TheGraphicOnline

So here we are at the last (maybe) analysis of “What’s Happened To Newspapers?” We’re ready for SOLUTIONS. I think I’ve found one. More about that in a moment.

Up to now, I’ve tried to argue that the downhill slide of newspapers is due to the hubris of the industry in trying to maintain their monopolies that impelled them to give everything free on their web sites. And amidst all this turmoil, mirabile dictu, all the Really Big Brains have suddenly come out saying, “Yeah, we shouldn’t have been giving all our news away free on the web.”

Kathleen Parker, a national columnist, goes to the heart of the problem by pointing out that without a local daily newspaper, “In time, some markets simply won’t have a town crier – and then who will go to all those meetings where news is made? What will people not know? In such a vacuum, gossip rules the mob.” She amplifies by countering the constant criticism of so-called “elite media” by explaining that the true heroes are “the people most Americans have never heard of – the daily grind reporters who turn out for city council and school board meetings. Or the investigative teams who chase leads for months to expose abuse or corruption.” And the void will not be filled by “bloggers (with few exceptions) who may be excellent critics and fact-checkers, but who rely on newspapers to provide their material.”

Parker adds (realistically) “That newspapers have to adapt to a changed world is a given.” Ah yes, so we are back to the web.

As I noted last week, there is still one BIG problem. No one’s figured out how to get paid for all that dandy news people like to get for free. And as I also suggested, if the industry finally admits how they got into this mess – and then reverses it – that might be the way out. What does that mean? It means that they’ve been going at it backwards! They’ve been chasing readers out of their paid product (the newspaper) into their free product (the web). You’ve all seen the notices: “If you want to see more about this story, go to our web site.” “If you want more pictures on this event, go to our web site.” That’s backwards (if they want to save the newspaper). They have to start making the web site the “feeder” into the newspaper. The strength of the web is immediacy; it will always be able to give breaking news up to 24 hours ahead of a newspaper. Put the headlines there and then follow each one with: “For the full story, see the newspaper.” Find the photos in the newspaper. Fewer photos on the web? So what.

Now, you want SOLUTIONS? Thought you’d never ask.

Would you believe that a commenter on last week’s blog has come up with the nearest solution I’ve seen? I’ll even go so far as to say he’s the most intelligent blogger I’ve come across (because he agrees with me) (or I with him). His user name is tac145390121091133. (What mouthful; I don’t know him.) I’ll just use his nickname, tac1453. His comments are worth repeating:

“Here is my plan to help Gannett ‘newspapers’ make money: Start charging a subscription fee to users on their web sites. Perhaps a few levels.

• Premium: View all sites.
• Standard: Choice of a few sites.
• Limited: Choice of one site.
• Free: Heavy with ads, less details of news coverage.
• An online local/regional/national section to sell ‘stuff’ from subscribers. Didn’t you have ‘Action Ads” (in The Graphic)?”

There it is. That may not be the final answer, but it’s a good start. Thanks, tac1453.

I might add that a subscription to one or more of these sites should include a subscription to the newspaper – where you would get “The Rest of The Story.”

One more thought: People want news, more than ever. They need news to be good citizens in a democracy. And I believe they would pay a reasonable price for a combined web site/newspaper subscription – the way we used to pay for a newspaper alone.

–Vic Jose

Vic Jose :: Mar.30.2009 :: Uncategorized ::

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed