Maybe less is more in the future of newspapers?
Posted by Sniffer dog at 3/21/2008 10:10 AM and is filed under uncategorized 
I love a good list. Especially one from Ryan Sholin, my favorite online evangelist. His latest output explored the reasons why he reads newspapers now and how that should impact on what newspapers put online and what they should concede is now done better online by others.
A point he made but didn't explore was the ease of searching a newspaper if it happens to be in front of you. If I wanted to know a local movie time I would look in the newspaper first if it was right next to me, but I'd search the Muvico site if it wasn't. So Ryan's right, a newspaper is wasting its time putting movie times on their site for me. But actually so is the printed newspaper. I'm not going to subscribe to the newspaper on the off chance that maybe one day I'll need to know a movie time either. The newspaper used to be competing with the telephone (I could always ring up the cinema). Now it's competing with the web. It's not a fair fight.
Ryan doesn't explore what now does and doesn't work in print. Fair enough - I suspect his primary job is stopping newspapers just loading their newspaper online. But it raises an interesting question. What do I want in a newspaper? How do I read it now? And when?
That was a theme picked up by Gainesville's finest: Mindy McAdams (if Ryan is my favorite evangelist, Mindy is the digital Monsignor) MIndy contributed her own list. That led her to conclude that she doesn't really read the paper much any more because she spends so much time in front of a computer and can graze the news whenever she wants. Which I suspect is not an uncommon experience, as does she.
So what are newspapers good for?
The when of newspaper reading for me personally is straightforward. I read it in the morning with the TV on and a mouthful of Frosties.
The how? I go to the stuff I know I want to read. Mainly sports and anything about Florida's property tax and our idiot politicians. That's kind of it. When I was in the UK I had a list of things from the 2 papers I subscribed to (Daily Telegraph and FT). Sport, Lucy Kellaway, Alex cartoon, political gossip, media business news, more Lucy Kellaway, flick through news section to see if anything grabbed me. And away...
It makes me feel that papers need to have less in them to become better.
The old broad church theory was that we had to put enough material in every newspaper for a large constituency to construct their own paper out of what we give them. But I'm really reading no more than a par or two of most news stories and I think that's a common experience. I'm using the paper to tell me what the agenda is, because it's easier to search a printed page than online. But I'm digging down into what I'm actually interested in online or on TV.
I would still go to a columnist I liked in the morning and wouldn't mind paying 25c just for that. (C'mon Lucy Kellaway, come and work for the Tampa Tribune!). Funny still works in print (it's just that many of the people who do it well are working in TV or online). Big news works well in newspapers still. But it's not an everyday event.
Newspapers are terrified that there isn't enough in the paper that isn't anywhere else. Maybe it doesn't matter as long as what still works in print is worth the cover price. Maybe.
Newspapers don't need to be thick to be useful. I would take my papers at half their current size and twice their current price if they ditched the stuff that doesn't interest me or which I can get easily somewhere else. In fact if my local paper gave me an A4 news magazine each day (think a local daily Newsweek, improved newsprint inside, heavier cover) with a summary of most news, a couple of meaty features, business and a bunch of smart and funny opinions and observations bundled with a full-color sports magazine (same improved newsprint, think Sports Illustrated meets Observer Sports Monthly) that always had a spread about the Bucs, I'd be happy as Larry. It used to be an impossible dream because of deadlines: it isn't any more. It's expensive (probably new presses?), but it's not impossible.
Is it just me? Ask yourself what or who you would need in your paper for it to be worth the cover price? My guess is you'll be surprised how little it is.
A point he made but didn't explore was the ease of searching a newspaper if it happens to be in front of you. If I wanted to know a local movie time I would look in the newspaper first if it was right next to me, but I'd search the Muvico site if it wasn't. So Ryan's right, a newspaper is wasting its time putting movie times on their site for me. But actually so is the printed newspaper. I'm not going to subscribe to the newspaper on the off chance that maybe one day I'll need to know a movie time either. The newspaper used to be competing with the telephone (I could always ring up the cinema). Now it's competing with the web. It's not a fair fight.
Ryan doesn't explore what now does and doesn't work in print. Fair enough - I suspect his primary job is stopping newspapers just loading their newspaper online. But it raises an interesting question. What do I want in a newspaper? How do I read it now? And when?
That was a theme picked up by Gainesville's finest: Mindy McAdams (if Ryan is my favorite evangelist, Mindy is the digital Monsignor) MIndy contributed her own list. That led her to conclude that she doesn't really read the paper much any more because she spends so much time in front of a computer and can graze the news whenever she wants. Which I suspect is not an uncommon experience, as does she.
So what are newspapers good for?
The when of newspaper reading for me personally is straightforward. I read it in the morning with the TV on and a mouthful of Frosties.
The how? I go to the stuff I know I want to read. Mainly sports and anything about Florida's property tax and our idiot politicians. That's kind of it. When I was in the UK I had a list of things from the 2 papers I subscribed to (Daily Telegraph and FT). Sport, Lucy Kellaway, Alex cartoon, political gossip, media business news, more Lucy Kellaway, flick through news section to see if anything grabbed me. And away...
It makes me feel that papers need to have less in them to become better.
The old broad church theory was that we had to put enough material in every newspaper for a large constituency to construct their own paper out of what we give them. But I'm really reading no more than a par or two of most news stories and I think that's a common experience. I'm using the paper to tell me what the agenda is, because it's easier to search a printed page than online. But I'm digging down into what I'm actually interested in online or on TV.
I would still go to a columnist I liked in the morning and wouldn't mind paying 25c just for that. (C'mon Lucy Kellaway, come and work for the Tampa Tribune!). Funny still works in print (it's just that many of the people who do it well are working in TV or online). Big news works well in newspapers still. But it's not an everyday event.
Newspapers are terrified that there isn't enough in the paper that isn't anywhere else. Maybe it doesn't matter as long as what still works in print is worth the cover price. Maybe.
Newspapers don't need to be thick to be useful. I would take my papers at half their current size and twice their current price if they ditched the stuff that doesn't interest me or which I can get easily somewhere else. In fact if my local paper gave me an A4 news magazine each day (think a local daily Newsweek, improved newsprint inside, heavier cover) with a summary of most news, a couple of meaty features, business and a bunch of smart and funny opinions and observations bundled with a full-color sports magazine (same improved newsprint, think Sports Illustrated meets Observer Sports Monthly) that always had a spread about the Bucs, I'd be happy as Larry. It used to be an impossible dream because of deadlines: it isn't any more. It's expensive (probably new presses?), but it's not impossible.
Is it just me? Ask yourself what or who you would need in your paper for it to be worth the cover price? My guess is you'll be surprised how little it is.
Nice to see you back in the blog saddle again, John.
I lost my morning newspaper habit when I started checking e-mail with my coffee.
Reply to this
The trouble is, the perfect newspaper would give you exactly the five things you want, while Larry wants five slightly different things, and so on, until the paper thinks it has to be thick to satisfy everyone. I do think the best situation is to have a flagship Sunday newspaper full of classic journalism, with a robust Web and mobile operation to take care of news during the week, then certain niche publications.
Reply to this
You're absolutely right, of course. And this is the central newspaper dilemma now. I guess I'm speculating that the list of "must read" stuff does not need to be very long to make it worth buying the paper. A rip through the local and national news, two or three corking columns and a few other things. Newspapers can choose between overspending on paper or overspending on journalism (which is not the same as simply producing more of it). I think there's more future in overspending on content that people want to read and for which the newspaper is the best delivery platform/brand (and that would include mobile subs which I completely agree is another part of the future).
Reply to this
John, great to have you back on the blog. You inspired me to start my own.
Carl Stepp wrote a piece Romenesko-linked today on this same point. As Brian points out, the Daily Me in print is not going to work. Everyone has a different Daily Me, which is why it can best be delivered online. But John, you are right in that there can be a Daily Us. The Hamilton Spectator famously went down this line a couple years back, putting out essentially a two-section paper. Juan Giner also says the future is smaller newspapers but still with lots of meat, just less filler. I don't know how they're doing in Hamilton these days.
I have to note that I find looking for movie times easier in print. But that's in part because we have classified-like movie listings. If it were looking through individual theater ads, it would be harder.
Reply to this