Back from a short hiatus ….

 

<!–
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:”";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
–>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

So, in a time when newspaper online revenues are shrinking, companies are reducing staff and cutting newshole, a former judge says he has the answer to saving newspapers: ban linking.

 

That’s what Judge Richard Posner says. Ban linking, and give only the Associated Press, and maybe Reuters, the right  link to newspaper content. Forcing users to go through a narrow portal to get news would help newspapers make money by … well, he really doesn’t say. He just makes the argument that anyone who links to newspaper content is freeloading off information that costs newspapers a pretty penny to produce.

He’s right about the cost aspect. Producing reliable and trustworthy information is expensive. But ban linking? That’s not going to solve the litany of issues the industry faces. It will also take audience away from some newspapers  — and I’m not talking about out-of-market traffic that’s difficult to monetize. Think of all of the newspapers that have odd URLs — ones with hyphens, for example. If you forget the hyphen, and can’t get to the site that you want, you tend to go to a search engine and type in the name of the newspaper — and there it is. The user’s happy. The newspaper’s happy. The search engines are happy.

 

Ban linking? We might as well not put anything online.

I’m a digital media professional, and he news expressed on this blog are mine alone. Please read my blog at www.raymarcano.com

Here’s a sneak peak at my latest column for News&Tech magazine. As always, the views expressed here are mine alone.

 

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

We still can’t get away from the never ending stories and blogs about the death of newspapers, and whether e-readers can “save” newspapers. It doesn’t matter that both points are way off base, but it does matter than this kind of hyperbole can mislead those who are passive followers of what’s really going on in the industry.

So let’s try this approach — the debate shouldn’t be about whether any one device will save newspapers, but whether we’ll save the ability to produce strong, independent journalism.

Newspaper companies will survive and thrive because they will evolve. Information will go from being available on just one device — print — to a number of different devices, which could include  print, online, mobile, e-readers, netbooks, and technology under development that haven’t been released yet.. The newspaper part could very well be an abbreviated version of what we currently see, either in the days of the week we get the printed product, or product size.

But who’s going to produce the information that feeds these devices? To think that bloggers and community folks can fill the local content void is naive. Maybe I’m too old school about this, but I firmly believe that there will be, for the long-term, a demand for quality information. Not the talk TV, scream until you’re hoarse opinion that masquerades as news; not the off-the-cuff opinions widely available on the web; not the uninformed blabbering that often gets facts wrong.

I’m talking quality information from trained journalists who play a story down the middle, with no adjectives that force an agenda, no leading questions that slant an issue. Don’t get me wrong. There are some bloggers and community folks who can do just fine uncovering local tidbits that will prove interesting to their communities.  But those folks are few and far between because they don’t and often can’t invest the time, commitment and expense it takes to uncover information.

And how many of them can really tell you something of significance that you didn’t know? Take a look — no, carefully examine — the information professional, trained journalists produce everyday (and remember, be platform agnostic). You’ll see they provide a wealth of information in ways no one else can. Don’t believe me? Just look at your local newspaper and ask yourself: where would I get this information if not from journalists?

In June, the NCR Corporation announced it was leaving its birthplace, Dayton, Ohio, for Duluth, Georgia. The Dayton Daily News, and its professionally trained editorial staff, sprung into action. (Full disclosure: I work at the Daily News, but don’t mention that in my columns and personal blogs since my opinion might not necessarily reflect that of the company).

Over a two-day period, the staff produced more than two-dozen stories and editorials that examined how much the city would lose in tax revenue, published the memo NCR’s CEO sent to employees, and sparked outrage over the revelation that federal stimulus money may be used to move jobs from one state to another. Journalists used their tools to constantly updated the website, which produced thousand of comments on its stories, send breaking news alerts to inboxes and mobile phones, and deliver the latest news to users’ inboxes via email each morning,

Someone convince me that this kind of journalism can be replaced by bloggers and community folks. Someone convince me that a story that tears at the heart of a community could have been more expertly and completely told by anyone else. Someone convince me that there’s another entity that can provide this information across all of the platforms — print, mobile, online — that the Dayton Daily News did.

There is no convincing me. Fact is, a story of this magnitude would have been underplayed, under reported, and not as well understood, if not for the local journalists. Yes, the industry is under cost pressure. Yes, the industry is making cutbacks and getting smaller. But, getting too small risks cutting off the last line of information that keeps the public adequately informed. That’s why the industry needs to take its case to its users — we’re vitally important to your daily lives, and that’s why you should support products that, daily, cost less than items off the dollar menu of your favorite fast food joint.

Without this kind of detailed and complete information, we stand a real risk of dumbing down our communities, which will only hear the noise and not what matters. Forget about saving newspapers because in one way, shape or form, they will be around. We need to save journalism.

 

We still can’t get away from the never ending stories and blogs about the death of newspapers, and whether e-readers can “save” newspapers. So let’s try this approach — the debate shouldn’t be about whether any one device will save newspapers, but whether we’ll save the ability to produce strong, independent journalism.

Information will be available on a number of different devices — print, online, mobile and e-readers. The newspaper part could very well be an abbreviated version of what we currently see, either in the days of the week we get print or product size.

But who’s going to produce that content? To think that bloggers and community folks can fill the local content void is naive. Maybe I’m too old school about this, but I firmly believe that there will be, for the longterm, a demand for quality information. Not the talk TV, scream until you’re hoarse opinion that masquerades as news; not the off-the-cuff opinions widely available on the web; not the uninformed blabbering that often gets facts wrong.

I’m talking quality information from trained journalists who play a story down the middle, with no adjectives that force an agenda, no leading questions that slant an issue. Don’t get me wrong. There are some bloggers and community folks that can do just fine uncovering local tidbits that will prove interesting to their communities.  But those folks are few and far between because they don’t and often can’t invest the time, committment and expense it takes to uncover information.

And how many of them can really tell you something of significance that you didn’t know? Take a look at the information journalists produce everyday (and remember, be platform agnostic).  Take a look at the information they provide everyday, and you”ll see that’s what they do. Don’t believe me?Just look at your local newspaper and ask yourself: where would I get this information if not from journalists?

Without that information, we stand a real risk of dumbing down America, which will only hear the noise and not what matters. Forget about savings  newspapers. We need to save journalism.

About 25 years ago, the milk industry launched a very clever campaign to get Americans to drink more milk. “Got Milk” featured celebrities including Christie Brinkley, Hugh Jackman, Britney Spears, the BackStreet Boys, and Spike Lee. There’s great debate whether this campaign has been a success. While milk sales continue to decline, consumption of other dairy products, especially cheese, are on the rise.

One thing is clear: The “Got Milk” campaign is one of the most memorable in marketing history. At the very least, it put the phrase “Got Milk” in the popular culture and probably spurred at least some people to examine whether they should give mik a second try.

This kind of bold, brash marketing campaign is exactly what the media industry needs. In May’s Newspaper and Technology magazine, I argue that media companies need to go on a campaign of shameless self promotion. The industry has to tell customers why it’s relevant, point out the print and digital media have huge watchdog rolls monitoring government on behalf of citizens, and note specific cases in which its made a difference. We need to remind people, in an aggressive and innovative way, that we have a direct and daily impact on the lives of people in our coverage areas.

Historically, media companies haven’t done that, believing the work should speak for itself, and that, somehow, promoting what we do conflicts with our journalist standards.  And look where that’s gotten us.

It’s time to take another approach.

Got news?

The views sxpressed on this blog are mine. For more digital news and opinion, please read me at: www.raymarcano.com

The Renaissance ushered in the kind of sweeping reforms across Europe that resulted in lasting intellectural and cultural change that scholars still talk about today.

Fast forward 500 years. The newspaper industry is undergoing a renaissance of its own that promises to change the way people get information.

I’ve said, in past blog posts, that those loud voices howling that newspapers are dying are as wrong as wrong can be. They are, certainly, changing, and how they confront that change will determine the future of the business.

We should find out, in the next 12 to 18 months, who accepts the challenge of change, and what steps they take to meet the challenge.

Here’s what could happen over that time.

E-readers will drastically shink in price, to a more realistic range of about $199. That will make it easier for newspaper companies to scale back their print and , cut their costs, and bolster the bottom line.

Some will go further.  They’ll enter into partnerships with cell or cable companies for information distribution. Each now provide bundles of services (cell, landline, ISP, satellite service); why not include information from your local news sources that can be display on your mobile device or on your television?

Companies that own more than one information outlet (newspapers, radio, television, cable) in the same city will start rapidly combining them into one operation that can provide news at a lower cost.  In cities with no such synergies, former competitors will merge their expertise and create new business models that generate profits.

And, here’s the big one — some newspapers will stop sending news to Google, reasoning that the mostly out of market referral traffic isn’t valuale to their local advertisers. These newspapers would rather control the information they produce, and bundle it through a digital subscription (mobile, online, e-reader, maybe a Sunday newspaper) that brings them more revenue.

Of course, I could be way off.

And, for all of those who asked, the hand injury feels a lot better. Thanks

I’m a digital media professional, and the views expressed on this blog are mine alone. For more digital media news and opinion, please read me at: www.raymarcano.com