On the other hand.... Maybe the 1c newspaper is a good thing
Posted by Sniffer dog at 3/24/2008 1:00 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
In order to work in newspapers and believe in them you have to be an optimist. I am definitely an optimist. I can tell you how England will win the World Cup in 2010. And I am just waiting for an early-season excuse to believe that the Tampa Bay Rays might win the World Series this year.
But in examining the ABC's recent proposed changes I was instantly sure it was a bad thing. The optimist in me has regained control now though and I think that maybe it could have something to be said for it.
The first thing to be said for it is that at least it will be disruptive. Anything that disrupts newspapers from their current charge over the online cliff and makes them think about print circulation strategies is a good thing. In fact it strikes me that a smart newspaper could well use the change to reinvent the American newspaper and innovate in the sort of way that could bring us closer to what consumers actually want from print.
The biggest asset American newspapers have is their distribution networks. Journalists will try to point to quality content, but the value of that has diminished massively in the face of the online information revolution. There are plenty of other sources of local content now. But I can't think of any other local product capable of being manufactured and distributed to someone's door within an hour every single day. The salvation of newspapers will be found in that network.
Maybe the 1c paper finally opens the door to a more sophisticated use of that network. Could we slim the main section of the paper down to a tabloid summation of the news and deliver it widely to as many people as possible for 1c (or 5c or whatever) a day, only supplying sports sections to people who want them (and adding 10c a day to the bill). And the same for Business. And for a hyperlocal section. And a nice magazine or two at the weekend.
It wouldn't be an entirely personal paper for consumers but it would give advertisers the sort of local penetration they want (via the news section, whose circulation will increase if it's smaller and at a lower cost). It would make consumers who like sports pay for a vastly improved section (improved with the cash saved from printing fewer copies) and give the newspaper an incentive to improve circulation for print sections. I've been banging on about this for some time now and I am no less convinced by its possibilities than I was back in in July and in August too.
Technically, each section could now have its own ABC enabling newspapers to sell advertising on penetration in certain sections and engagement at lower circulations in others. It could allow us to expand print offerings where there was a continuing point to them. And close them where our purpose is gone (stock prices are still in far too many papers though I don't see the point any more.)
It would connect us to consumers and give us a reason to really give them what they demand from print and support it with what they demand online.
The problem of course is that we've spent a lot of time contracting away our control of the distribution network. Many of our distributors just won't want to do more than throw papers at a house they know from memory gets the paper. There's a whole lot can go wrong if people are getting different papers. But humanity wouldn't make much progress if we only ever tried to tackle problems with obvious solutions. It's worth at least thinking about. Does anyone think it could be made to work?
But in examining the ABC's recent proposed changes I was instantly sure it was a bad thing. The optimist in me has regained control now though and I think that maybe it could have something to be said for it.
The first thing to be said for it is that at least it will be disruptive. Anything that disrupts newspapers from their current charge over the online cliff and makes them think about print circulation strategies is a good thing. In fact it strikes me that a smart newspaper could well use the change to reinvent the American newspaper and innovate in the sort of way that could bring us closer to what consumers actually want from print.
The biggest asset American newspapers have is their distribution networks. Journalists will try to point to quality content, but the value of that has diminished massively in the face of the online information revolution. There are plenty of other sources of local content now. But I can't think of any other local product capable of being manufactured and distributed to someone's door within an hour every single day. The salvation of newspapers will be found in that network.
Maybe the 1c paper finally opens the door to a more sophisticated use of that network. Could we slim the main section of the paper down to a tabloid summation of the news and deliver it widely to as many people as possible for 1c (or 5c or whatever) a day, only supplying sports sections to people who want them (and adding 10c a day to the bill). And the same for Business. And for a hyperlocal section. And a nice magazine or two at the weekend.
It wouldn't be an entirely personal paper for consumers but it would give advertisers the sort of local penetration they want (via the news section, whose circulation will increase if it's smaller and at a lower cost). It would make consumers who like sports pay for a vastly improved section (improved with the cash saved from printing fewer copies) and give the newspaper an incentive to improve circulation for print sections. I've been banging on about this for some time now and I am no less convinced by its possibilities than I was back in in July and in August too.
Technically, each section could now have its own ABC enabling newspapers to sell advertising on penetration in certain sections and engagement at lower circulations in others. It could allow us to expand print offerings where there was a continuing point to them. And close them where our purpose is gone (stock prices are still in far too many papers though I don't see the point any more.)
It would connect us to consumers and give us a reason to really give them what they demand from print and support it with what they demand online.
The problem of course is that we've spent a lot of time contracting away our control of the distribution network. Many of our distributors just won't want to do more than throw papers at a house they know from memory gets the paper. There's a whole lot can go wrong if people are getting different papers. But humanity wouldn't make much progress if we only ever tried to tackle problems with obvious solutions. It's worth at least thinking about. Does anyone think it could be made to work?
Comments