids get to actually see what a newspaper on print looks like. What if we could print “our own” newspapers in print through a service? We could lits our favorite blogs, and they would be merged, printed, and delivered to our doorsteps on Sundays (damnit, so much for my patent).
So much for being brief…
But where will the bloggers get their information from?
When you put the New York Times in print in front of me or give me the choice to view it online I will always chose online, but the thought of no newspapers makes me sad.
Q: What happens if ‘you’ wait for your audience to die?
IMHO – A: ‘You’ will die a more shameful, but possibly prolonged death.
The best example of this is print newspapers. It’s obvious that America is getting its news and information from the web, 220 million Americans are online, but what about the other 80 million. The New York Times circulates a million papers daily, just over one percent of those not online. I think we are slowly moving toward a time when print newspapers will no longer be made, but it is still a long, long time away. People do not have internet everywhere and for those who are low-tech, it is one of the few things that they have that remind them of the simple days. Also, you have to consider another side of the coin, while getting national news is easier online, local news will always be in print form. I can’t imagine a world in which the Stigler News-Sentinal no longer prints the Honor Roll or Wedding Announcements. National newspapers can save so much money by switching to an all online version, but until that day comes it will still be “All the news that’s fit to print.”
The fall of former media powerhouses Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune (who doesn’t picture the kid on the corner yelling EXTRA EXTRA when you think of Chicago in the 30s) and the LA Times shows us that the times are a-changing. Moving to an online only format will completely cut off 80 million Americans from the paper’s audience and in my opinion would do nothing to increase traffic to their current sites.
Also, with increased credibility being given to bloggers, many are ignoring traditional powerhouses all together. The blogosphere gives every Clark Kent a notepad and pencil and allows them to create any spin on a story they like, and the web is responding. Sites like deadspin.com and drudgereport.com are thriving.
According to Alexa.com, blogger.com is the 13th most visited site in America and wordpress.com is 24th. Stack those up against two of the most trusted news outlets and you see that CNN.com is 15th and NewYorkTimes.com is 25th.
People are going to other people for information, not the “professionals” who graduated from Northwestern, Missouri and Syracuse.
The blogosphere has spoken, and they are giving us all the news that’s fit to post.