The print newspaper as we know it, if not already going the way of the steam engine, is certainly staring blankly in a similar direction. As the Internet continues to
collapse the distance between author and audience and opens up still more vast content markets to be prospected, it has become clear that we are on the cusp of an epic and fundamental change that is reshaping not only the way we experience news, but the way news itself is created. Content providers must continue to address the evolution of audience needs, the means of content delivery, and successful business models, or falter and fade away into a sea of 404 messages. News outlets on the web are
legion with newswires, newspapers, and push media ventures all competing for the portion of market share that will ensure financial solvency. Netcenter spoke with John Freed, deputy editor of the New York Times on the Web, about what will become of the business of news in this era of technological change.
John Paczkowski: If news sites on the web aren't financially viable right now, what changes are necessary to make them so?
John Freed: It's not clear to me that the web will ever sustain a viable mass medium. Surely the experience of most newspapers has been disheartening - even when their web operations make money, they don't make the return on investment required by shareholders.
I always say, "Follow the money." Currently, the money is in the hands of the Internet service providers, of which America Online is by far the largest, having perhaps half the market. Let's say, conservatively, that they have 11 million subscribers paying $22 a month. That's $242 million a month, or nearly $3 billion a year. I'd take one-tenth of one percent of that pie - $3 million a year. So long as the content providers give their product away, there's no incentive for the Internet service providers to pay for it. Even AOL now asks content providers to pay for exposure - a reverse of the former business model, whereby AOL paid for the privilege of carrying the content that led to community-building.
I don't see any easy answers here for newspapers on the web. It is clear that community-building and excellent customer service (both of which AOL has) will be essential. Whether that will be enough, I don't know.
When will more sites begin to challenge the web's "free for all" model and charge for access to content?
I see cable TV as the most likely model for viability. In any medium, some content is so good - and so exclusive - that the market will pay cash for it. On cable, it's HBO. Online, it's WSJ.com - the Wall Street Journal Interactive. Then there are the over-the-air stations, which online are the commodity content - Reuters headlines, for instance.
The New York Times recently entered the city guide market with the NYToday.com site. How will these new content markets effect the newspaper business?
I believe it's a good idea to expand the marketplace wherever possible. I keep hearing people expressing the fear that new media will somehow "cannibalize" the circulation or advertising revenue of the print newspaper. I think Procter & Gamble has it right, with multiple detergent brands, all made by P&G, in the market. Their theory? Put excellent products into the marketplace, establish the brand names, give the public choices, and reap the rewards. It's better to have two pieces of a big pie than one piece of a shrinking one.
Many web magazines - Salon and Feed being two notable examples - have used community to drive traffic within their sites and cultivate a
steady, repeat readership. How important will community be in enabling the news sites of the future?
We are already seeing an emphasis on "public journalism," even in the newspaper industry. Some see this as sacrificing objectivity on the altar of community-building.
I don't see this as either-or; we can connect people online while continuing to offer objective information to help form those bonds. Tripod.com offers a good example
of this approach. And I think the major forces that will shape the online medium over the next few years will be the necessity of building community and the arrival of high-bandwidth (video) delivery.
Is the blurring of the division between editorial and marketing inevitable online or in print? It certainly happened recently at the Los
Angeles Times.
The business side kept me fed and clothed as a child - my father sold advertising space for a living. So I'm a big fan of the profit motive.
On the web, you are correct that there is some blurring. I believe the intent isn't evil - rather, there are bound to be some growing pains in any new medium. But to maintain credibility, there must be absolutely no confusion on the part of the reader as to what is put forth by the editors and what is paid for by advertisers.
How does that translate in practice?
Well, take a look at a typical newspaper. Imagine it's your job to tell a computer how to distinguish between an advertisement and an article. It's not easy. Yes, some ads are labeled "Advertisement," but only some. Typically an ad will have a headline, some text, and some photographs - just like the surrounding articles. It is only by convention (the size of the type, or the font, or the location on the page) that we understand that some content is paid and some is not.
Radio is even worse. Frequently, the on-air talent reads advertisements. I remember when CBS News started using the "plink" as an auditory cue to the listener that the news was over and the advertising had begun. Standards will develop over time. So I think the solution to financial viability will not be to abandon standards and just do whatever the advertiser wants.
A recent NewsLink report lists over 1929 newspapers with an online presence. It goes on to suggest that the 18 to 29-year-old demographic is the one most likely to turn to the web for its daily news. Still, newspaper web sites continue to indulge an older audience and seem to have little interest in finding and catering to new, younger readers. How important is it for online newspapers to cultivate a younger readership?
A younger audience is essential. Newspaper organizations are
bound to fail in this medium if they repackage the print product and
do not offer interactivity, responsiveness, community, and
timeliness. (Television, despite its advantages in timeliness and in
delivering video, may be in even worse shape when it comes to
responsiveness. When is the last time you saw a TV station
respond to a "letter to the producer?")
By the way, I'm waiting for the terminology to develop. "Online
newspapers" is reminiscent of the early days of TV as "radio with
pictures." And is the proper term readership? Audience?
Viewership? All these terms omit the interactive nature of the
medium. I loathe the term "users."
How is the Net rewiring the role of the journalist?
These days the talk is of "disintermediation" - as if there's something wrong with having an intermediary. I see nothing wrong with having a trusted person saying, "This is worth your time (or money). That isn't." It's the same reason I read a movie review. Or why I read Consumer Reports.
Having a trusted go-between also avoids the "scoop" mentality - "First With the Worst." Did we really need to see somebody commit suicide, live on TV? Personally, I believe in "antidisintermediation." In other words, editing. The key word here is trust. If you see the journalist as somehow keeping you away from the truth, trust disintegrates.
How is the Net affecting the way journalists gather and report news?
I wouldn't want to use most web search engines for serious research. There's just too much information out there, from too many unverified sources, which are too often wrong. When I was leading computer-assisted reporting projects, I always made sure the reporters understood that computers report falsehoods as easily as facts. This
is another case where it pays to have a trusted go-between.
Is the Internet really substituting journalism's traditionally hallowed notion of objectivity with one of outspoken opinion and analysis?
A bit of historical perspective might be appropriate here. The notion of objectivity as a journalistic value is relatively recent, even in the United States. We went from the partisan press in the early days of the nation, to a personal style that led to the Pulitzer-Hearst days of "yellow journalism." As economics began to require
larger audiences, a measure of objectivity was needed to build mass media. At the same time, we have always had the personal journalist: For instance, Walter Winchell, Tom Wolfe, and Matt Drudge. (That might be the first time Matt Drudge and Joseph Pulitzer shared a paragraph!)
My point is that whether it's called crusading journalism or personal journalism or new journalism or whatever, there has always been room in American journalism for values that compete with objectivity. And there have been many times when objectivity hasn't been a goal at all.
But is opinionated writing perhaps more effective than objective journalism online?
No. In fact, I see service journalism as drawing the biggest ratings today. In particular, ZDNet and CNET are wildly popular - ZDNet being number one in the category,
outgunning CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and the like.